Buse Of Desperation

The current frequent mentioning of the so-called Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences (SANU) of 1986 is probably not accidental. Maybe this phantom document is to be used for some currently unknown political purposes; maybe to shift the responsibility for the war and nationalistic deviations from the politicians to the Serbian intelligentsia. This is why one can understand the Academy's wish to publish a critical edition of the incomplete, never discussed and never adopted draft Memorandum and end the mystifications and abuses of it, used for years now as crown evidence against Serbian intellectuals. When the draft is published and when it is proven that the whole Academy is not standing behind it, since its members have never discussed or declared themselves for or against it, when it is proven that the paper is a rough draft of its revisors, one will be able to clearly see who worked on the Draft and what his contributions were: in what historical conditions the document was drafted and for what purpose; who made what contribution; who proposed what. The most important thing that will be seen is: who had profited the most from the theft of the incomplete document and its unauthorised publication. The assessments the topmost party and state leaders in Serbia gave of the Memorandum in 1986 will best prove whom the Memorandum scandal had suited then and whom it suits now. A proper and complete critical edition will help expose all those who turned this incomplete and, in essence, desperate document into a diabolical Protocol of the Serbian wise men of Zion.

It is for these reasons that I suggested in late 1989 and early 1990 that the Academy immediately start work on a new public document on the position and future of the Serbian people and Serbia in the Yugoslav community and European civilisation. I proposed that at the moment of Yugoslavia's disintegration, the Academy offer its people a way out of the difficult situation and discuss the following issues: doing away with Bolshevist remnants and the one-party government system; Serbia's policy on Yugoslavia and Europe; the rule of law, individual and civic freedoms and parliamentary democracy; the introduction of full national and religious equality and spiritual tolerance of those thinking differently; greater private initiative; the protection of national and material culture, language and historical tradition.

Academician Ljubisa Rakic simultaneously proposed his project ``Serbia and the Serbian people at the end of the XX century and the beginning of the third millennium.'' In February of 1990, the SANU Presidency named the members of the Committee for the ``Project on the position and future of the Serbian People and Serbia in the Yugoslav community and European civilisation.'' The committee was made up of 25 SANU members from all departments and some members of the Presidency also took part in its work. The Committee began work in April 1990, met a few times and heard a number of extremely serious reports. To my judgment, their scientific and critical foundations were more comprehensive and complete than some parts of the incomplete draft Memorandum of 1986, particularly reports regarding the stand of the then (and present) Serbian authorities on the crisis of the Yugoslav state. The Committee's work was unexpectedly interrupted in late May 1990 without any explanation. The Committee has not met since, although it has not been formally disbanded.

Recently, however, papers have carried Tanjug's report that a newly-founded SANU Board (for national issues) was drafting a new Memorandum. If the report is true, it means that in the same Academy, one board is writing Memorandum II, while another committee (for the critical edition) is at the same time gathering and publishing evidence that the former Memorandum I actually never existed except for abuse, since it has de facto never been completed nor has it de iure been adopted by the Academy's fora and its members. The SANU Language and Literature Department has voiced a number of criticisms of the proposal to set up the Board for national issues, which had been forwarded by someone outside the Academy, but the criticism of the aims and name of the Board were not adopted. The Board's initial targets had not anticipated the creation of a national programme nor had Memorandum II been mentioned anywhere. Someone had remembered to include that later (?). Since the work of no SANU board is and cannot be more important than the stands and orientation of the whole Academy, its members can soon be expected to begin talks on all open questions in order to preserve the dignity and reputation of SANU and its members.