Maastricht and Sarajevo - Symbols of Europe

VREME: Since you became the UN special envoy for human rights issues in former Yugoslavia in 1992, the majority of your reports were treated with hostility by the authorities in Serbia, who accused you of anti-Serbian bias. How do you see these accusations?

In the current situation, all parties in the conflict would like to read negative reports about their opponents, but are unwilling to accept criticisms regarding their own conduct. It is also important to note that not all sides react to criticisms in the same way, and that the reaction of the Serbian side is usually the stormiest.

I could not ignore the fact that the whole ideology and practice of ethnic cleansing originated from the Serbian side. I did warn that it is likely to overflow on to other warring factions, and would be adopted by all. The most drastic example of this was the conflict in Mostar between Croats and Muslims. However, most ethnic cleansing came from the Serbian side: they started it and continue to pursue it. At the moment the worst cleansing is taking place in Banja Luka. I could not keep quiet about all this. I could not and will not.

The way in which you compile your reports is largely unknown. How do you gather your data?

My reports are always based on facts confirmed by several sources. I have permanent associates in Zagreb, Sarajevo, Skoplje and soon new ones will be appointed in Mostar. I wanted to appoint some in Belgrade, but the Serbian authorities did not agree.

First of all, my associates collect the data from various objective sources and witnesses. Secondly, during every investigation, I personally meet the people involved and talk to them. Finally, all kinds of UN bodies, EU monitors and other international organizations also provide useful information.

Information about the situation in the FRY mainly comes from non-governmental organizations as well as the representatives of the Albanian minority in Kosovo, and Muslim and Hungarian communities from Sandzak and Vojvodina, respectively. Draft copies of my reports are sent to governments of countries involved so that they can suggest possible amendments which, if documented and confirmed, are incorporated in the final version of the report. Unfortunately the Yugoslav government's amendments are usually of propagandist nature.

Your relationship with the Yugoslav authorities is not very good, you have not visited this country for over two years. Why is that?

On several occasions my researchers were allowed to enter Yugoslavia, for example when we investigated the rape cases. However, for some time now, they have been refused entry. I submitted a request for permission to conduct investigation on the ground but as usual, I received the reply that such permission can not be granted considering my attitude towards Yugoslavia.

However, there are indications that some kind of an agreement regarding this matter could be reached in near future.

Croatian press is also often critical of you and your work. How would you describe your relations with the Croatian authorities and Croatian media?

Croatian government cooperates, accepts criticisms but of course, fails to amend its conduct accordingly. For example, the dispute over the eviction of Serbian families from flats which used to belong to the former Yugoslav Army was a particularly long one. Ministry of Defence and Ministry for Foreign Affairs acted differently in this particular case. Ministry for Foreign Affairs does all to maintain cooperation, facilitates the investigations on the ground, and has generally accepted the existence of the bureau. At the same time, the reaction of the Croatian press is of course negative. I think that this is due to largely to a feeling of insecurity and an attempt to create political cohesion. Nonetheless, in comparison with Serbia, Croatia has a much more positive attitude towards my work.

Could you possibly make a brief comparative analysis of the current state of human rights in Serbia and Croatia?

The situation in the two countries is quite different. Lack of political pluralism and freedom in the media is an emerging problem in Croatia, as well as the existing problems with evictions, with citizenship documents, etc. In Serbia, on the other hand, there are problems with political and human rights, independent trade unions, in particular the 'Nezavisnost' Union whose representative I recently met in Brussels. There is also a problem with media which can not be seen or heard outside Belgrade, as well as the problems faced by the political parties in opposition. The biggest problem, however, is that of the Albanian minority in Kosovo and the Muslim minority in Sandzak.

We could argue about whether there are 80 or 90% of Albanians living in Kosovo, but their problems unarguably exist - difficulties with employment in state institutions, or education, for example. Since the autonomy of the region was abolished, human rights of the Albanians are not being respected. All international monitors agree that the situation there is so tense that there is a constant threat of a violent explosion.

I would rather refer you to some of my reports than discuss the issue, since I am worried that any simplification of the extremely complex situations both in Serbia and Croatia can lead to no good.

One of your reports, submitted to the UN Security Council on December 13, 1994 was devoted to the state of the media in the countries of Former Yugoslavia. What is your assessment of the role of the media in the Yugoslav crisis?

Former Yugoslav Prime Minister Milan Panic told me once in Belgrade that the media are the greatest war criminals in Yugoslavia, and I think that there is some truth in that statement. However the media differ amongst themselves. I think that local media with the courage to speak the truth deserve admiration and praise. On the other hand, in Bosnia I encountered local media which practically encouraged ethnic cleansing by attacking certain locals individually, by name. Most of the media there allowed themselves to be used for warmongering purposes, or were in some way directly involved in the war.

What do you see as the possible consequences of the war in Bosnia, in a wider European context?

This war is contagious and therefore very dangerous. It is difficult to talk about European integration with such a conflict raging in the middle of it. Recently in Brussels I spoke of Sarajevo as a symbol of Europe as well as Maastricht. However, the opinion that "peace will be possible only after they all kill each other" is widely held and I am afraid that the view of the conflict as a private affair of the Balkans will become prevalent in the European public opinion. Such an attitude frightens me and I can not agree with the attempt to treat a war in the heart of Europe as a typical Balkan problem. I often repeat, especially after events in Chechnya that this sort of thing can happen elsewhere. I do not agree with the view that this is a Balkan private affair but I fear that the length of the conflict, its unsolvable nature and the helplessness of Europe lead people to start seeing it as such.

Ethnic conflicts are contagious. It is also dangerous to reveal the helplessness of the international community and the lack of influence when faced with such problems.