[Rictor]

After you read this, just try a little thought experiment. Read it again, and replace any mention of Bosnia or Republika Srpska (the Serbian province within Bosnia) with the name of the place where you live. And ask yourself whether it is right and just for foreign powers to install a man with the authority to over-ride elected officials of that country on any issue, and essentially run the place like his own personal dictatorship. But an internationally recognized and legitimate dictatorship.

If its right for Bosnia, that surely it must be right for England, Spain, Japan, Brazil, the US and everywhere else, in which case we should scrap the democratic system and hand all power over to a single individual, with the provision that the people of each nation have absolutely no say in who that individual would be, and indeed that it be one who actively works against their best interests.

But if you decide that it's not right for wherever you live, why is it right for Bosnia (or Kosovo, or Haiti?)

(and sorry for the formatting, I tried to make it normal but the color tags force the line to continue)

"Europe Is the only Future for the Balkans"

Paddy Ashdown, the international community's high representative in Bosnia, discusses 10 years of reconstruction, obstacles to reconciliation and the struggle over the new constitution. The road to Brussels will be long, he argues, but Bosnia will eventually become part of the European Union.

SPIEGEL: It's been almost 10 years since the Dayton Agreement was signed, and Bosnia still isn't functioning as a unified state. Are you disappointed?

Ashdown: I wanted two things: to make the country a normal state and
to guide it along the path toward Europe .  How nice that an unelected foreigner can decide which way the country should go. We have achieved some of our goals. We have a uniform justice and customs system, we have established the basis for a uniform tax system, and we have combined three different intelligence services into a single agency.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, Bosnia is still not viewed as a state, especially by Serbian politicians. Has the multiethnic project involving Serbs, Croats and Muslims living together failed?

Ashdown: If you ask a Scotsman whether he natis British or Scottish, he will reply that he is Scottish. It's exactly the same way here. The Serbs and Croats have very little loyalty to the Bosnian state, but one cannot force people to sing the national anthem of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It all takes time.

SPIEGEL: Critics like Johan Galtung, holder of the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize, continue to see Bosnia as being in a state of Cold War.

Ashdown: You have to compare Bosnia with other peace missions. In Northern Ireland, for example, it's been 35 years since the civil war, and not a single refugee has returned. And in Germany, millions of people who were driven out in World War II were unable to return home. A million refugees returned to Bosnia. This is unprecedented.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, today the three ethnic groups live more separately than ever, almost in ghettoes.

Ashdown: The road to permanent peace is long -- naturally -- but regular elections are already being held in Bosnia and, unlike in Cyprus, for example, there is complete freedom of movement in Bosnia. We also have the most stable currency in the entire Balkan region. The number of troops stationed here after the war has dropped from 60,000 to 6,600. Bosnia is a long way from being a black hole. This is the most successful peace mission the world has ever seen.

SPIEGEL: Aren't you turning a blind eye to reality? If there were a popular referendum today, 90 percent of Serbs would likely vote for reunification with Serbia.

Ashdown: Perhaps. But at the same time,
only 10 percent believe that such a scenario is realistic. So 90% want independece, but can't have it because of Ashdown. Lovely democracy. Incidentally, they're sponsoring Kosovo for independence for exactly the same reason. So they're hypocrites too. Of course there are tensions among the three ethnicities, but they are significantly less acute than they were only five years ago. More importantly, tensions are diminishing. The true heroes in this country are the ordinary people who are returning to the places from which they were once driven. Nowadays they live together again, in places like Srebrenica, for example. This is a miracle.

SPIEGEL: The most highly-sought war criminal, Radovan Karadzic, is still at large. How much influence does he have over Republika Srpska?

Ashdown: The number of his supporters is shrinking, and so is his influence. For example, he opposed the idea of combining the armies of Republika Srpska and the Croatian-Muslim federation, but we managed to push it through. Years ago, he would have been able to obstruct such a decision from his hideout in the mountains.

SPIEGEL: Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, doubts that there is any serious will to capture him.

Ashdown: The will is there, but until the beginning of the year, the institutions of Republika Srpska, the police, criminal networks and many politicians were actively standing in the way of Karadzic's arrest. This has changed, partly as a result of enormous pressure on my part.

SPIEGEL: As an example of that pressure, you had 59 Serbian officials removed from their posts simultaneously last summer.

