In the shadow of the Balkans, one name echoes in the dark night - Radovan Karadzic. The figure, once hailed as a national hero, eventually became an internationally wanted war criminal, and the U.S. government offered a $5 million reward for his capture.
After a 13-year pursuit, the manhunt came to a dramatic end in Serbia, where Karadzic was arrested and sent to The Hague where a nearly eight-year trial awaited.
Facing the International Tribunal, Karadzic chose an unusual path - self-defense, a decision that reminded many of the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
Karadzic, the leader who once provoked an upsurge in Serbian nationalism, now stands alone before the judgment seat of the world, and his fate is fraught with uncertainty.
Karadzic is facing increasingly serious charges – 11 counts, including genocide. The eyes of the international community are firmly fixed on The Hague, waiting for the moment of judgment.
In this battle between law and morality, what will be the outcome of Karadzic?
The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 marked the formation of a new geopolitical landscape in Europe after the Cold War.
After the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the socialist camp opened up like a Pandora's box of national contradictions and national borders under the unification of powers.
In this context, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) declared independence from the former Yugoslav Federation, triggering a war that encompassed the entire Balkan Peninsula.
The causes of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina are complex and have their roots in the historical context of multi-ethnic coexistence in the region. Bosnia, a multi-ethnic country, has a population of three main ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks.
Under the framework of the socialist federation, these national contradictions were temporarily suppressed, but with the weakening of the power of the central government, nationalist sentiment rose sharply, and the contradictions intensified.
Bosnia-Herzegovina's declaration of independence immediately provoked a backlash from Serbs. Serbs, who make up about one-third of Bosnia's population, fear that the post-independence Bosnian government will weaken their power and influence in the country.
Moreover, the concept of "Greater Serbia" has deep roots among Serbian nationalists, who want to unify all the regions inhabited by Serbs into a single state, and the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina clearly runs counter to this goal.
This was followed by clashes between the Serb armed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Government forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croat militants.
At the beginning of the war, the Serb armed forces quickly occupied about 70% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The use of tactics such as sieges, shelling of cities, and widespread attacks on civilians has led to a dramatic deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the region.
The long siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre became the most well-known tragedies of the war.
During the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the idea of "Greater Serbianism" became one of the core ideas of the conflict. This idea advocates the creation of a unified state that encompasses all Serbs, regardless of whether or not these areas cross existing state borders.
It was on the basis of such ideas that Karadzic and his supporters sought to redraw the borders of the Balkans in order to achieve the national unity of the Serbs.
As the leader of the Bosnian Serbian Republic, Karadzic gained great prestige among the Serb community for his staunch support and promotion of "Greater Serbianism".
His political actions, including military offensives against other ethnic areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are a direct manifestation of an attempt to achieve this ideal. Through the media and public speeches, Karadzic has further strengthened his position as a leader among the Serb people by constantly emphasizing the unity of the Serbian nation and its resistance to external threats.
However, the advancement of "Greater Serbianism" was met with strong international opposition. European and American countries, especially NATO members, are critical of Karadzic's policies and actions.
In their view, "Greater Serbianism" not only undermines the stability of the Balkans and the possibility of multi-ethnic coexistence, but also violates the principles of international law, especially the provisions on national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The international community believes that Karadzic's actions have exacerbated ethnic conflicts and led to a large-scale humanitarian crisis, including ethnic cleansing and violence against civilians.
During this period, the international media widely reported on the atrocities committed during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular attacks by Serbian troops and militias on the Bosnian and Croatian populations.
These reports have attracted widespread international attention, and criticism of Karadzic and his policies has grown. Through the United Nations and other international organizations, European and American countries are pressuring to end the conflict and to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in the war.
In the face of opposition from the international community, Karadzic and his supporters took a firmer stance. They believe that the intervention of the international community is a violation of the rights of the Serbian people and an attempt by external forces to obstruct the national unity of Serbia.
As the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to spread, the international community is paying more and more attention to the region. In 1993 in particular, the brutality of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina attracted global attention and forced the international community to take more active interventions.
As one of the leaders of the international community, the United States, through its influence in the United Nations, has promoted the designation and accountability of important figures in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including Karadzic.
The ICC's indictment of Karadzic and others for war crimes marks the international community's formal involvement in the conflict in an attempt to bring war accountability through legal means.
