Tension about the Danube's Blockage

Although it is still not explicit what has been decided behind the closed door, at the pre-term session of the parliament of the Danube Committee in Budapest (January 25th and 26th) - it appears that a certain compromise between FRY and Europe is on the way. That compromise concerns the breach of the European corridors nearby Novi Sad, intercepted by the ruins as a consequence of last Spring's NATO aggression on Yugoslavia. The schedule consisted of a project of cleaning the Danube of Novi Sad's ruined bridges and a program of deepening the riverbed in order to eliminate the danger of ice accumulation and floods and to create the conditions for re-establishing normal river traffic. The experts from Hungary, Austria and Yugoslavia had already reached an agreement two weeks ago in Belgrade (January 10th-13th), that such a project required 24,1 million euros, and that it was on the Danube Committee to recommend that project, together with its cost, to the European Union Committee.

At the moment of printing this very issue of VREME, the Danube Committee still has not published a notification about its decision. The reporters from Budapest are notifying that Helmut Strasser, president of the Danube Committee, stated that the project of cleaning the Danube in the area of Novi Sad was accepted, but that some political matters are also involved in the process, and that the whole arrangement will depend on the official Belgrade. This statement collides to some extent with the news offered by the official Belgrade newspapers, referring to Radisa Djordjevic, chief of the expert team of FRY for river traffic, and who (according to 'Politika' daily of January 26th) considers that the Danube Committee, and accordingly, the European Union have already decided to grant a certain amount of funds for cleaning the Danube, and that a project of erecting one permanent bridge in Novi Sad, which would cost another 8 million euros, was supported. Compared with the Hungarian sources, this report is much more pleasing: according to it, it was agreed in Budapest that the project of cleaning the riverbed of the Danube should be given a positive response, and that 'any following decision on building new bridges is on Yugoslavia itself, though in co-operation with certain international institutions which prove themselves suitable'. It is evident that the idea of building new bridges was mentioned, but the conclusions are quite different. That simply leads us to deduce that the final agreement has not yet been reached.

TWO DELEGATIONS: Even a hasty glance to a bunch of news about tension between Belgrade and Brussels, via Budapest, regarding the blockage on the Danube, points to the fact that the exact amount is not yet settled (24 or 32 million euros). Since it is about a considerably big amount, it is also important who will operate with that money, commission the workers, pay for the work, and even save something for building new bridges or something similar. In earlier times, when communication systems in Serbia used to be built with the aid of foreign money, the final payments have always been arranged by some foreign companies, which did not bother the local sovereignty. Is such a custom acceptable nowadays, in an impoverished and absolutely centralised Serbia - that is another question. To be honest, the Yugoslav regime would have a very good reason to implement any version of the project of cleaning the Danube. It seems that the re-establishment of traffic on the Danube, on which Europe insists so much, greatly depends on building at least one bridge in Novi Sad, since the present pontoon bridge only impedes the whole process.

Counting on that possibility, even the city officials of Novi Sad activated themselves. A delegation from Novi Sad, guided by mayor Dr. Stevan Vrbaski, also travelled to Budapest, while Predrag Filipov, president of the executive board of Novi Sad, attended the session of the European Union in Brussels, trying to convince the EU Committee to include his town in the program 'Energy for Democracy', whereas he also attempted to secure some funds for the construction of new bridges. On the same occasion, mayor Vrbaski also met with Strasser and, as we find out, he conveyed a simple fact that Novi Sad is the most interested side in the whole European-Yugoslav confusion about those ruined bridges and projects for their reconstruction.

The delegation from Novi Sad - which included the city minister for urban architecture, Radoje Cvetkov, an expert who took part in all previous negotiations concerning both destroyed and new bridges - had a number of contacts in Budapest. The key negotiations were held in 'Gansz', a famous Hungarian company interested in the contribution of the building of a new Varadin Bridge to the project and design of academic Nikola Hajdin. On January 21st, the Parliament of Novi Sad brought a decision that the construction of the new Bridge of Varadin, according to the plan by Hajdin, should begin in May. But, while the city officials were discussing the preparations for rebuilding of this bridge in 'Gansz', FRY representatives in the Danube Committee requested money in order to begin a restoration of the same bridge, but according to a different project.
DIFFERENT TRUMP CARDS: This confusion originated several weeks ago, just at the time when the compromise between the Government of Serbia and the Danube Committee was getting warmer, and when promises about euro money for cleaning the Danube started echoing. According to Zoran Vapa, deputy secretary of Vojvodina's economy and representative in the management of the Republic's main Department for Restoration and Rebuilding, the bridge which was suddenly offered to Novi Sad by the Serbian Government, was four million German marks cheaper than that suggested by Hajdin (which would cost about nine and a half million marks) and would represent a replica of the previous Bridge of Prince Tomislav.  

