THE death of Slobodan Milosevic, in his cell at the Hague, where he was undergoing a trial at an International Criminal Court since 2001, for crimes against humanity, including genocide, has left incomplete a process that would have delivered the verdict on a leader who kept alive in Europe a communist regime 10 years longer anywhere else.

Though some of those who sullied the image of Europe, and exposed its dark side, still remain to be caught, there are a few hardliners in Serbia who would probably still view him as a Serbian nationalist who continued to question the legality of the International Court created to bring him to justice.

This writer was ambassador to Yugoslavia, from 1978 to 1980, a period that witnessed the passing away of Tito, who built up the multi-ethnic Federative Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia into a significant player between the two competing blocs, and virtually made it the headquarters of the non-aligned movement. Slobodan Milosevic, a minor figure then, started his slow rise, first by abolishing the practice of rotating the presidency among the six constituent republics, making Serbia more equal than others, by manipulating his position as the leader of the communist party.

When in 1989 nationalist agitation rose up in Kosovo, a component of the Serbian Republic, 90 per cent of whose population consisted of Muslims of Albanian origin, he declared himself the champion of Serbian nationalism, committed to maintaining their rights and historical supremacy.

As Milosevic, backed by a well-armed Serb-dominated army, did away with many safeguards introduced by Tito, himself a Croat, to keep the multi-ethnic federation together, it began to unravel. The small but relatively advanced Republic of Slovenia declared its independence in 1990. Federal troops were sent but there was hardly any sizable Serb presence in the republic, and so the conflict barely lasted 10 days after which Slovenian independence was conceded.

The next two republics to proclaim their independence in 1992, were Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, both with large Serb communities. The war in Croatia lasted eight months, the areas with largely Serb population offering prolonged resistance. As the Serb army encountered resistance, it became increasingly cruel, with an element of sectarianism creeping in. The Croats were largely Catholic while the Serbs were Orthodox Christians, the same as most Russians, and as the conflicts were referred to the UN, Russia tended to back the Serbs.

The republic where the worst bloodshed took place was Bosnia Herzegovina, where 44 per cent of the population was Muslim, 31 per cent Serb, and 25 per cent Croat. The Muslims were not very faint-conscious, many having intermarried with Serbs and Croats. However, the Serbs now embarked on a policy of “ethnic cleansing”, namely killing or expelling other communities from areas where Serbs had a strong presence, and in this practice, even the Croats cooperated with them, both being Christian. In hundreds of cases, Muslims became aware of their faith only when Christian spouses turned on them.

The Serbs also set up their own Serb republic in Bosnia, with the support of the army, and the blessings of Milosevic. Indeed, while not openly endorsing the ethnic cleansing that often turned into genocide, Milosevic was supportive of the Serbs in the conflicts that broke out with Croats or Muslims, the main support being provided by the Serb-dominated army.

The Muslims suffered the highest loss of life, owing to ethnic cleansing, and hostile fedings arising from history and the 500-year history of Turkish occupation of most of Yugoslavia, during which there were some major battles in which Serbs suffered heavy loss of life. The Serbs, therefore, had developed a deep hatred for Muslims that was reflected during the period Milosevic was heading Serbia. There was a one-year siege of Sarajevo during which major western powers, especially France and Britain, supported the Serbs.

The tenth anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, that had been declared a safe city under UN protection, was marked recently. The Dutch military contingent present on behalf the UN did nothing when Serb forces under General Ratko Mladic massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys. Mladic is still at large.

The fourth war he fought was over Kosovo, which he attacked in 1999 in order to establish Serbian control over a province populated overwhelmingly by Muslims of Albanian origin who wanted independence. Nato under US leadership took him on and bombed Serbia to the point of virtual destruction of its industrial infrastructure. Though the present government in Belgrade claims it as a historical part of Serbia, any democratic dispensation cannot ignore the wishes of 90 per cent of its population.

Overall, from 1992 to 1996, around 250,000 Muslims were killed in Bosnia, and it was only after President Clinton intervened that the savagery by the Serbs under the patronage of Milosevic stopped. Europe’s role in the first crisis of this type in modern times was truly shameful. The anti-Muslim bias has been reinforced since the events of 9/11.

Milosevic had not fully cooperated with the UN tribunal in The Hague, and that became a factor in the prolongation of his trial. Some of his supporters even allege that he was poisoned, or that he was not given proper treatment in The Hague. He had a heart problem that must have been aggravated by the imprisonment and the cross-questioning during the lengthy and often acrimonious proceedings. The official announcement of the news of his death ascribe it to natural causes. It is doubtful if history will judge him kindly. He was a man who based his political power on the negative aspects of nationalism. Having served in Yugoslavia in Tito’s time, the writer had been saddened by the chaos and brutality let loose by Milosevic, whose path proved to be that of misguided nationalism, that led to bloodshed and suffering. The worst crimes again humanity in Europe since the Second World War took place because of his role. Even the Serbs cannot applaud his leadership that brought them senseless violence and mindless destruction. Seen against the four decades of Tito, his role has prompted a reaction among many of his countrymen that he should have been tried not in The Hague but in Belgrade.

Some changes in European attitudes could also be partly attributed to passions aroused by the wars and the violence aroused by his role during the last decade of the 20th Century. One can also conclude that the manner and method of peacekeeping by the UN must have benefited from the lessons from its experience during his regime in Yugoslavia.

The writer is a former ambassador.