In contrast, when former President George Bush went to war to chase Iraq out of Kuwait, he pledged the world in general, and the Arabs in particular, that the U.S. would push hard on the Middle East peace process immediately afterwards. “And he met the promise, and began the process with the Madrid peace talks,” comments Richard Murphy, who was assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the Reagan administration. Contrasting that with what he calls the present administration’s “obsession with Iraq, that we can’t deal with anything until Saddam is replaced,” Murphy says the Bush administration is missing the obvious — and he doesn’t know why. “They do not buy the argument that they could make it easier for themselves by paying attention to the Israel-Palestine confrontation to buy more space and maneuverability with the Arab world. They just resist it. I can’t explain it, but they just don’t buy it.”

It’s not as if the vital strategic importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a secret. Everyone from close allies like Tony Blair to strategic partners like Saudi Arabia to U.N. head Kofi Annan have been telling Bush that the U.S. needs to advance the peace process — not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it will help him oust Saddam Hussein without plunging the region into chaos. Such voices of reason persuaded Bush that going to the U.N. was essential to gain European support and to at least contain Arab hostility for his Iraqi adventure, but they have been completely unable to convince him to get involved in the peace process.

In the eyes of most of the world, Bush seized the moral high ground after his speech in the General Assembly — and then last week he slid off it. It was not merely because he behaved like a petulant kid who took his ball and went home when Saddam Hussein said he would let in the weapons inspectors without conditions, thus revealing the shallowness of his conversion to multilateralism. It was also because it became clear once again that the U.S.’s Middle East policy is barely distinguishable from Ariel Sharon’s. (On Monday, the White House broke days of silence and criticized Israel’s siege of Yasser Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah as having “aggravated” U.S. attempts to reform the Palestinian Authority; it was administration’s first explicit criticism of Israel in months.)

Last week the “Quartet” — the U.N., E.U., U.S. and Russia — met at the U.N., supposedly to organize an international peace conference on the Israel-Palestinian issue. But far from seizing the opportunity to tackle the problem that has haunted the organization since its foundation, the U.S. showed no interest. One U.N. official commented, “If anything, the U.S. is backpedaling — after all, the International Conference was their idea, but they don’t seem in any hurry to have it now. The idea that you need to promise anything about Palestine to get Arab cooperation seems to have gone out of the window.”

Instead of being a triumphant follow-up of the previous week’s events, the press conference to announce the Quartet’s anodyne report was dominated by a public row between Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, about the appropriate response to Saddam’s apparent capitulation. Many of the non-U.S. participants were not happy. Palestine’s U.N. representative, Nasser El Kidwa, was terse and to the point about the results of the Quartet meeting. “It was a lousy declaration,” he said. For their part, the Europeans also came away angry and frustrated that their attempts to secure obligations for Israel on the “road map” for a peace deal with the Palestinians were overruled by Washington.

The Arab ambassadors came away irate as well. Echoing a complaint heard througout the Arab world and Europe, El Kidwa charged that America was guilty of hypocrisy for threatening to invade Baghdad while ignoring “Three decades of Israeli defiance [of the U.N.].” El Kidwa pointed out that the U.S., almost always acting alone, has vetoed dozens of Security Council resolutions on the Palestinian issue.

Some overseas and domestic policy experts say the administration’s refusal to move the peace process forward reflects a lack of planning and foresight, either on how to achieve the stated end of removing Saddam Hussein, or about what will happen afterwards either in Iraq or in the region.

Jim Hoge of the Council on Foreign Affairs says, “There is no sign of planning. If there were, I would think they would be alerting us to it, because it would be reassuring.” He suggests that the Bush administration’s obsession with Iraq is “diverting attention and energy particularly at the top, where it is so important, from two much more serious problems: the war against Al-Qaida, which is still capable of causing a tremendous damage against the U.S., and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, one of the most potentially disruptive issues in the region and in the world. And over the last 50 years, every time we get diverted or back off, matters get worse not better.”