Ashdown: For which I was heavily criticized.
But it was worth it.So a foreign agent with dictator-like power get to decide what is worth it. Lovely. For nine years, Republika Srpska didn't send a single war criminal to The Hague. And now, nine of the most important war criminals were extradited this year alone. This means that Karadzic's closest associates are now behind bars, while he becomes more and more isolated. To catch him, two conditions must be fulfilled. First, public opinion must change. This is why I forced the Serbs to write an account of the Srebrenica massacre, in which they were required to admit that the war crimes were committed. In his own words, he forced one section of the population to write the equavialent of an "I'm sorry for hitting Timmy, teacher" report, though, by the way, I mistakenly thought was for a court of law to decide guilt, not a single unelected individual. Oops. Second, political pressure had to be applied to force Republika Srpska to cooperate with The Hague. Military action against Karadzic will be the next step. Political pressure and military action. Against an autonomous province. When he puts it like that, it doesn't sound forced at all. At all.

SPIEGEL: To immobilize his support network, sympathetic Serbian police officers would have to be restrained. But the police reforms that would make it possible to gain more control over the Serbian police threatens to fail as a result of Serbian resistance.

Ashdown: The Serbs, who detested the Dayton Agreement, are now using it to prevent reforms from moving forward. The parliament of Republika Srpska was handed a key to the gate that leads to Europe, but it threw it away. On the 10th anniversary of the Dayton peace talks, Bosnia missed the opportunity to take up talks with the EU over a stabilization and association treaty. This means that part of the country is maliciously holding back the other part.

SPIEGEL: But haven't your tough policies merely widened the divisions between the ethnic groups?

Ashdown: Many have criticized me because I dealt with the Serbs too harshly. But I prefer to be judged on the basis of results.
In any event, Serbian resistance to the Hague International War Crimes Tribunal in Banja Luka (the capital of Republika Srpska) has declined.So basically, he forced Republika Srpska to play ball, when clearly they don't want it. And yet, mysteriouslly, the pretense of "diplomacy" remains.

SPIEGEL: Education is another area where the country remains divided. Once again, schools are segregated in the federation, that is, among Croats and Muslims.

Ashdown: That's a consequence of the history of this country. I do not accept this segregation. The schools must be integrated in the future.

SPIEGEL: In diplomatic circles, there have been behind-the-scenes calls for the elimination of the two entities and the formation of a strong single state.

Ashdown:This will never be a centralized state like France or Great Britain. Instead, its structures will be decentralized -- as is the case in Belgium or Switzerland, for example -- to allow for ethnic and religious differences. The Republika Srpska and the Croatian-Muslim federation were established in the Dayton Agreement. If they were ever eliminated, it would have to be as a result of the will of the Bosnian people.

SPIEGEL: When you assumed the office of high representative three years ago, you said that you intended to be the last international administrator of Bosnia. Did you underestimate the resistance?

Ashdown: We are nearing the point where the country no longer needs a high representative. I am not ruling out the possibility that a special representative of the European Union will take over this job by October of next year, but then with reduced powers. It will take a few years, but this country will make it into the EU.
Europe is its only future. This doesn't apply to Bosnia-Herzegovina alone, but to the entire Balkan region.No comment needed. I was under the preposterous impression that people have a right to self-determination. Silly me.

edit: I just found this little quote in an articel I'm reading right now. And keep in mind, this is a Serbian official talking.

"I am mentioning this because no one in Serbia-Montenegro has the right to hope and can move forward without the fulfillment of the last obligation to The Hague.

That about sums it up. No hope, no right[/i] to hope, unless it's given out generously by the foreign massahs.

[Singh]

ermm.....so let me get this straight. Please correct me if I have interpreted the article wrong.

1. The Serbians wish for peace and unity. But this individual does not let them?

2. Almost all the Serbians think that reunification is a good idea, but this individual thinks otherwise?

3. The fact that the Muslims and the Serbians wish to unite their education system? No offense to the muslims, but if im not wrong, they actually do follow a seperate education system in other nations, correct?

4. This man...is leaving next october? guess a lot of parties are going to be present then i think....

Either way, I agree with you....arrogance...

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Singh
ermm.....so let me get this straight. Please correct me if I have interpreted the article wrong.