Despite the pressure from the international community, Karadzic did not immediately withdraw from the political scene. Until 1996, shortly after the end of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, he ran for the presidency of the Bosnian Republic of Serbia.
However, the campaign did not go his way, and Karadzic failed, which was seen as a turning point in his political career.
After losing the election, Karadzic announced his retirement from politics, and although his political influence remained among the Serbian community, he began to fade from public view.
The international community's pursuit of Karadzic has not slowed down with his political exit, but has become more urgent as the war crimes investigation deepens and evidence accumulates.
He has been charged by the International Criminal Court with war crimes and humanitarian crimes, including felonies such as ethnic cleansing and mass murder of civilians. The charges made Karadzic one of the most wanted war criminals in the world, and a $5 million reward was offered for his capture.
In the years that followed, the international community, especially NATO and the European Union, pursued Karadzic on the run for a long time.
Various intelligence indicates that Karadzic has been hiding between Serbia and the Bosnian Republic of Serbia, evading international hunting with the help of loyal supporters and sophisticated underground networks.
During this time, Karadzic seemed to be a ghost, and although his presence attracted widespread international attention, he was always able to deftly evade pursuit.
In 2008, after 13 years of searching and waiting, Karadzic's arrest made international headlines. During this time, Karadzic managed to evade the international community, but was eventually arrested by the local police in Serbia.
This moment is not only an important turning point for the victims of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their families, but also a landmark event in international legal practice.
After his arrest, Karadzic was quickly transferred to the International Tribunal in The Hague, where he had been awaiting trial for war crimes for years.
Although Karadzic's arrest and transfer have attracted widespread attention and discussion both inside and outside Serbia, many believe that the outcome of his trial at the International Tribunal in The Hague seems to be foregone conclusion.
The International Tribunal in The Hague, the main tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, is often criticized as representing the interests of Western countries.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal is also an important institution for the international community in its efforts to resolve conflicts and punish war crimes through legal means.
During the trial, Karadzic decided to defend himself, a decision similar to what former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic did at the Hague Tribunal.
They all chose to face the court in person and present their views and defenses in person. This approach reflects, in part, their insistence on their beliefs and their challenge to the legitimacy and impartiality of the International Tribunal.
Karadzic's self-defense at trial was a complex process. He sought to question the court's bias and interpretation of the evidence, while at the same time providing justification for his actions during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
His defense revolved around the elaboration of the idea of "Greater Serbianism" and what happened to the Serbian people during the war. Karadzic's goal is not only to defend his innocence, but also to justify his political ideas on the international stage.
On 24 March 2016, after nearly eight years of trials, the verdict of Radovan Karadzic was finally announced by the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague.
The tribunal found Karadzic guilty on 10 of 11 counts, including genocide, persecution, unlawful killing, forcible transfer of population, and other war crimes committed during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and sentenced him to 40 years in prison.
This verdict is a severe punishment for Karadzic's personal behavior, and it also symbolizes a legal judgment in an era full of ethnic contradictions and conflicts.
During the sentencing process, the judges of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague detailed Karadzic's crimes, including his role and conduct in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular the long siege of Sarajevo, the Srebrenica massacre, and the persecution of Bosnian Muslims and Croats elsewhere.
Some of these crimes are among the worst war crimes in human history, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, the shattering of countless families and the destruction of entire communities.
The Tribunal's verdict was based on a large body of evidence, including written documents, audio-visual materials, and the testimony of hundreds of witnesses and victims. This evidence not only confirms the conduct of Karadzic and his subordinate forces during the war, but also reflects their cruelty to civilians and their contempt for international law.
During the trial, Karadzic failed to convince the judge of his defense, and the court ruled against him on the basis of evidence.
Karadzic's verdict has reverberated widely in the international community and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
For the victims of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their families, this sentence is a recognition of their suffering and a form of compensation for the loss of loved ones, even if such compensation cannot compensate for all their losses.
At the same time, the verdict is a clear signal of the international community's intolerance of war crimes and the determination of the international criminal justice system to maintain international peace and security and punish serious crimes.
In the eyes of some Serbs and Karadzic supporters, he was seen as a national hero who believed that Karadzic was defending the survival and rights of the Serbs, and that his conviction and sentencing were seen as an injustice against the Serbs. This divide reflects the deep ethnic rifts that persist in the Balkans after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Karadzic: From "National Hero" to Prisoner