For this preoccupation to make sense, Hoge says, the administration has to prove that “there is an imminent danger from Saddam Hussein’s regime that has to be met. If there is such a case I haven’t seen them make it. They are far from answering the important questions: what are we going to do, what happens afterwards if we conquer Iraq, what effect will it have on the region.”

Richard Murphy agreed that the president “still has a lot to tell us about postwar planning, and I suspect that is because there isn’t much of it.” In his speech to the U.N., Bush suddenly promoted Iran from being a charter member of the “axis of evil” to being the first victim of Iraqi aggression. It certainly pleased the Iranians, but there was no follow-up; any hopes that the White House might be considering a thaw toward Iran were dashed. Murphy skeptically recalls that Bush told off his speechwriters recently for trying to put some “nuance” in his orations: He was having none of it. The overture to Iran was apparently as expedient as the momentary multilateralism of the rest of his speech, to be blown away as soon as Saddam Hussein ruined the game by giving in.

Trying to find some reason why the President is not taking the obvious diplomatic steps, such as reassuring the allies he needs to mount a successful military operation, Murphy suggests, “Being obsessed may be why he’s not interested in the tactics of building support with Iran or with the Saudis. He’s done a little bit to smooth them over — but they are in a pretty fussed state.”

There is a reason why the Saudis are fussed. Their regime, like the other precarious, despotic ones that sit on much of the region’s oil, may not survive the anger that would follow all-out American unilateral war on Iraq, without some gesture toward the Palestinians. And if, as many Palestinians and some Israelis fear, Sharon used the cover of a war with Iraq to “transfer” (i.e. ethnically cleanse) Palestinians, moving them from the West Bank to Jordan, then a more general conflagration would be inevitable.

The ideologues driving the Bush administration seem to believe, first, that the threat of the “enraged Arab street” is exaggerated, and second, that if the “moderate” regimes do fall, that might be OK. (In a profile in the New York Times Magazine Sunday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is characterized as “not … so sure that rocking the stability of tyrannies in the Arab world, even West-leaning tyrannies, is a bad thing.”) For many veterans of the international diplomatic arena, that kind of thinking is disturbingly over-optimistic — even disconnected from reality. In attempting to explain Bush’s actions, Murphy sees the president as someone who is acting on faith, rather than facts.

The president “is a believer,” says Murphy. “This is a man who’s on a mission. He is very evangelical about terrorism: he’s got to root out evil. I wonder if in his mind there really is a very strong linkage between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Evil is there, and evil must be uprooted and the fixation on terrorism has now encompassed Saddam Hussein — who ‘tried to kill my father’ as a footnote. He seems to think the facts are there about the linkage — if only we could discover them. In his mind they are joined up. He does not speak as man with any doubts.”

Is the president’s policy based on a series of deeply felt but disconnected prejudices in which Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Iran and Osama bin Laden metamorphose into one single evil entity, and Ariel Sharon and the USA are together on the side of the angels? The Brookings Institution’s Judith Kipper sees this as “not an inappropriate analysis of the way they think. This is a very, very ideological administration, more than conservative, and the president does have a sense of priorities that sees everything in black and white.”

Referring to the well-known schism in the Bush administration between the moderates and the hawks, Kipper says, “There’s no doubt about who’s in charge. He is closer to the Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz point of view.” The hawks, of course, tend to be avowedly and uncritically supportive of Likud policies: Rumsfeld, for example, referred to the “so-called occupied territories” recently.

For the hawks, removing Saddam Hussein will make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict easier to resolve, because it will weaken the Palestinians. (The hawks believe that regime change in Iraq will also keep Iran, another major backer of the Palestinians, in line.) Kipper deduces that the administration “tends to see the Arab-Israeli conflict, in fact most foreign policy, through the prism of the war on terrorism. They think that if you remove the regime in Iraq then it will be much easier since then rogue states and people will have less of a mandate.”

