By guest author Charles Crawford, former ambassador in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw
My first encounter with the Karadzic phenomenon – I never met him – was in mid-1996. I was at a London meeting about an American demand to ban Karadzic posters in Bosnia’s first post-conflict elections: the Dayton peace process could not advance if war crimes indictees were part of the campaign.
The Europeans unhappily warned that banning these posters would enrage the Serbs. But American toughness prevailed. Even the Bosnian Serbs were fed up with Karadzic, expecting NATO to arrest him and General Mladic. Yet it never happened, because the Clinton Administration would not risk US casualties in a Presidential election year, or thereafter.
Karadzic lurked near Sarajevo. I sent a telegram to London in late 1996. Was the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague serious or not? If we did support it, all indictees should be rounded up.
London agreed. But how? Grab the big names first? Or pluck ‘low-hanging fruit’? Either took careful planning, as British soldiers would risk their lives.
The new Labour Government in 1997 wanted to show the steely side to their ‘ethical foreign policy’. They went for the less dramatic option. In July 1997 British forces jumped out to arrest Hague indictee Simo Drljaca, who was killed in an ensuing gun battle. The Izetbegovic media in Sarajevo labelled this as British perfidy boosting Serbian nationalist forces.
Karadzic faded from the scene, but his influence remained. In late 1997 I proposed to London that I attempt to see him secretly to try to negotiate his surrender – I would have been the first Serbian-speaking Western senior diplomat he had met. Robin Cook (I gather) liked the idea but was advised to consult Madeleine Albright, who did not. It was unclear to me why. No action.
More indictee ‘fruit’ was collected. Karadzic went deep underground. NATO forces in Bosnia diminished. The extensive recce work needed to grab him became ever harder. We kept trying, for long years, but to no avail. Until this week.
The moral of this story? Front-load for success.
If Western forces do intervene on the ground in another country, they are never stronger than in the first few weeks. Failure promptly to remove from power the worst villains dismays local moderates - and empowers the cynical thought that there is a dirty deal to keep the worst gangsters in business.
Charles Crawford blogs at www.charlescrawford.biz

Yet another self-publicist - "We kept trying, for long years," he says, "but to no avail. Until this week."
And what did Charles Crawford have to do with the capture of Karadzic...? - NOTHING...!!!
Frankly, I'd prefer some progress in dragging GWBush and Tony Bliar to answer for their infinitely greater War Crimes before an ICC tribunal at The Hague...!!!
Posted by: John Jay | Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 01:18 PM
Charles Crawford is another self-serving liar.
All part of the Western drummed-up lie to make it look like "we" caught him.
Wrong. The SERBS caught him, and proved that Carla del Ponte is a shrill-voiced hysterical delusionist.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 01:31 PM
The Serbs didn't CATCH him-they sheltered him and only gave him up when it suited them
Posted by: David M | Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 02:32 PM
Gave him up to who, exactly, David?? You're talking complete rubbish, but I guess it must be tough to admit you failed entirely to catch him as you claimed you would.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 05:02 PM
You Indy readers do get cross.
I of course did not mean to say or imply that Western agencies caught the gentle spiritualist. We quietly may have helped the Serbs narrow their search, and if we did help them that fact perhaps will not be revealed.
My point was simply that we missed the best time to arrest him; that we then did try very hard for a long time to do so, whatever the "they either always knew where he was, or were not trying very hard" tendency might say; and that there are some policy lessone to be drawn from this unhappy experience.
Posted by: Charles Crawford | Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 06:45 PM
if we did help them that fact perhaps will not be revealed.
Someone peddled it to Jimmy Burns at the FT who duly talked it into someone else's story...: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a1ec1bfa-581a-11dd-b02f-000077b07658.html
But, as Charles was saying on his blog, being "guilty" and being proven guilty are quite different things.
Posted by: Daniel Simpson | Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 11:55 PM
You must have taken a double dose of stupid pills yesterday, Neil-the point I was making was that the West didn't capture him-he was effectively handed to them by the Serbs.
Therefore, in a strange sort of way, I actually agree with you.
Posted by: David | Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 09:21 AM