Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
Hmm, it is a complicated issue. People are moving on, that's definitely happening. There's a joint basketball league, there's talk of a joint football league (it's going slower because of the various mobsters wannabe who aren't keen on relinquishing control), Big Brother reality show for the first hosted people from all countries that used to make up Yugoslavia, traveling isn't longer complicated - you don't need visas and in most cases you don't a passport, an ID is enough. Bussinesses are picking up, although Croats still tend not to allow Serbian companies or Serbian products on the Croatian market but I believe it'll get better. Current Croatian president seems a reasonable man but the government is a bit too much nationalistic for my taste. So, all in all, things are looking up indeed.

Now, how much is that because of the courts... IMHO, not much, if any. One might say it is in spite of courts. Serbs tend to see themselves as being singled out and victimized, Croats and Bosnian muslims generally hate when any of theirs end up in the court because it's a stain on their heroic, against-the-odds, purely defensive war.
Though it was not the main topic, I am really pleased that you shared this. I knew some Bosnian war refugees who came to Canada. They were not anti-Serb, they were anti-war. As is typical over here, after the shooting stops, the press forget about it. So, I have heard very little since the Kosovo thing.

I particularly liked your line "in spite of the courts". At this point, where they have taken SO long to rule on these things, one might wonder if it is only reopening old wounds. I definately think these things have to find a way to be expedited.

The impression I had gotten was that the local courts were the ones who were being so biased (for example courts in Croatia not charging or releasing Croats, while persecuting all Serbs with a vengance.). Is the international court any better?

The court was definately used as a tool by the US. In the same way the UN as a whole was. The US has become so critical of the UN only because it has been slowly becoming an institution on it's own, and can no longer be effectively controlled by the US. (It can be hindered - a la veto - but they do not dominate it's policies as they once did.) My perception is that in time, the international courts have slowly been becoming more independant, and less willing to bend to pressure. If this trend continues, even slowly, I would think that there is hope that in time they could become a fair arbiter.