If, for Bush, invading Iraq is part of a war between good and evil, most European allies, and all the Arabs, are much less sure about where Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat place on the scale. Without the ideological views of the president’s coterie, they see the need to enforce U.N. resolutions as one that does not just apply to Iraq. Few of them are the slightest bit convinced that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with Sept. 11, and most of them are worried about the possible consequences of an attack and the Bush administration’s lack of forward planning.

Talking about democracy in the Middle East sounds good, but in reality a democratically elected government in Baghdad is likely to be just as militantly pro-Palestinian as Hussein’s regime, or even more so. As indeed are other regimes that could replace the U.S. allies toppled for their connivance in what most Arabs see as an Israeli-inspired American crusade against Iraq. If the hawks are right, invading Iraq will open a new era of democracy, freedom and prosperity in the Arab world. If they are wrong, they will be remembered as ideologues who wanted to defeat the forces of evil, but succeeded only in losing Saudi and Gulf Oil — or, in the worst-case scenario, opened a Pandora’s box of global terrorism even worse than bin Laden’s.

How did a 40-chapter U.N. work plan on sustainable development, published in 1992, foster such a fervent backlash among conservative groups? Agenda 21, first revealed at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, aimed to address environmental and development concerns through global partnership initiatives. While the plan covered everything from the sharing of educational resources to strategies for economic and environmental development, conservative groups have focused primarily on its fourth section — titled “the means for implementation” — as revealing Agenda 21’s true and, for them, insidious nature.

While a recent New York Times article described anti-Agenda 21 activism as emerging roughly two years ago, the roots of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory go back at least a decade. As early as 2002 Dr. Stanley Monteith, a Santa Cruz County, Calif., physician, who runs the conservative Christian website Radio Liberty, hosted a series of lectures on the dangers of Agenda 21. An insurance salesperson named  Joan Peros gave a nearly hour-long lecture on the perils of Agenda 21, warning, it “doesn’t matter which party is in power or control … some of our leaders totally understand and embrace the ushering in of a one-world order.”

The paranoia behind such fears was expressed by another guest lecturer on Monteith’s program, Jean Soderman, a self-professed former participant in Local Agenda 21 planning in Santa Cruz. When asked whether Agenda 21 would be worse than what Hitler did, she responded, “Yes. We are controlled by computers now and it has been said … that they have been trying this for two times already … first with Hitler, and it is going to be much, much worse.”

Michael Shaw, also from Santa Cruz and founder of the anti-Agenda 21 website Freedom Advocates, gave a lecture in 2006 at the Eagle Forum Conference in Santa Rosa, titled “Speaking of Agenda 21.” Shaw spoke about the loss of property rights through the ruse of “sustainable development,” and described Agenda 21 as “political globalists … moving toward a form of … state capitalism.  It is an assault on land and that is where we have to stand up and protect our land.”

The anti-Agenda 21 critique entered the conservative mainstream in an October 2009 article in the American Thinker. Scott Strzelcky and Richard Rothschild charged that, through the implementation of “smart growth” initiatives,  Agenda 21 would  force people to relocate into highly urbanized areas — what anti-Agenda 21 activists commonly describe as “stack ‘em and pack ‘em” housing, evoking the image of Soviet-era East Berlin apartments. According to Strzelcky and Rothschild, Agenda 21 will ultimately lead to the demise of the suburban way of life.

Such concerns over the loss of private property rights are not a new phenomenon in the United States. The Wise Use movement in the West of the late 1980s brought together farmers, loggers, industries, religious groups, libertarians and conservatives to oppose the Endangered Species Act and other federal environment laws. According to investigative journalist Jeffery St. Clair, the Wise Use members saw themselves as players in “a high-stakes-chess game” against the environmental movement, whose members were “overtly carrying out a sinister master plan, a vast socialist experiment to depopulate the rural West.” When asked about the evolution of property rights movements, Jeffery St. Clair told me, “in the West, many of the Tea Party activists are the same old Wise Users in new hairstyles.”

