Karadzic fingered at last…

…but what about those who left him to it?

[This article is cross-posted here, here and here]

By Daniel Simpson

I never met Radovan Karadzic, though like many in the Balkans, I did once pretend to try and find him.

His trademark bouffant vanished long before I first set foot in Bosnia, a decade too late to see Serbs douse Sarajevo with anti-aircraft cannon, if not the “armed trees” of Dr Karadzic’s warped poetic prophecy.

A psychiatrist, his delusions started early. Born in a Montenegrin stable, as World War II spawned Socialist Yugoslavia, his role model wasn’t just his father Vuk, a Serbian militiaman who fought both the Nazis and the Partisan resistance. In time, he grew to see himself as heir to a far more celebrated Vuk Karadzic: the poet, folklorist and father of Serbian orthography.

By the outbreak of war in 1992, this linguist namesake’s spirit had long since possessed Dr Karadzic, who was lured into politics in the 1960s by an infamous nationalist writer. Visitors to his mountain redoubt were regaled with folk tales of Serbian suffering, as well as claims that Bosnia’s Muslims were slaughtering themselves, or fleeing their homes in gratitude to join ethnic kin elsewhere. Some were even treated to his singing. From a lopsided gawp, the Bosnian Serb leader would wail about his people’s historical woes, mawkish epics backed by a single-stringed lyre called a gusle, the traditional grating accompaniment to Balkan laments.

The peasants these anthems eulogised were all that remained when I arrived. And they weren’t about to betray their hero to prying outsiders, even for a $5 million bounty. For years, Dr Karadzic had roamed the wilds of Serb-run eastern Bosnia, unhindered by thousands of NATO soldiers who’d been sent to police the peace. He’d disguised himself as a priest, some said, shorn of his grey shock and sporting a beard. Others reported “sightings” worthy of Elvis: in cafés, at funerals, and even poetry readings. But if they’d phoned them in to NATO, the response had never been swift enough to threaten capture. Rewards seemed no match for the smuggled loot that bought Europe’s most notorious fugitive freedom to do as he pleased.

Or did it?

In Search Of The Flux Capacitor

Electric cars go back to the future

“The way I see it, if you’re gonna build a time machine
into a car, why not do it with some style?”

- Doc Brown (inventor), 1985

[For a slideshow presentation, click here]

By Daniel Simpson

LONDON, 14 July – Once upon a time, most electric vehicles were milk floats or golf carts and the future was a coffin called the Sinclair C5. It all looked so much brighter 100 years ago.

Back at the dawn of motoring, before cheap oil from Texas and Henry Ford’s production lines, half the cars in America were electric. There was no need to wrestle with hand cranks or gear sticks and nowhere much to drive except round town. By the turn of the 20th century, New York taxis were powered by batteries, which weighed in at more than half a tonne and had to be swapped using hydraulic lifts. Then along came automatic starters, and suburbia and interstate highways. Unfettered by limits on range, and turbo-charged by plummeting prices, internal combustion engines won. Nothing much would change for generations; until now.

Having recently killed the electric car, General Motors could yet become its saviour. Its “new” kind of hybrid, called the Volt, revives an old design by Ferdinand Porsche: a petrol-driven generator that keeps the battery charged for longer trips. For wealthier drivers, the loser of a long-forgotten “battle of the currents” is reincarnate in a roadster that burns off Ferraris. Named after the marginalised genius Nikola Tesla, and powered by a polyphase induction motor that Tesla pioneered, this Lotus knockoff packed with laptop batteries redefines what electric cars can do, travelling 200-plus miles on a single charge. But a price tag just shy of six figures means it won’t change the mass market yet. Absent cheaper, lighter and more powerful battery packs, the only affordable options have been bug-like, low-range and slower than buses, though they’re nippy enough to whirr past cyclists at the lights.

The next few years could change everything, however. Britain’s prime minister says he wants to see the back of pure-petroleum models by 2020, with government incentives to support a switchover. The newest of the pure electric models are getting faster and going further, with 100 mile ranges on the horizon, at less outlandish prices. While some expect battery capacity to double in the coming decade, the weight of cells could also halve, making high-end performance more affordable. The soaring price of oil is focusing minds, both on its scarcity and environmental impact, and above all on the cost of filling a tank. After decades of dependence on this concentrated and user-friendly fuel, Europe’s biggest carmakers now say the future is electric, and their Japanese counterparts agree, as increasingly do die-hards in Detroit. Like GM, the highest profile convert in America, they’re mostly planning hybrids that can plug into the regular mains, but still hold range-extending tanks of liquid fuel.

For now, that’s the variant that drivers seem likeliest to buy, apart from those who run multiple vehicles. Who would trade in the family saloon for a two-seater smaller than a Smart, but which still costs more than a regular hatchback, let alone a £130,000 sports car, like the soon-to-be-produced electric Lightning, or its marginally cheaper Tesla rival? Even plug-ins like the Volt, which GM plans to unveil at its centenary in September, are being touted at over $40,000, which would probably mean making them at a loss. To some, they’re the worst of all worlds: substandard electric cars that still burn fossil fuels. To others, they’re a step in the right direction, cutting emissions and running costs, and developing the infrastructure needed for wholesale electrification, from charging points and (ideally renewable) power sources to subsidies and financing models that offset the higher up-front prices for battery vehicles.

Though less encumbered these days by the “burden of history”, to cite the title of an academic survey of Big Oil and big automakers and their coinciding interest, the “better battery bugaboo” still stalks the industry. Whatever the reality, success is always perceived to be “just around the corner”, says the author of this study, David Kirsch, and claims of breakthroughs should be scrutinised sceptically. That said, radical changes seem to have started, in the minds of consumers as much as elsewhere. Their readiness to go electric, even with the existing limitations, is harder than ever to predict, as is the staying power of hybrids in the longer term. It’s also far from clear who’ll profit. Investment is pouring into drive-train and battery development, but many carmakers feel hamstrung by lack of funds. There are also potential bottlenecks in supplies of parts and raw materials, were production to ramp up significantly. Now that the big manufacturers are getting serious about plug-in hybrids, and the pure electric future they seem to presage, can startups realistically compete?

“That’s the $64,000 question,” says Martin Eberhard, who founded Tesla Motors, but was forced out in a bust-up with its principal backer, the Silicon Valley financier Elon Musk. “The public’s position on cars is right now in flux, and it will be in flux for the next five or ten years,” Eberhard says. “Five years ago the guy who drove a Prius was a weirdo; today that’s very mainstream and the guy who has the SUV is wondering how the hell he’s going to unload it.” None of this guarantees a rosy future for anyone, however. Forget the forecasts of bankruptcy at General Motors, which is offloading Hummers and anything else it can flog. The same fate could befall the industry’s new darlings, or up and coming wannabes, like the Norwegian-based Th!nk, which started life as an offshoot of Ford and now boasts a Porsche-designed prototype called an Ox. “Th!nk is, of course, like Tesla, a fledgling company and the viability of both is certainly questionable,” Eberhard warns. “There’s lots of opportunities to screw up, and I’ve seen both companies screw up a few times already.”