No New Yalta

We asked Djilas to tell us if he thought that the latest round of "Bosnian-linked activities" would have a more positive outcome than has been the case so far, and what consequences it would have for Muslims, Croats and Serbs, and in a broader context, for the Yugoslav drama.

Djilas says he is a Yugoslav, and that he belongs to that group of intellectuals whose stands on the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the civil war and the national question, differ greatly from those generally held. Djilas believes that Yugoslavia does have a future. When peace is set up, Yugoslavia's cultural and economic structures will be re-established, even though this will not be the case with Yugoslavia as a state.

VREME: Many view the Muslim-Croatian agreement on a federation, i.e., on a Croatian-Bosnian confederation, as a "shotgun wedding", made with the help of America. There are different interpretations of it on the international scene, and between the conflicting sides. Some think that this agreement won't last long, while others believe it has a more certain future. How do you view this agreement?

DJILAS: From the American point of view, this agreement means that US involvement in the area will be greater. I think that after this move, the Administration will find it very difficult to withdraw from the Bosnian and Yugoslav crises. The agreement is the result of direct US initiative and pressure on the protagonists, so that it would be very embarrassing if it fell through quickly. I believe that the US will have to invest great efforts to keep it afloat, even as an illusion.

This agreement can help bring an end to Muslim-Croat combat activities, and that is important. Pressures and threats can prevent clashes, but they cannot create a community. That is the idea behind the "shotgun wedding" being mentioned, and I agree with it. I don't believe that such a Muslim-Croat community can survive. First, speaking of confederations, they practically don't exist in the world today. Switzerland is only called one, but isn't one really. A confederation implies that the states involved are at least on friendly terms. I don't know of two hostile countries which have united. The Muslim and Croatian parts of Bosnia are separate states in a way, states which are at war. I find it very difficult to imagine that they could now have a single army, under one commander.

What will happen? I think that a period of political scheming and maneuvering awaits us. If we look at the disintegration of Yugoslavia and at Eastern Europe, we can see a common characteristic. None of the national ideologies - in Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, or the Czech Republic, none of them nurture the federal idea. They all view their states as centralized, and play tactical games with the federal principle. When Slovenes and Croats wanted independence, they talked about federalism. When a federal state existed, they wanted to secede, and spoke of a confederation. Serbia, which felt itself to be stronger, leaned towards a centralized state.

I assume that this will be repeated in a similar way in the case of the Muslim-Croatian, i.e., the Croatian-Bosnian confederation. Muslims in Bosnia will strive to turn an eventual federation into a centralized state, while Bosnian Croats will try to make a confederation out of it. Within the Croatian-Bosnian confederation, the Muslims will insist on a confederation, while the Croats will do their best to turn it into a federation with Croatia. He who is in the minority will try to get further away, while those in the majority will try to get closer, in order to achieve a hegemony over the first. This is part of national ideologies, and not something linked exclusively to political programs of this or that party or their leaders. This is a deeply rooted way of looking at things from the political point of view here.

How do you see the Serbs' position, considering that Serb options have only been indicated at - they are offered the option of entering a federation. Do Serbs have reason to mistrust this agreement?

If we look at this agreement as some sort of pressure on the Serbs, then it is not without certain effect. It is a fact that the Muslim-Croat conflict is abating and strengthening their position as regards Serbs. It wouldn't be improbable to find them uniting against the Serbs again. That would make for very efficient pressure against the Serbs, forcing them to make concessions. It is clear that the Bosnian question cannot be resolved without Serbs, and it depends on what territory this Muslim-Croatian federation will seek. Otherwise, I support the creation of a Muslim state in Bosnia.

That means you have abandoned the idea of a single Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Yes. I used to support a single Bosnia, while there was still some chance for it, and that was until mid summer 1992. After that the civil war flared up to such a degree that it became clear that a single Bosnia was impossible and that a division was inevitable. This, of course, is not a good solution, but I didn't see another, and still don't.

