People Used for Settling Accounts

Vreme, on August 30, organized a round table on the position and future of Serbs who fled Croatia and the possibility of them returning to their homes. The participants in the round table were: Dusan Ecimovic - on behalf of the Initiative Board for Serbs' Return to Croatia, Jovan Vejnovic - ex-Yugoslav diplomat born in Knin, Dr. Konstantin Obradovic and Dr Gaso Knezevic - international public and private law experts at the Belgrade Law College, Dr. Vojislav Vukcevic - co-founder of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) and General Secretary of the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO), and Sonja Biserko - representative of the Helsinki Human Rights Board. Vreme carries the most interesting excerpts from the discussion:

On Causes of Massive Exocus

Vejnovic: "It has occured rarely, particularly in the recent past, that almost an entire ethnic group has left a country. Of course, I do not want to diminish or disregard in any way the fact that this is not the first time such an exodus occurred in these parts, and that this practice has unfortunately recurred in ex-Yugoslavia since 1991. It began with the expulsion of Croats and Serbs in Croatia and continued in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

We have heard many stories about Serbia being wherever there are Serbian graves, there was talk of "western, most western Serbian states" on the left bank of the Drina, and we have lived to see the Serbs from the "most western Serbian state" all cross to the right bank of the Drina. I would not like to go into a long analysis, but I would like to say one thing - that it is mostly, unfortunately, our doing. Actually, this exodus is a tragic but logical consequence of the conflicts and contradictions between the concepts of a Greater Serbia and a Greater Croatia It is the logical consequence of the implementation of the project of ethnically-clean states in the Balkans."

Ecimovic: "I claim that the Vance plan was a historical chance for the Serbian people in Krajina. A cease-fire was negotiated - it was followed by talks, negotiations, agreements with the other side. However, that policy had no support on Krajina's state level.

We tried to conduct an autonomous policy in Western Slavonija. Western Slavonija wanted the population to return to the areas of Grubisino Polje, Daruvar, Pakrac, Podravska Slatina, while the others, for instance Eastern Slavonija and Baranja, were for the status quo. When we were reprimanded in Knin that our policy was a treacherous and hostile one, I said I had no intention of walking down the street with an open umbrella if it was raining in Knin and the sun was shining in Okucani. Because of such remarks, Veljko Dzakula and I, who were in the Government, were being gradually more and more ignored. Soon, they began literally hunting us down: we were called traitors, Croatian Serbs, they said we had sold our souls... This was done both through the media and the army, through those "political commissars". Later, they arrested us: all efforts were invested to destroy the policy of negotiating with the other side."

Biserko: "I personally view the exodus from Krajina as the defeat of the Greater Serbian policy. Also, I maintain that the Serbs in Croatia, I mean Knin, were used as a tool, to destabilize Croatia in 1991 and that this is why they were forsaken so easily now. It is unfortunate that these Serbs were led to believe that they were going to have their own state."

On Property

Dr. Knezevic: "The right to ownership is guaranteed as a human right. As regards the internal law, Croatia has a provision in its Constitution guaranteeing the right of property. Compared to the provisions of the other Constitutions adopted by states created on the territory of ex-Yugoslavia, this provision is the best. But this, of course, does not have to mean anything, as practice has shown: In July 1991, Croatia passed an order infringing upon the right of property by banning firms headquartered in Serbia and Montenegro to dispose of their property in Croatia. Serbia reacted a month later with an even worse order, banning both legal and physical Croatian and Slovene entities the same right.

The fact that the people have left those parts means nothing when ownership is in question. They remain the owners of real and movable property. Croatia, I am convinced, will not take a comprehensive measure, that is, pass a general act, to infringe upon that ownership by confiscating it. However, it has limited it already - it has banned the right to dispose of it. Croatia, therefore will not confiscate the property, but I think it will not be in the least willing to reimburse the damages through a fair court trial for a pile of ashes or to move out a Croatian national and return the house to its previous condition.

The question arises who is responsible. I personally maintain that the problem of this property will be resolved through individual struggles and I am very pessimistic. When I say individual struggle, I mean that each individual owner of Serbian origin will go to Croatia and prove his property is in question. His success will depend on the defendant and the plaintiff. Many do not know who burnt their house down. I doubt that Croatia as a state will be drawn into the litigation.

What can professionally be done to help is to form an expert team, draft a project and see what legal bases exist to protect the property. That would be a great thing to do because it would provide at least legal instructions for those individuals on how to protect their rights better in Croatia, through Croatian lawyers."

Dr. Obradovic: "When property is in question, it does not matter who destroyed, razed, burnt down the houses and all that. According to the law of war, the Croatian army and state are called to account on behalf of all those acting in their name and on their behalf even if they are not members of the armed forces. The army which is advancing, which is conquering a certain territory, is obliged to protect everything that does not pertain to the military. The military property belongs to it, but the civilian does not. And it is called to account if it is not protected.