But while the Wise Use movement centered around protecting rural and federal lands from perceived government encroachment, anti-Agenda 21 activists are concerned that private property, for them an extension of one’s liberties and freedoms, will cease to exist entirely.

The movement really took off in July 2011 after Glenn Beck devoted a show to those “who had mastered the art of hiding it in plain sight and then dismissing it as a joke.” Beck held up  a copy of United Nations Earth Summit Agenda 21. “Sustainable development is just a really nice way of saying centralized control over all of human life on Planet Earth,” he stated. “Whenever you start unraveling this, it is like an onion … its real intentions are being masked with environmental issues.”

With his patented chalkboard, Beck drew the web of connections that has been fueling Agenda 21 panic ever since: the activities of a group called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, known as  ICLEI — or Local Agenda 21. Started in San Francisco in 1990, ICLEI’s primary goal is to provide consultation, training and information to support sustainable development at the local level.  For Anti-Agenda 21 activists, ICLEI is the real enemy.

As Andrew Cohen wrote in a recent article for the Atlantic:

You would think that the Tea Party, with its disdain for large government, would be delighted with the ICLEI’s emphasis on “locally designed initiatives.” No. To the “Agender” crowd, as they are called, the ICLEI is the local instrument by which the UN forces its “sustainability” agenda upon the U.S.

It’s only within the last few months that the New York Times and the Atlantic have reported on this backlash by anti-Agenda 21 activists against local planning projects. Recently in Florida, a Tea Party group in Citrus County argued against the restriction of boating rights in Kings Bay (designed to protect the Kings Bay manatees). Edna Mattos, the leader of the Citrus County Tea Party Patriots, cited Agenda 21 as being behind this proposed restriction.

At the same time, Agenda 21 has become a talking point for presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich. Speaking in South Carolina on the perils of Agenda 21,  Gingrich decried what he called “taking control of your private property and turning it into a publicly controlled property.” Gingrich has also proposed an executive order “to cease all federal funding of any kind of activity that relates to United Nations Agenda 21.” In addition, bills publicly condemning Agenda 21 have been introduced by Republican state representatives in Tennessee, New Hampshire and Georgia.

Anti-Agenda 21 rhetoric not only plays into fears over the declining suburban lifestyle, but has changed the vocabulary of city planners. Many of the planners that I have spoken with are taking to heart Andrew Whittemon’s recommendations to take the concerns of Agenda 21 more seriously and to speak more clearly.

Whittemon, a professor of planning at the University of Texas, Arlington, said, “Planners can avoid conflict by being explicit about the most direct harms coming to residents and businesses, giving attention to local solutions, and certainly dropping the jargon.”

The impact of the movement is already felt. One city planner I spoke with, who wished to remain anonymous, told me: “The Agenda 21 accusations that we hear in public meetings are the most counterproductive to reaching consensus or middle ground in land use planning. So we are staying away from using words like ‘sustainable development.’”

“We will not allow any political manoeuvring on this issue,” said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Abbas and former chief of negotiations.

Erekat said Abbas had made that plain in discussions with all parties involved over the last three days of meetings in the lead-up to the annual UN global gathering of presidents, heads of state and ruling royalty.

Sarkozy proposed a one-year timetable Wednesday for Israel and the Palestinians to reach a peace accord, part of a concerted push with the United States to steer the Palestinians away from an application for U.N. membership.

Sarkozy spoke shortly after Obama warned against action on the Palestinian bid before there was a peace agreement. He said negotiations, not U.N. declarations, were essential to a lasting peace.

While Obama stopped short of calling directly for the Palestinians to drop their bid for full membership — an effort the U.S. has vowed to veto in the Security Council — Sarkozy sounded a more compromising tone and urged each side, and the international community, to approach the deadlocked process with new ideas and tactics.