1. The Serbians wish for peace and unity. But this individual does not let them?

2. Almost all the Serbians think that reunification is a good idea, but this individual thinks otherwise?

3. The fact that the Muslims and the Serbians wish to unite their education system? No offense to the muslims, but if im not wrong, they actually do follow a seperate education system in other nations, correct?

4. This man...is leaving next october? guess a lot of parties are going to be present then i think....

Either way, I agree with you....arrogance...

No, you've got it the wrong way around. This guy is the "man in charge" of Bosnia, which has a mostly Muslim population (some Croatians too) with a semi-independent province Republika Srpska which is predominantly Serbian. He is trying to take the country on a certain course (compliance with EU and US demands and deeper integration between the various factions) against the will of many of the people.

1. Peace yes, unity apparently not. Like he said, the majority in Republika Srpska would seperate from Bosnia and join up with Serbia proper, if it were put to a democratic vote.

2. See point 1.

3. No, he's trying to make the school system into a single unit, along with the army, police, political officeholders and so on. There is resistance to this, on account of the different factions being at each other's throats a decade ago. Actually, I don't think this is too big an issue.

4. In theory, yes. But my bet is that another will replace him, with equally broad powers, and the foreign troops certainly won't withdraw. Unfortunately, he's already had more than enough time to  implement his will on the country.

[Singh]

Originally posted by Rictor

No, you've got it the wrong way around. This guy is the "man in charge" of Bosnia, which has a mostly Muslim population (some Croatians too) with a semi-independent province Republika Srpska which is predominantly Serbian. He is trying to take the country on a certain course (compliance with EU and US demands and deeper integration between the various factions) against the will of many of the people.

1. Peace yes, unity apparently not. Like he said, the majority in Republika Srpska would seperate from Bosnia and join up with Serbia proper, if it were put to a democratic vote.

2. See point 1.

3. No, he's trying to make the school system into a single unit, along with the army, police, political officeholders and so on. There is resistance to this, on account of the different factions being at each other's throats a decade ago. Actually, I don't think this is too big an issue.

4. In theory, yes. But my bet is that another will replace him, with equally broad powers, and the foreign troops certainly won't withdraw. Unfortunately, he's already had more than enough time to  implement his will on the country.

oh...ok....hmm...didn't know I had read the entire thing that wrong - my apologies >_<

[aldo_14]

Dayton Accord;
http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=380
General details;http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~bosnia/update/details.html

The Dayton Accord (signed by Croat President Tudjman, Bosnian President Izetbegović, and Serbian President Milosevic) was signed to end the Yugoslav civil war (or more specifically the war in Bosnia).    The Bosnian civil war was started after the Bosnian parliament voted for independence; specifically after a referendum voted 99% for, but boycotted by the Serbian population (i.e. the vote was by something like 66% of the eligable electorate).

In response the Serb politicians, who objected, seceeded into their own republic (republica Srpska).  This eventually degenerated into a 3 way civil war with the neighbouring Croatia and Serbia getting involved; IIRC the Croats and Bosniaks/Muslims allied vs the Serbs, but also ended up fighting each other over the territory they held.  

The was is famous for quite a few Serbian atrocities (although IIRC the Croats also committed war crimes but, being weaker armed, didn't have the same freedom to do so on the Serbian scale), including the shelling of Sarajevo and concentration camps for Bosnian Muslims.  

anyways, it was nasty.  Bosnia is/was quite ethnically heterogenous; although there are distinct enclaves, they're not exclusive.

The Dayton Agreement defined Bosnia as 2 effectively devolved regions (Bosnian Federation and Serb republic), with a central government handling certain parts (ruled by 2 parts Bosnian and 1 part Serb elected representative).  As part of the agreement, a High Representative - who is currently Paddy Ashdown (taking over in 2002) - was appointed to oversee the implementation of the peace agreement.  This includes the issue of Serb war crimes referred to above.

The reason for barring secession is probably largely due to what happened the last time; i.e. war.  Also politically as it may be seen as handing 'victory' to the Serbs (albeit years after the fact).  And additionally they may be optimistic about trying to resolve any existing tensions by building a stable multi-ethnic state.  Finally, there may be the issue of the ethnic mix within Serbian regions (AFAIK they are not solely Serbian, and with memories of ethnic cleansing, et al, merging that region with Serbia and thus under Serbian control could lead to instalibility).