So, what is in question here are serious violations of the Geneva conventions, particularly since this war has gone beyond the limits of an internal conflict in character and become a combination of an international and internal conflict. Croatia's responsibility should exist and it should be obliged to make reparations to these people. But someone has to negotiate on their behalf - a state would be best. FR of Yugoslavia could be that state: it could resort to one technicality: the 1976 Citizenship Law and, under it, proclaim these people its citizens and then, at least when property is in question, act in their behalf and seek reparations. In general, the question of war reparations should be resolved by creating arbitration and a court, by establishing facts and then everything, all the war damages, would have to be accounted for by the side whose troops or civilians, acting in behalf or in the name of that side and violating war law, have destroyed the property."

On Attempts to Return

Ecimovic: "This May, after the flash in Western Slavonija, a lot of the people who sobered up from the fear and the panic and began reporting to the High Commissioner and the Red Cross in Banjaluka and Belgrade and saying they wanted to go home. Some of them got in touch with the Croatian Bureau. The Croatian side said it had nothing against their return and that they should make lists. A list with 95 names was submitted and all of the signatories were approved return. But then, the whole thing halted on the Serbian side: Karadzic wanted to settle the people from Western Slavonija in the Bosnian Krajina, Martic and Hadzic wanted them in Eastern Slavonija, while Serbia furtively, to tell the truth, was thinking of moving them to Kosovo. We planned that they return by the Belgrade-Zagreb highway. Croatian Internal Minister Ivan Jarnjak's cabinet guaranteed their safe passage. UN official in Zagreb Paolo Rafone worked on it. He visited Belgrade in an effort to talk with the Serbian authorities, Radmilo Bogdanovic for example - but in vain.

We also tried to talk with Borislav Mikelic to see what President Milosevic thought about it. However, Mikelic avoided the meeting. The greatest problem was how to ensure their safety on part of the highway through Eastern Slavonija - from Lipovac to Batrovac. We knew Hadzic would let those people pass only if Serbia ordered him to. As this did not happen, the idea of returning to Western Slavonija died out and failed. These people, however, still want to return home."

On Eastern Slavonija

Dr. Vukcevic: "I think Eastern Slavonija could now be the polygon for making up what has been lost. Only partially, however, and much more painstakingly. Eastern Slavonija (I sincerely hope there will be no armed conflict there) will in the future see those who left it gradually coming back. It remains to be seen whether this will happen after Plan Z is signed - which I doubt. However, this draft plan is liable to changes. I cannot say now how many and what kind of changes in regard to the actual situation will be made. However, there is no doubt that Eastern Slavonija will induce the resolution of a dual question: the return of Serbian refugees to where they came from and of Croatian refugees to Eastern Slavonija."

On International Community

Dr. Obradovic: "From the formal, legal point of view, Croatia had urbi et orbi declared: Stay, do not go! You have now left of your own free will, I wave to you, good-bye!" This means that the international community cannot force Croatia to enable the return of the Krajina refugees.

On the other hand, the following question arises: who will speak on behalf of those people, who will negotiate with Croatia. The structures of their authorities which Croatia does not recognize and considers them piratical and rebellious, have fallen apart by themselves. In view of the behavior of the Knin authorities, no one now has the impudence to impose them as the negotiators. FR of Yugoslavia, on the other hand, has washed its hands of the Krajina issue. It never formally recognized Krajina. It would not be proper if it stepped out to represent them now. The first step would be that the refugees somehow organize themselves and then be represented by some new people, who will be able to win at least a kind of observer status at the future peace conferences. For, unless the Yugoslav and Croatian regimes have the political will to organize their return, this is the only alternative.

It is my impression that the international community is not very interested in raising this question. It is for now prepared to sweep everything under the rug, just so the war ends, that is the most important thing for them. International law is actually formed on the basis of practice. First we have practice and then the people sit down and think of ways of resolving a question. This question has no previous practice. For, when the Geneva conventions and additional protocols were drawn up, no one had the faintest idea that something like ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia could happen."

About the Future

Ecimovic: "We are not targeting the masses, we want to win over people with a good reputation, eminent individuals who will return first. In this way, the rest will follow people whom they look up to. If someone asks me whether I am optimistic or pessimistic about it, I answer I am a realist and that I expect this initiative to succeed with the help and mediation of the international community. When someone asks me - who chose you, I reply: "We do not have electoral legitimacy, but the noble idea we are fighting for is our legitimacy. And I believe no one can dispute it."

Biserko: "Besides this action toward Croatia through the international community, an action must be conducted in respect to these authorities. First of all, the refugees' status in FR of Yugoslavia should be regulated. Second, the authorities should urge their return to Croatia on the international level and, third, institutions capable of resolving these problems should be found. I believe that CSCE, i.e. OSCE, might be useful. Moreover, since Croatia has assumed the obligation to let in an OSCE mission. So, there is a committee for minority collective rights."