“Let us cease our endless debates on the parameters and let us begin negotiations and adopt a precise and ambitious timetable,” Sarkozy told the leaders and officials gathered at the U.N. “Sixty years without moving one centimeter forward, doesn’t that suggest that we should change the method and the scheduling here?”

“Let’s have one month to resume discussions, six months to find agreement on borders and security, one year to reach a definitive agreement,” he said.

A senior European Union official said the proposal laid out by Sarkozy matched one by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton during a meeting with EU foreign ministers on Tuesday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

Abbas’ push for full membership, which he has said would be submitted on Friday, has dominated this year’s U.N. meeting, pushing the U.S. and Israel against a wall of international sympathy for Palestinians. While the full membership bid would meet with a certain U.S. veto in the Security Council, assuming the Palestinians muster enough votes to have it approved, they have succeeded in bringing the issue again to the forefront of the world’s political discussions after years of failed negotiations, bickering and sporadic outbreaks of violence.

Sarkozy said that by setting preconditions, “we doom ourselves to failure. … There must be no preconditions.”

It remained unclear whether the latest proposal would be enough to avert a showdown over statehood that has consumed the U.N. over the past few days and sparked a frenzy of last-minute diplomatic door-knocking by the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as a flurry of discussions between the Quartet of Mideast negotiators — the U.S., the E.U., the U.N. and Russia.

But the proposal outlined by Sarkozy received a warmer welcome from the Palestinians than Obama’s comments.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Abbas aide, told The Associated Press that the Palestinians “appreciate the speech and the positions included in that speech.”

“The Palestinian leadership will study seriously the positions and the ideas in that speech,” he said.

Obama’s remarks, however, drew a lukewarm response, with the Palestinian delegation wearing stern and disapproving looks as the U.S. president spoke.

“Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now,” the president told U.N. delegates. “Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us — who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them.”

Obama showed solidarity with Israel, not mentioning a return to the borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war in which Israel annexed territory. The remarks may rile some in the Arab world where mass uprisings against authoritarian regimes have also sparked a new measure of anti-U.S. sentiment. Obama’s words also stood in stark contrast to the image he left behind when he addressed the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, pledging to improve relations and cooperation.

Senior Palestinian officials said Abbas will reiterate to Obama his decision to move forward with the application for membership that will be submitted to the Security Council. But they also said that the Palestinians seek to cooperate with the U.S. and will be ready to return to the negotiating table once a solid foundation for talks was in place.

Nabil Abu Redeineh said that “peace in the Middle East needs an immediate end of the Israeli occupation” and that the U.S. needs to pressure Israel to immediately withdraw from lands annexed in 1967. The Palestinians are ready to return to talks “the minute Israel accepts” those borders and stops settlement building, he said.

Obama was scheduled to meet later Wednesday with Abbas.

He met earlier in the day with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

With Obama at his side, the Israeli premier said the Palestinian bid to appeal directly to the U.N. was a short cut that “will not succeed.” Netanyahu also lauded Obama for speaking up on principle.

The issue of Palestinian statehood has gained new momentum in the Arab world amid the so-called Arab Spring uprisings that have ousted the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and laid the still rocky foundations for a new era of freedom and democratic nations in a region dominated by dictators, monarchs and other entrenched regimes.

Associated Press writers Mohammed Daraghmeh, Amy Teibel and Julie Pace in New York contributed reporting.

He has spent his entire career trying to avoid Palestinian statehood with delaying tactics and maneuvers — seemingly willing to negotiate everything anywhere, but in reality putting up every obstacle he can in the path of peace and permanent settlement with the Palestinians.

Not that the Palestinians are guiltless in this stand off. They have had offers and opportunities they have not taken. But the entire Middle East is now in a state of flux and transition, and, as a practical matter, to try to keep the Palestinians frozen in their status as an occupied people without political rights is to ask for serious trouble — both for Israel and the U.S. The next Intifada will be far more destructive than the last two.

As a moral matter it is simply time to let the Palestinians have their state just as Harry Truman recognized that the Jews, after all they had been through in Europe in World War II, should have their state in 1948.