EDIT; I'd note that... if Serbia entered the region, expelled or killed thousands of Muslims/Croats from it, and you then let the ethnically 'cleansed' region be given to Serbia ten years down the line, you'd be risking some nasty precedents.

I'd note that Karadzic is an individual, not a province.  Ashdown is probably referring to capturing him via a UN/NATO/whatever military taskforce as with other war criminals (as was unsucessfully tried in 2004).  

Also, part of the Dayton Agreement was to acknowledge the comission of war crimes; this does not equate to placing responsibility for them upon the populace.  It's similar to the way the Japanese or Germans recognise the crimes of WW2 but are not held (the present generation, and soforth) responsible for them.

The 'path towards europe' stuff probably refers to the (virtual) necessity of EU membership in modern economic terms.  Specifically with reference to the applications of Balkan nations like Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and, well, Bosnia.

It's very easy to place negative spin, I see.

[karajorma]

Of course it is. Funny how Rictor suddenly champions the right of countries to ethnically cleanse an area and then claim independance when it's people who are Serbs like himself.

[Rictor]

I'm well aware of the war and subsequent peace agreement (by the way, the Croats and Bosniaks did fight each other, and occasionally also fought within the same faction, same thing on the Serbian side).

However, I'm old fashioned in thinking that policy ought to be formulated by politicians, who are themselves elected by the people. Or by direct refferendum (preferable for big issues). Certainly not a single individual, appointed from outside.

There are two main problems I see. One is that the "European path" is rammed through by hook or crook, wihtout consulting the people, exactly because it is viewed (by the "Powers") as the only way. Excuse me, but that spits in the face of the right to self-determination. That's the old "sphere of influence" idea, given a new face. The politicians on both sides (though on the Serbian side it's mostly out of a sense of weakness) act as if it is only right and proper that Serbia join the EU, as if the territory naturally and properly belonged to the EU, not to the people of Serbia. If the initiative is by the EU, and not Serbia, then it amounts to annexation. If the initiative is on the part of Serbia (or any other country joining any other organization) then it's joining. Furthermore, by his own admission, he is standing in the way of the legitimate democratic right of a province to associate with whoever they damn well please, if the people should so choose, while at the same time the EU and US are promoting independece for Kosovo (and I would say eventual amalgamation with Albania) for the very reason that 90% of the population wants it. Explain to me, how is that not a double standard.

The other problem is that Ashdown is going far beyond simply keeping the peace, and is implementing far reaching reforms that affect the basic state of affairs in the country. Literally, everything from the military to education to the economy is being managed by this man and his people; everything which should be the domain of legitimate politicians. He literally has powers equivalent to a dictator, or better yet an old Imperial British viceroy.

If the country has to be held together by force, then it shouldn't be one country. It's unsustainable. In Canada, when Quebec wanted to seperate there a refferendum, they lost, that that was that (well, slightly simplified, but they certainly didn't get an Australian beaurocrat telling them whether or not to seperate). The point I'm making is that it quite simply is not within the legitimate jurisdiction of a foreign power(s) to decide the shape and compostion of a foreign country.

Aldo, all I'm saying is that if no sane nation would tolerate such extensive meddling and interference, to the point of being run by outsiders, why should it be acceptable for Bosnia (or Kosovo). Do unto others and all that good stuff.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma
Of course it is. Funny how Rictor suddenly champions the right of countries to ethnically cleanse an area and then claim independance when it's people who are Serbs like himself.

Thems some big words, pal. Do you honestly believe that I am "championing the right of countries to ethnically cleanse an area"? I am not reffering to the war, but to the aftermath. If you want to get technical, almost every country has taken on its present shape by invasion, occupation and wholesale slaughter, sometimes a few times back and forth, and quite a few of them have gone abroad to do the same thing.

War crimes and the Hague are a seperate issue. I know of no document that allows a country, even if it is guilty of every offence on the books, to be taken over and run by foreign powers. Methinks that "peacekeeping" has been grossly abused to allow the same old crap (interventionism) to have a legitimate face. I can (and partially do, with qualifications) agree with the extradition of war crimes suspects, however that has nothing to do with the nigh-unlimited power wielded by foreign governements over a sovereign nation.