Bosnia's unity could have been saved only by numerous United Nations troops, had they been sent to Bosnia as soon as the conflict broke out. However, nobody in the West was prepared to make such a sacrifice. I supported a single Bosnia, i.e,. I was opposed to Serbs and Croats breaking away from it, just as I earlier opposed Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia. In short, I have always thought that there should be as little partitioning in the Balkans as possible, not just because I was a Yugoslav by conviction, but because I believe that mixed communities are better for the development of culture and democracy and progress as a whole, and that secession as such can lead to civil war.

When I realized that Bosnia would not be able to hold out any more, then I supported a just division. What does a just division mean? As far as I am concerned, it means that the Muslims should get sufficient territory with which they can survive economically and culturally, because the Serbs and Croats have taken more than belongs to them. I believe that the Muslims should get a third of central Bosnia and Sarajevo as the capital, and the right to an outlet to the sea and the Sava River and partly to the Drina River.

Aren't those the controversial points which have caused the failure of all peace negotiations so far?

The matter concerns the following: in these areas nations feel protected only within the framework of their particular states. That is the main reason why they want to create them. I, personally, support a civic state, but it is a fact that here, and in the whole of Eastern Europe, the model of a national state predominates. If the Muslims don't get their state, they will be the only ethnic group without any protection, and the Serbs and Croats will always be trying to divide them. If we agree that the Muslims must have their state, then it must be made in such a way that it can survive.

Nationalism is the strongest ideology here and in Eastern Europe, dating back to the mid 19th century. It was stronger than liberalism, conservatism and even socialism. Stronger in fact, than all these "isms" put together. I still believe that there was a good solution for the national question. It was a federal Yugoslavia. In it all the nations fulfilled their cultural and linguistic needs and had a feeling of security. There were no reasons to break up such a state. It disintegrated because of irrational ideological nationalism. All the solutions which followed were not good ones. Every one of them has had serious shortcomings, and we are now in a situation where we have to choose the least detrimental one. That is why I say that the creation of a Muslim state is the least harmful solution, since the destruction of Muslims would be a catastrophe, as would be the creation of groups which would gravitate towards Islamic fundamentalism and be aided by radical Islamic countries.

Will Washington's latest move widen the gap between the United States and the European Union, considering that America has taken over control of the negotiating process from European and Russian hands?

I don't believe in big confrontations, either between the US and Europe, or between Russia and America, since I believe that it is in their interests to cooperate. Naturally, this does not mean that there will be perfect harmony. There will be much rivalry and misunderstanding, but it won't grow into a bigger confrontation. It is interesting that America's initiative has revitalized NATO on the one hand, and created something of a gap with Europe on the other, by rejecting Europe's peace plan. But if you look at things from a long term angle - it would be illogical for the US to strengthen NATO and at the same time sour its relations with Europe. The Americans will not try to present this move as if they have taken over the leading role in the Bosnian crisis, but in the sense that they have made a move and that life goes on. Their attitude is: if you have any better ideas, we are prepared to listen and accept them. You can see that Western European countries have already agreed to the initiative for the sending of additional troops to Bosnia, while until only recently they thought of withdrawing them.

To all appearances, the Serbs seem to have been assigned to Russia. There are many who interpret this with the American-Russian division of roles and the setting up of spheres of interest. There is talk of a new Yalta.

I think that that is an exaggeration. The Cold War will not return. The prevailing belief among leading American politicians is that it is necessary to cooperate with the Russians, and not seek confrontation. The recent affair over Russian spies in the US, has shown that neither side has any interest in exacerbating relations, or in creating a scandal. Just imagine what it would have been like 5-6 years ago.

You used to believe that the creation of a Greater Serbia and a Greater Croatia was not possible, and that democratic forces in Serbia and Croatia would restrain such ambitions. In a way, events of the last three years have proved you wrong.

I still don't see that a Greater Serbia has been created. I don't see that Serbs have consolidated their control over Kosovo, nor that they have taken over parts of Macedonia as planned, and I don't see that they are particularly united with Montenegro...