download the entire text (PDF, 7 pages, 0.46MB)

One of the paradoxes of this great Serbian summer becomes obvious when you consider the following: the more the ever-wakeful keepers of order (and the order of hierarchy) boast about how much effort has been invested in the energetic fight against various mafias, the more there are politicians who require their special kind of protection. Not only the President of the Republic but a dozen more state functionaries, and opposition politicians are under special 24 hour police protection (surveillance). It would, however, be wrong to only focus on that growing tide of violence which is, truth be told, becoming more and more prominent. It would be very wrong to only fight against this type of violence. The main cause of politicians being endangered is the decline of moral values in the last twenty years. In other words, this is about the expansion of the post-conflict (post-war) moral syndrome which contains all of those founding principles that Serbian politics defined in the nineties - the silent giving of amnesty to violence.
In the nineties this violence expressed itself brutally through persecution of Albanians and then Muslims. After the Dayton Peace Accords and, especially, after the NATO intervention it was suppressed within the borders of Serbia, then it “moved” to Vojvodina where atrocities against minorities (Roma people) suddenly multiplied. The police and the justice system did not adequately respond to this, the issue was put on the agenda only after the European Parliament’s energetic warning, and even then it was only to put the matter ad acta as soon as possible, arguing that these were only sporadic incidents. Violence expanded unrestrained to the streets, and once on the streets it didn’t need a nationalist alibi. Aggression had become a widely accepted canon. If a young man who had been accused in the USA of aggravated assault and then smuggled out of the country by the state of Serbia, that is consular employees, to Serbia where this violent man is then met and greeted as a hero by an influential Parliamentary party in the building of the Parliament – then we should not be shocked that we have hooligans and other lowlifes of the streets. The scandal over drug lord Darko Saric didn’t start yesterday either but when the Parliament approved a privatization law which did not care much about the origin of money. The oligarchs acquired huge assets through the use of money of unknown origin, all thanks to a decision reached too easily and according to which – there is no such thing as bad money. Patriotism too is about hypocrisy: it started out with big words and warrior slogans and ended up with off shore companies. The oligarchs avoided paying taxes by swearing patriotic oaths.
This story was analyzed by Srdja Popovic in his latest book which was published recently by Pescanik. The book, titled Those Bitter Tears After, contains a collection of Popovic’s notes made after 2000. This is a harsh book about the loss of hope after the changes of the 5th of October, a book that warns that we haven’t learned anything from the cautionary examples of the nineties.  Popovic is one of the few lawyers who did not sell out to the authorities – he did not sell his professional knowledge. This is no small thing, especially not these days, when there are many of those who as “independents” roam around or strut in their “glow” of authority, when around every corner there is a politician educated in law, an advisor-analyst, who craves a University teaching position.
Popovic’s book uncovers many issues, including that, for example, the name of the war that broke apart former Yugoslavia is questionable. Namely, in the beginning the foreign press wrote of a civil war and this classification was then taken over by the Western European politicians. I accept this terminology because in the beginning it did seem that way but later on it slowly became known that this long war had, however, many characteristics of a civil war but was at the same time without a doubt an ethnic war.
With his sharp logic of a lawyer Srdja Popovic cleared up this chaotic terminology. He thinks that by accepting the Constitution of September 28th, 1990, Serbia parted from the Yugoslav federation and became an independent state. From that moment on it is only possible to talk about wars between states and not civil war; which is to say without a doubt that Serbia attacked its neighboring countries. According to the mentioned Constitution Serbia considered federal laws binding only if they were not in conflict with its interests. Article 72 of the Constitution unambiguously states that Serbia is a sovereign and independent state which has appropriated the powers that belonged to the federation. Truth be told, Yugoslavia had a role in the Constitution – but how can one sovereign and independent state (Serbia) be subordinate to another sovereign and independent state (Yugoslavia)?
These ideas of Srdja Popovic had, at the time of their publication, provoked harsh discussions, which had however died down quickly and today no one thinks about them any more. Even though they make a very important point about how events regarding Yugoslavia should be judged, considering that the Serbian Constitution had come to power a little less than a year before Croatia’s, and Slovenia’s, separation from Yugoslavia. It is no wonder then that in July 1991 in the so called Yugoslav Presidency after Croatia had voted in the new Constitution, Stjepan Mesic defended this act by saying that Croatia had simply copied Serbia’s constitutional model.
Croatia had just followed Serbia’s example in leaving the federation. In this book Srdja Popovic, aside from the circumstances of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and the issue of Kosovo, tries to clear up and bring to light the political background of Prime Minister Djindjic’s assassination, which is still under a veil of mystery. Popovic – even though he highly respected Djindjic’s politics – contests the doctrine of the October changes. In his opinion Milosevic wasn’t brought down by the people, or opposition politicians, but by Serbian tycoons, the secret police and military. All of these forces were sincerely afraid that the growing dissatisfaction in the country would culminate in a peoples’ uprising which would take Milosevic out of the picture, but them as well with him. This is why they reached the conclusion that it is necessary to think about preventive measures. They opted for a “revolution”, judging that governing should be given to the opposition. These were then the real forces which Djindjic faced.