Many Israelis understand this. Former Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told The New York Times that “the world is tired of this conflict and angry at us because we are viewed as conquerors, ruling over another people. If I were Bibi Netanyahu I would recognize a Palestinian State. We would then negotiate borders and security.” But Netanyahu comes from the so-called “Revisionist” wing of Zionism that is reluctant to give up any part of what they consider the biblical land of Israel.

When David Ben Gurion on May 14th, 1948, declared that the state of Israel would come into being at midnight, America responded with de-facto recognition almost immediately. But the Soviet Union came through first with de-jure recognition, something the U.S. did not grant until an elected government had been formed in January of 1949.

Even with the two superpowers onboard, the U.N. Security Council did not grant Israel U.N. membership until May 11, 1949 — a full year after the state was declared — and after a long fight to physically secure its borders.

Palestine might come into being in reverse order — declare sovereignty now, gain admittance to the U.N., and then negotiate the borders with Israel, as Ben-Eliezer suggested.

There are many who say there are dangers involved in a Palestinian state, and they are right, just as those in Truman’s State Department, including George C. Marshall, were right in warning that the creation of a Jewish state would cause a sea of troubles.

And there are those who say that the Palestinian problem is exaggerated, that it doesn’t really matter if they remain an occupied people, because giving them their freedom would not solve all the issues of the Middle East or placate Islamic extremists. And they, too, are right. Giving the Palestinians their state would not solve all the issues of the Middle East, but it would surely help. Again and again, year in and year out, the centrality of the Palestinian problem never goes away. Even General David Petraeus, from his command post in Afghanistan, recognized that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians was hurting America’s war efforts as far away as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Richard Perle and David Frum, in their book, “An End to Evil, How to Win the War on Terror,” submit that “in the Arab and Muslim World, the Palestinian issue has never been about compassion, mercy, or even justice. First and always, this issue has been about vengeance…”, i.e., “the destruction of Israel and the re-conquest of the Holy Land.” This might be true of some, but this is akin to saying the Jews in Israel want to take over Jordan just because that was an original “revisionist” goal back in 1947, or because David Ben Gurion once put feelers out to the British and French in 1956 that Jordan should be divided up between Israel and Iraq. Yes, some Arabs still might want to destroy Israel, just as some Israelis want to expel all the Palestinians, but that does not represent the vast majority nor government policy in either Israel or the Arab world.

The Obama administration tried its best to talk the Palestinians out of going to the United Nations to legitimize their state but failed. Given the administration’s record, this failure was entirely predictable. Obama came into office seeming to promise a renewed energy toward trying to solve the Palestinian problem, following President Bush’s near-total support for whatever Israel wanted.

Obama went eyeball to eyeball with Netanyahu over settlements, and the Palestinians saw that Obama blinked first. It was obvious then that Obama might talk a good game, but that the Israeli tail was always going to wag the American dog. The sight of Netanyahu who, having defied and insulted the American president, addressing a joint session of Congress with congressmen and senators of both parties jumping to their feet like jack-in-the-boxes to show their support, was all anyone needed to understand Israel’s power in the American Congress.

The Democratic Party has to be mindful of pro-Zionist political support. But it is in America’s strategic interest, and ultimately in Israel’s interest too, to lance the boil of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

If it was the right thing to do to recognize the state of Israel when it was first born, it is time now to grant the same rights and privileges to the Palestinian people. The Obama administration is always talking about being on the right side of history in the Middle East. The United States could abstain, if it must, but vetoing Palestinian nationalist aspirations would put us on the wrong side of history.

Hours later, Hadzic was brought in for questioning at the war crimes court in the capital Belgrade, a key step toward his extradition to the tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. His lawyer said Hadzic will not appeal the process, paving the way for a quick extradition, possibly within the next few days.