[vyper]

[q]or better yet an old Imperial British viceroy.[/q]

If only we could call them that nowadays...

[aldo_14]

The EU, incidentally, has already said it would not consider and application for membership from Bosnia until at least 2 years after the OHR has left (i.e. is a formally constituted democratic nation as per the peace treaty).  there is no AFAIK formal requirement for any Balkan nation to apply, but the large amount of aid invested there and the obvious mutual benefit makes it a fair assumption that the Balkan states who have not already applied, will do so.

AFAIK that does not mean Ashdown is speaking in terms of official policy, but personal opinion.

The difference between the Serbian rep/Kosovo situation is pretty clear to me.  The Serbian republics' (in Bosnia) current makeup is due to an ethnic cleansing campaign by Serbs during the war; obviously, the issue of 'right to return' (IIRC embedded in the Dayton agreement) for expelled families is something which affects that situation.  The Kosovan ethnic situation is due to Serbs leaving the aftermath of attempted ethnic cleansing by the Serbian army and the resultant NATO intervention.  So there are no mass graves, concentration camps that we can factor in here, which IMO is the key point of the political/democratic issue.  with regards to the expulsion of Serbs from Kosovo, the problem comes when they leave voluntarily, even if it's because of anticipation of being driven out by the Albanians.

Had it been a case of the Albanian army marching into Kosovo, putting serbs in concentration camps, etc, then they'd be equal.  As it is, the situation is in many ways inverse; you have a previously oppressed ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo, vs a Serb population in Bosnia that is demographically largely due to the actions of Serbia during the war.

It would be a bit like giving (for example) Germany back the Sudetenland in 1955 if they'd exterminated the Czech populace in WW2.   Politically, it would be a disaster and destabilising.  Morally, it would be pretty wrong, too.  Whereas if the Czechs had attacked the Germans with the aim of expulsion, and the Germans then fought back, it'd be a lot murkier waters.

To be honest, I see no reason to ignore the peace agreement which was signed by all 3 involved nations (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia).  We've actually seen quite well in recent events that a country will not just (sadly) rebuild itself after a devastating war, much less a divisive ethnic one.  So long as there is a clear and unequivocal strategy to rebuild, I see no problem.  As is, the main role of Ashdown is, after all, to ensure the (terms defined by) Peace Treaty is adhered to.

Paddy Ashdown is Indian, BTW.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Thems some big words, pal. Do you honestly believe that I am "championing the right of countries to ethnically cleanse an area"?

Seeing as how I'm still waiting for your explaination of why the Chechnyans are freedom fighters when they take a school hostage but the KLA are terrorists then, yeah, I question your objectivity when it comes to your own nation of birth.

And while you may not be pro ethnic cleansing you seem to have no problem with allowing the country that was responsible for it to make a land grab as a result. As Aldo states that's a dangerous precedent.

Originally posted by Rictor
I am not reffering to the war, but to the aftermath. If you want to get technical, almost every country has taken on its present shape by invasion, occupation and wholesale slaughter, sometimes a few times back and forth, and quite a few of them have gone abroad to do the same thing.

And do you believe it was right for any of them to have profitted from that?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma


Seeing as how I'm still waiting for your explaination of why the Chechnyans are freedom fighters when they take a school hostage but the KLA are terrorists then, yeah, I question your objectivity when it comes to your own nation of birth.

And while you may not be pro ethnic cleansing you seem to have no problem with allowing the country that was responsible for it to make a land grab as a result. As Aldo states that's a dangerous precedent.

I doubt I ever called the Beslan hostage-takers freedom fighters. It doesn't sound like something I would say. But if you dig up the quote, then I apologize for it.

First of all, it's highly subjective as I'm sure you know. But freedom fighter refers to ends, terrorist refers to the means used tos ecure those ends. You can be a freedom fighter without using terrorist methods (though that's unlikely), and you can be a terrorist without fighting for freedom (9/11 for example.)

If I am indeed inconsistent in calling the KLA terrorist and their cause illegitmate while at the same time advocating independence for Chechnya (which, by the way, exists on a completly different level, given that several hundred thousand innocents have been killed, as opposed to less than 5000 civilians on both sides in Kosovo) than I could be forgiven, since you (presumably) support both the independence of Kosovo, due to majority will (a majority by the way that was obtained by the same type of ethnic cleansing prevalent during the early 90s, though in this case it happened while the territory was firmly under NATO control) and yet oppose the same thing in Bosnia. If I am inconsistent, then so are the major world powers, the only difference being that they have armies, diplomats and courts to carry out their will.