And they gave their response. What followed was the so called strike of the “red berets” which Srdja Popovic qualifies as an armed revolt. Djindjic’s government didn’t even have a minimal chance of breaking this revolt since then President of Yugoslavia, Vojislav Kostunica, as commander of the armed forces, sided with the “red berets” thus forcing Djindjic to make a series of compromises. The armed revolt of the “red berets” was followed by the assassination of the Prime Minister.
So, this is no ordinary mafia confrontation but a political murder the roots of which are in the nineties. The nineties are still a puss filled ulcer in our recent history. How right Srdja Popovic is, is becoming evident these days when the dailies and weelkly magazines are publishing more and more new details about the political background of Djindjic’s murder. Two members of the “Zemun mafia”, Milos Simovic and Sretko Kalinic fell into the hands of the police (due to a confrontation between the two). The Special Prosecutor for Organized Crime, Miljko Radosavljevic, questioned Simovic and from his statements it seems that the “Zemun mafia” was in continuous contact with general Aca Tomic, the director of the military security department (directly subordinate to then head of state, Vojislav Kostunica) and with Vojislav Seselj, the leader of the Radical Party who is currently in the Scheveningen jail.
The prosecution has promised to start an inquiry based on the new information. According to Popovic it is the prosecutor’s task to find out what role Aca Tomic had played, but also that he cannot be considered to be someone who is outside of politics. Some members of Parliament are suggesting a Parliamentary committee be formed. Good morning prosecution office (meaning: you have finally come to your senses) – this is what Rajko Danilovic, Djindjic’s family attorney, has to say. Members of Parliament, celebrities, are all becoming more vocal in demanding that Vojislav Kostunica address the pubic and say why they swept this sensitive information under the carpet. Dusan Mihajlovic, the Minister of Internal Affairs in Djindjic’s government, wrote that the Prime Minister himself admitted that he was forced to make a deal with the devil. He says that: “from a classical pragmatist and a Western type politician, Djindjic became a statesman with a vision, nationally conscious and responsible”. This change disappointed some of those who supported him till then. The one time Minister of Internal Affairs very vaguely points toward the archives of foreign security services as the place where documents could be found which would shed light on the murder of the Prime Minister. In an interview for the Belgrade daily Blic he added, somewhat ambiguously, that Serbs have frequently been “a rock in someone else’s hand”.
More and more it is becoming evident that current scandals are mostly connected to the nineties, which means that to this day this relatively recent past has not be explained, it keeps coming back, interfering with our lives and, what’s more, it influences our future. After 2000 many people had the wrong impression that we shouldn’t deal with the past, that we should just keep looking forward, that faith in the future and a vision of the future are more important than everything else. Ten years later it is definitely obvious that this is impossible. The “preventive revolution” cannot be bypassed by “preventive amnesia”.
The past will not let us be - it is most present regarding the issue of Kosovo. Serbian politicians are currently awaiting the International Tribunal for Justice’s decision with optimism. Regarding the issue of Kosovo’s proclaimed independence they are deeply convinced that the Tribunal will rule in Serbia’s favor. The decision will be made public around July 22nd. Even Vuk Jeremic, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is certain that the ruling will be beneficial for Serbia. He is already cautioning our neighboring countries to restrain themselves during the United Nations assembly meeting when Serbia will request that new negotiations on Kosovo be started. The Serbian press has published Tibor Varadij’s, an international law expert, statement that he expects that the majority (meaning eight of the fifteen judges) will decide in Serbia’s favor, but that some judges will have differing opinions.
At the same time as this story is going on, there is another piece of dreary information making its way around the media, according to which in case of a negative decision by the Tribunal, Serbia would be prepared to accept a division of Kosovo. Citing well informed sources, the Belgrade daily Blic writes that Serbia will write its suggestion for a new resolution on Kosovo (at the September meeting of the General Assembly of the UN) precisely with this in mind. The Belgrade weekly NIN however reminds us that dividing Kosovo was an idea of writer Dobrica Cosic, the father of the Serbian national idea. While on an international level the same idea was conceived in 1993 by the Italian Limes Institute. At that time the Serbian public didn’t want to hear of it. Zoran Djindic also had a tendency to consider this idea – says Miroljub Labus, former vice-president of the government. But the Western powers were not prepared to discuss it. Labus later suggested the Dayton model, but that did not meet with the West’s approval. And not only the West – this idea was shunned by the Serbian public, Serbian politicians, even though they would happily welcome it today. Labus also noticed that, unfortunately, Serbia’s position in the negotiations is by far worse than it was in the early 2000s.

Translation: Nina Djurdjevic Filipovic