The Defeat And The Anesthetic

The leader of Krajina Serbs, Milan Babic, was considerably more severe in his negotiations with Marrack Goulding than Hadzic, the leader of Serbs from Western Slavonia. Although he understood the arrival of the representatives of the United Nations before the meeting, as a sign of respect of his authority and the political sovereignty of the Krajina government, during the break of the meeting he summoned his government which supported his stand against the demilitarization of Krajina and against its continued existence within the independent Croatia.

The federal leadership and Milosevic counted on Babic's fascination with Goulding and thought that he would be talked into accepting the deal. Borisav Jovic, a Federal Presidency member, sent a message from New York saying that he is hoping the Krajina leadership has overcome its reservations concerning the arrival of "the blue helmets".

Babic, who enjoys the support of the Serbian Orthodox Church and of the Democratic Party in Serbia, is trying to keep the arms and intends to hold a plebiscite where the Serbs from Krajina would exercise their right to self-determination, which in effect means they would separate from Croatia and become a part of Milosevic's Yugoslavia or some kind of federation of the Serbian states. The law on self-determination is hastily being prepared by the federal government and it is expected to be adopted on February 15. By ostracizing Babic, Milosevic's regime is making it clear that it has not given up on Krajina. Radoman Bozovic, the new Serbian prime minister, said that he fears the Croatian attack on Krajina would only mean further bloodshed. This is the answer to certain Croatian politicians who claim that Croatia is trying to regain its territories, controlled by the Serbs, but it is also a clear message of support to the Krajina Serbs.

Milosevic's regime is obviously thinking along these lines: if Yugoslavia is at all possible, we are all for it, if not, then we are for any kind of association of Serbian states; if even that is impossible, than at least we'll have Serbia.

In this sensitive issue for Serbs, it is unlikely that Babic will still be the one to determine the direction of the Serbian politics. That is probably being determined in New York. Serbia will, just like in the last war, once again be listening to Radio-London.

The polemics concerning the meeting between Milan Babic (the president of Krajina) and Radovan Karadzic (the leader of Bosnian Serbs) with professor Dragoljub Micunovic (the president of the Serbian Democratic Party) is still going on. It primarily concerns the announced tighter cooperation with the Serbian Democratic Party from Knin, the foundation of which was helped by the Democratic Party in Serbia. Milosevic later used Babic's coup as an excuse to take over this organization.

Micunovic demanded that after the arrival of "the blue helmets" the negotiations should be started whereby the Krajina Serbs would decide on their future state; he also demanded that, under the protection of the United Nations the peace conference should be organized which would deal with the Serbian question in B&H and Krajina.

The liberal Belgrade, especially the peacemakers, are angered at Micunovic's support of Babic and his understanding for the refusal of Babic to give up arms. Micunovic answered these allegations in "Borba" last week, claiming that his party is not for war, hat it did not have nationalist pretensions and that it had no need to compete with Milosevic's nationalism.

This standpoint will affect the interests of the Serbian Revival Party, but it could also hinder the attempt of the Democrats to forge closer links with the Reformist Party, for example. The cooperation between these two parties could be expressed in the institutional form, while the MP Reformists' Club could join the Democrats' Club at the Serbian Parliament.

Micunovic said at the press conference on January 29 that his party will not support the civilian referendum in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although it supported the idea of a civilian referendum before the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Although the citizens' referendum was not accepted on the Yugoslav level, since only the national referendums were carried out, Micunovic thinks that it is absurd to hold such a referendum in Bosnia, which is on the verge of the inter-national war.

Micunovic thinks that Milosevic's approach to Babic and Karadzic was wrong and that the discussion on a certain document does not automatically mean that the peace is threatened.

This conflict, however, can not be seen as a misunderstanding, but it more probably reflects a turning point in the Serbian political life. The fact that the Democratic Party, which did not constitute itself as a party of civilian centre, has on several occasions pointed out that it is a national party, could be reflecting the changes within the influential national institutions - at the Serbian Academy of Science and the Serbian Orthodox Church,

in which the tendency towards the creation of the national state predominates, while Milosevic is still trying to preserve a Yugoslavia of sorts.

Vojislav Kostunica has, on behalf of the Democratic Party, placed a request that the elections should be held in Serbia for the foundation of the Constitutional Parliament, which would define the sovereignty of this republic. The Democrats think that other states which would be formed in a peaceful way, with the use of the plebiscite, should be enabled to unite with Serbia.

Milosevic's defeat has in effect reflected the weaknesses of the starting political document in Serbia, which is thought to refer to the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dusan Kanazir, the Academy president, has announced that this institution will soon hold a meeting on the theme "Serbia today and tomorrow". That could mean that the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences may try to draw up another document allied to the national programme, which would replace the 1986 Memorandum. Some of the speakers said that the Serbian concept of federation is no longer possible, that Yugoslavia can not be restored and that all Serbian states should be united now. Some of them were also saying that Serbia has lost its diplomatic battle, because of the fact that the European Community "has overstepped its authority" and has "pursued the diplomacy of colonialism" and that Yugoslavia is "the victim of colonialist forces" and that because "even the freemasons are against it", Serbia was totally isolated in the Hague, while Germany contributed the most to the general chaos.

Milivoj Draskovic, an academician, however, has not agreed with the assertion that Yugoslavia has been destroyed by Europe, but that the republics are to blame instead. He asserted that the Serbian quest for federation was unrealistic and stressed that such a model has for a long time been ignored in the world.

Milosevic has thus been exposed to criticism which stresses that Serbia tends to lose at the green table what it won in the war. Dragoljub Micunovic says that Milosevic should not have given over the entire Yugoslav sovereignty to the international institutions and international organizations, especially not to Europe, where he no longer has any credibility. He is constantly repeating that the ruling party is trying to make its defeat look like a victory and that "they have been giving us anesthetic, hoping we won't notice they are pulling out our teeth". Milosevic did not lose in the Hague, but in the war which has been widely condemned. Referring to the territory, like the majority of Serbs today, Seselj is the only one who publicly claims that Milosevic has actually won the war. Such territorial pretensions, however, have claimed the lives of thousands of people, with the dramatic deterioration of the international standing of Serbia. There are 160 000 "protected" refugees in Serbia, the extent of the casualties is as yet unknown (some say it is as big as 20 000), the number of the injured is much greater.

Milosevic's constitution defines Serbia as a state of citizens and not as a national state, but the entire political life in Serbia has been politically coloured. Serbia did not get the political force which would reduce the nationalist tensions by forming a state of citizens with equal rights.

Milan Zivotic, one of the "Belgrade circle" intellectuals, announced last week that this group will try and write the "anti-memorandum chart", the political document which would primarily be based on civil rights and liberties and would only in the second instance be referring to the national interest. "The civil rights should be instrumental in the struggle for the equality of the people", says Zivotic. "The Memorandum is primarily interested in the national equality of the Serbian people, and its talk of democracy served only as an embellishment". The main postulate is the interest of the Serbian people - it is followed by nationalism and the firm link between that fraction of the Serbian intellectuals with the regime which led to isolation and war".