What I am arguing for (or rather against) at the moment is the right of foreign powers to exercise control over the territory of a sovereign nation(s) by force of arms. By engaging in a civil war, a country (or any component of it) does not magically give up it's sovereignty. If that were the case, there are AFAIK around 30 such conflicts currrently on-going aroud the world, and in each case you would presumably support the subordination of the local, elected government to rule by an unelected, unaccountable foreign group, for an unspecified length of time, with blanket powers over every aspect of the state.

Originally posted by karajorma
And do you believe it was right for any of them to have profitted from that?

But who will serve out the justice, and on a global scale no less? Are they elected? Who gave them authority to do so? How much authority exactly do they have? I don;t believe that it is right for the group with the most guns to come up with a definition of justice that  suit them and impose it on those who are powerless to refuse. Shall we start extraditing all individuals gulty of war crimes? I would be fine with that, as long as a single standard is applied to all, or else the court has no legitimacy. If you want to punish those who start wars, I can certainly agree with that, but until I see Blair, Bush, Clinton, Putin and others in the dock, I will consider the Hague a kangaroo court.

Don't get me wrong, I look forward to a truly global court, because you can't expect a nation to persecute it's own leaders, but if they apply the standard of justice selectively, then I really can't support that.

Though again, I really don't see how implementing economic reforms, education reforms and other such things, much less determining the very direction in which the country should steer has anything to do with war crimes or war criminals, even if you accept the legitimacy of Ashdown's mission in Bosnia.

[aldo_14]

[q]What I am arguing for (or rather against) at the moment is the right of foreign powers to exercise control over the territory of a sovereign nation(s) by force of arms.[/q]

What of internationally ratified treaty signed by the nation itself and the bordering nations previously fighting with those borders?

I know you would support no punishment ahead of some punishment, but I doubt that's for any reason beyond it being serbians in the dock.  Albeit this was not about starting wars, but war crimes, and the proven responsibility for them.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
I doubt I ever called the Beslan hostage-takers freedom fighters. It doesn't sound like something I would say. But if you dig up the quote, then I apologize for it.  

I would but Search appears to be completely borked at the moment. A search for the word Kosovo turns up this thread and no others believe it or not. Same for Beslan.

Originally posted by Rictor
First of all, it's highly subjective as I'm sure you know. But freedom fighter refers to ends, terrorist refers to the means used tos ecure those ends. You can be a freedom fighter without using terrorist methods (though that's unlikely), and you can be a terrorist without fighting for freedom (9/11 for example.)

If I am indeed inconsistent in calling the KLA terrorist and their cause illegitmate while at the same time advocating independence for Chechnya (which, by the way, exists on a completly different level, given that several hundred thousand innocents have been killed, as opposed to less than 5000 civilians on both sides in Kosovo) than I could be forgiven, since you (presumably) support both the independence of Kosovo, due to majority will (a majority by the way that was obtained by the same type of ethnic cleansing prevalent during the early 90s, though in this case it happened while the territory was firmly under NATO control) and yet oppose the same thing in Bosnia. If I am inconsistent, then so are the major world powers, the only difference being that they have armies, diplomats and courts to carry out their will.  

Two wrongs don't make a right however. Just because other governments are wrong doesn't make you any more right. And if you believe that the ratio of death tolls in Kosovo would have stayed at the same level as the Serbians once an army who already had a track record of genocide rolled in then you're a fool.

Did NATO f**k up once they were in charge of Kosovo, no doubt. Would the slaughter have been greater without their presence. Undoubtably.

Originally posted by Rictor
If you want to punish those who start wars, I can certainly agree with that, but until I see Blair, Bush, Clinton, Putin and others in the dock, I will consider the Hague a kangaroo court.

Complete f**kers though Clinton, Bush and Blair are I doubt you can claim that any of them are directly responsible for ordering genocide.  I don't think any of them wanted to cause civilian casualties but viewed that as an inescapable consequence of what they were trying to do. We're talking a whole different level of evil here.

And as for Putin who do you think has the power to arrest him?