Dr. Vukcevic: "The people who were in power in Krajina never had their own viewpoint, their own opinion - from the very start. They had the image and the sound, but the remote control was in Belgrade.

However, no matter how much President Milosevic and his regime are responsible for what happened, Milosevic's responsibility changed at one point. He realized what had happened and tried to correct it by a taking sudden and radical turn towards peace. But his political children across the Drina did not want to obey him anymore: they had meanwhile come to like power, arrogance, despotism, violence and everything else that accompanied the situation we were in.

I doubt, however, that Martic refused to sign Plan Z-4 in his own name. But I also can't fathom why he would be ordered to do such a thing - unless there was an agreement with Tudjman. If there is such an agreement, there will be no large-scale political action, only individual attempts to return through Hungary to the ashes that were once homes."

Decree

At the session on August 31, the Croatian Government issued a Decree "regulating the temporary takeover, utilization and supervision of property of physical entities" (...) "on the previously occupied and now liberated territory of the Republic of Croatia which its owners have left and do not personally use". The same applies to the property of FRY citizens "if they personally are not using the property. It will be granted to "for utilization by the banished and expelled, by those who returned and whose property has been destroyed or damaged in the national liberation war, by invalids of the national liberation war, families of the defenders killed or missing in the national liberation war and other citizens who carry out activities necessary for the security, renewal and development of the previously occupied areas". "Ownership by appropriation (occupation) cannot be acquired" on such property, says the Decree.

If the owner of such property returns to the Republic of Croatia within 30 days from the date of the adoption of the Decree and requests it be returned to him, the decision on the takeover will be annulled. However, the person whom the property has been granted to, cannot be disclaimed it until "property and utilization of other adequate property" is found for him. At least two matters have not been regulated in this Decree, just as they have not been in all other Croatian legal documents. First, how will the owners return to Croatia before the set deadline and request that their property be returned to them - Milan Martic definitely did not hand them out Croatian passports and IDs and it is not easy to enter Croatia with a Yugoslav passport (if the displaced Krajina citizens have them to begin with). Second, what will happen to the property of the owners who return after the deadline has expired, on the 31st or 32nd day?

After the deadline of 30 days was announced, the refugees have been able to read "Closed for collective annual vacation", on the door of the Croatian Bureau in Belgrade. This means that the refugees with all the documents have to turn to the Croatian Embassy in Budapest. This is practically impossible as many of them do not have a valid passport (FRY does not issue any documents to refugees and the old passports are no longer valid) and hardly any money.

Account

Dr. Vojislav Vukcevic SPO General Secretary: "Dusan Ecimovic, Veljko Dzakula, Sasic, Goran Hadzic and I met in a village on Mt. Papuk, on March 11, 1991. That was only four days after the March 9th demonstrations in Belgrade - the developments were dramatic. In candlelight, beside an oil lamp, like guerillas, like conspirators, we met to see what we would do. Dzakula said: "The Serbs will kill me. Criminal charges have been raised against 400 people, it's going to be bad, I can't defend myself before my relatives and before them. I have to do something."

We decided to go to Tudjman.

On Wednesday, March 13, Tudjman received us. On that day he proclaimed abolition, agreed to drop the criminal charges against the 400 Serbs accused of enciting an armed rebellion in Croatia. This was one of the most serious offenses under the then Criminal Code of the SFRY (Article 114) and anticipated between ten years in prison and capital punishment.

After our meeting, the five of us went to the Croatian Parliament restaurant. Slavko de Gorizia and Ivan Vekic approached us.

I asked de Gorizia: "What are you prepared to do for us?" He answered: "Everything, ab ovo, from the beginning."

"What does that mean," I asked, "Really from the roots?" De Gorizia said: "Yes, from the Constitution through the law."

"When?"

"Right away. If not now, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow."

We were stupefied - all five of us. Some of us had already received our orders directly from Belgrade - no talks. We told de Gorizia and Vekic (Mario Nobilo, then one of Tudjman's advisors, joined us) that Mladen Lackovic, the Deputy Interior Minister of Croatia, was pouring virulence and hatred against the Serbs in his comments on TV. Lackovic was off the TV in three days. We were promised very much then - from the Constitution to the economy, culture, TV, education... We don't have to be naive, we don't have to love each other - we didn't love them, nor did they love us, and why should we love each other - but we didn't have to hate each other. There was no need to do all that had been done. All our efforts to act differently and better were completely crushed. Returning from those negotiations in Zagreb, we were listening to Radio Belgrade in the car and it was carrying a statement by a board of the Serbian Democratic Party in Beli Manastir: Vojislav Vukcevic is a Serbian traitor, who cannot negotiate on behalf of the Serbian people. I was shocked. I then finally and definitely realized I no longer belonged in that crowd."