State TV footage showed Hadzic entering the courtroom escorted by guards. He walked slowly, slightly hunched, wearing a gray shirt, short hair and a mustache. His black beard had been shaved.

An unknown figure before the 1991-1995 ethnic war for control of Croatia, Hadzic suddenly rose to prominence through his links to Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic’s secret police. Put in charge of the self-styled Serb ministate in eastern Croatia, he was seen as a pawn of criminal gangs that collaborated heavily with the secret police and made huge profits from smuggled cars, gasoline and cigarettes.

The Hague tribunal indicted him in 2004 on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity including the murder, torture, deportation and forcible transfer of Croats and other non-Serbs from the territories he controlled.

Less than two months after the capture of Bosnian Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic, Serbia’s Western-leaning president announced live on national television that “Serbia has concluded its most difficult chapter in the cooperation with the Hague Tribunal.”

“It was our moral duty,” President Boris Tadic said. “We have done this for the sake of citizens of Serbia, we have done this for the sake of the victims amongst other nations, we have done this for the sake of reconciliation, we have done this for the sake of establishing credibility of all societies, not only Serbian society.”

In his indictment Hadzic is accused of responsibility for the 1991 leveling of Vukovar, said to be the first European city entirely destroyed since World War II.

In one of the worst massacres in the Croatian conflict, Serb forces seized at least 264 non-Serbs from Vukovar Hospital after a three-month siege of the city, took them to a nearby pig farm, tortured, shot and buried them in an unmarked mass grave.

A month before about 20 kilometers (12.43 miles) southwest of Vukovar, about 50 Croats who had been detained for forced labor were made to walk through a minefield to render it safe for the Serbs, according to the indictment.

“Upon reaching the minefield, the detainees were forced to enter the minefield and sweep their feet in front of them to clear the field of mines,” it said.

Hadzic worked with paramilitary forces that became notorious for their brutality, including the “Tigers,” led by Zeljko Raznatovic, known as Arkan. In that same month of October 1991, Arkan’s men captured 28 civilians from a police facility in Dalj, tortured them and threw their bodies in the Danube. Arkan was assassinated in a Belgrade hotel in 2000.

Serge Brammertz, chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal, said the arrests of Mladic and Hadzic “mark a long-awaited step forward in Serbia’s cooperation.”

EU leaders immediately welcomed the arrest and saluted “the determination and commitment” of Tadic’s government.

“This is a further important step for Serbia in realizing its European perspective and equally crucial for international justice,” said a joint statement by EU president Herman Van Rompuy, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barrios and foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

A tribunal statement said Hadzic will be transferred to The Hague as soon as judicial procedures are completed in Serbia. That normally takes several days.

He will then be brought before a judge to hear a reading of the 14 charges against him. He may enter a plea or delay for a month.

Tribunal president O-Gon Kwon said the arrest was a milestone in the history of the court, which has indicted 161 leaders from the former Yugoslavia since it was created in 1993 at the height of the fighting.

The tribunal has been under U.N. pressure to wind up its cases and close its doors.

Serbian security police found out that Hadzic was meeting a money courier and arrested him Wednesday morning outside the village of Krusedol, Serbian war crimes prosecutor Vladimir Vukcevic told reports.

Until this week, Tadic said, Serbian officials did not know where Goran Hadzic was, despite suspicions that he had been sheltered by former allies.

In the past, Hadzic had narrowly escaped arrest, apparently due to tips from within the Serbian security authorities. Serbia’s post-war authorities have for years faced accusations that they are not doing enough to hunt down the war crimes suspects.

Serbia, widely viewed as the main culprit for the wars in the Balkans, has been working to reintegrate into the international community following years of sanctions and pariah status in the 1990s.

Milosevic was extradited to the Hague tribunal in 2001 and died there in 2006, while on trial for genocide.

Along with Mladic, Serbia has also arrested war crimes fugitives Radovan Karadzic. Both are currently facing war crimes charges in the Hague.

Dusan Stojanovic and Slobodan Lekic contributed.