A lot of it is suggested by his statement (the state 'News Review' of January 21st) that 'by bearing the expenses of the construction of the new Varadin Bridge, the Department for Restoration and Rebuilding would redirect the means in the city budget towards the reconstruction of the Bridge of Liberty'. The only problem is that neither the Department for Restoration, nor the city of Novi Sad actually have the money for building new bridges. In other words - both investors count on foreign means, but they do not come out together since they possess different trump cards.

Practically, ever since April 1st 1999, after NATO destroyed the old Varadin Bridge, and then the others, the conflict has not ended between the opposition of Novi Sad and the official Belgrade, about who will be in charge of that campaign and erect new bridges. The opposition of Novi Sad relies upon the indubitable resentment of the citizens due to the centralised decisions made about Novi Sad in Belgrade ('Before long, Marjanovic and Mrkonjic will rearrange the furniture in our apartments and control the arrangement of our plates intended for Sunday meals', said an old inhabitant of Novi Sad). On the other hand, the Republic Department for Restoration and Rebuilding relies upon the fact that, in this case, it is the real exponent of Belgrade's state policy towards Europe, and that it is authorised to 'cash' the blame of the West for the interruption of one European corridor, as well as to exploit the interests of Europe to make this important route available again - which is not possible without cleaning the riverbed, i.e. without building a proper bridge over it - instead of this pontoon bridge which is difficult and slow to operate with.

The first round of this tension was won by the Department for Restoration which, by promoting its pontoon bridge (which still happens to resist everything), forestalled the city government and demonstrated the power to build even without money. The leadership of Novi Sad, which consists of the coalition of SPO (the Serbian Renewal Movement), DS (the Democratic Party), LSDV (???), RSDV (???) and DSS (the Democratic Party of Serbia), recommended a fast reconstruction of the oldest Varadin Bridge instead of erecting the pontoon bridge, but failed to prove that such an action would be covered financially. Or rather, foreign investors did not dare enter the business with partners from Novi Sad which had undoubtedly been under pressure of their own state, and did not themself show any possibility to participate in the construction autonomously.

CIVIC RESISTANCE: Another great conflict between Novi Sad and the Republic Department for Restoration was initiated about the construction of a road-railway bridge which would replace the Bridge of Zezelj. Although this bridge, which connects the principal railroad Belgrade-Budapest, is under the jurisdiction of the Republic, the city delegates had already expressed their fear of accepting a steel monster instead of the former 'concrete flying fish' (the previous unjustified name for the Bridge of Zezelj) by announcing that Moscow (or rather her mayor Luszkov) will present as a gift a new road-railway bridge to the city of Novi Sad. Afterwards, several Russian architects visited the city and the Republic (they were criticised due to this order of visits) and announced a more acceptable solution, though quite expensive (about 50 million dollars). They stopped mentioning the fast construction of a new bridge, and said that they were in fact expecting someone to finance the whole project, even if it is someone from the West.

At that moment, Mrkonjic realised that the question of re-establishing the traffic in the main railway direction is far less important. But, the city officials of Novi Sad were quite aware that a temporary steel bridge, supported by staples, can remain temporary for a long time, and they are preparing a civic resistance to this solution. Neither Mrkonjic's TV promotion last summer was of any help, nor his provisional ideas on the spot, when, for example, he announced - 'We are going to build a temporary and a permanent bridge at once'. It appeared that a consensus was reached on November 17th last year, at the meeting of Novi Sad's city officials with Mrkonjic. It was then determined that the road-railway bridge was under the jurisdiction of the Republic, and that the Varadin Bridge and the Bridge of Liberty belong to the domain of the city. Now, even that compromise was discarded, and the end of conflicts is not near. The citizens of Novi Sad are already tired of all that.