Risky Shilly-Shallying

The preparation of the meeting between President of the FRY Vojislav Kostunica and Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was an experience that no one would like to have. At first, Del Ponte was not an acceptable visitor according to President Kostunica’s criteria; then it was said that President was ‘too busy’ to receive her; a ‘no’ was then turned into a ‘maybe’ (‘I don’t exclude the possibilities of a conversation’); finally, Kostunica agreed (‘there were many things that made me change my decision’)…

It continued in the same way. A short TV report revealed that the dialogue had begun in a tense atmosphere, whereas the New RTS (Radio Television of Serbia) first launched Del Ponte’s statement that the collaboration between the FRY and the Tribunal need not to be regulated by a special act, which is in opposition to Mr. Kostunica’s standpoint. Later followed a full report in which ‘various opinions’ were revealed concerning the collaboration with the Hague Tribunal: Kostunica remarked upon the way of ‘establishing and determining the regulations of the whole procedure, the problem of secret arrest warrants and a politically coloured orientation of the Tribunal’; he ‘pointed to a potential danger of attributing the collective guilt to the Serbian nation owing to the fact that most of the charges were filed against Serbian political and military leaders. At the end, it was said that ‘such charges were dropped by the Chief Prosecutor’. It seems that the atmosphere at the meeting was quite uptight – a collision of two different concepts which ended without consensus. According to some VREME sources, there were no direct attempts towards some forms of cooperation, though Yugoslav President had mentioned more than once that crimes had been committed by all sides during the conflicts on the territory of former Yugoslavia, and that Yugoslavia would respect all obliging commitments and would take part in collaboration with the Hague Tribunal. He, however, emphasised that it did not mean the acceptance of absolutely all their demands, and that the most important thing is to stabilise the country.

The Federal Government gave a statement, prior to Del Ponte’s visit, that ‘there are no interests in covering up the committed war crimes, but there are interests in making known all crimes committed against the Yugoslav economy, environment, country and its people’. Yugoslav Prime Minister Zoran Zizic said that his office was ready for cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, but that he would endeavour to ‘conserve the national dignity and the interest of the state’.

Some ministers had their say individually. Momcilo Grubac, Federal Minister of Justice, showed intentions to meet Carla Del Ponte even during Kostunica’s period of hesitation, and said that ‘we should not be spiteful to each other’. Grubac’s statement to a Slovakian daily ‘SME’ was of particular interest: ‘Yugoslav Government has no need to protect Slobodan Milosevic and we cannot have political objections to the hitherto activities of the (Hague) Tribunal. The Tribunal is, in fact, a guarantee of independence and objectivity; all hitherto verdicts stand in favour of that’, said Minister of Justice, explaining that the ‘Tribunal is a political organ which takes into consideration not only legal elements, but also those with political connotation’. He concluded that ‘we must not allow what the previous regime had allowed – that the citizens and the country must suffer for the wrongdoings of individuals’. Zoran Zivkovic, Federal Minister of Internal Affairs stated, prior to Carla Del Ponte’s visit, that it would be far more justifiable if Milosevic were tried in Serbia, but that the Yugoslav Government was of opinion that no suspects of war crimes should be sheltered and spared of individual responsibility.

After all, it becomes clear that the central problem is neither who would take part in the talks with the Chief Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal, nor what kind of Tribunal it is, nor what kind of internationally binding obligations Milosevic put his signature to in Dayton.

The essential question – which will soon have to be answered – refers to the willingness of the new authorities to open the issue of war crimes committed by some Serbian leaders and members of armed forces in the name of the entire Serbian nation. If a coherent political decision is reached on that issue – then a number of complicated legal difficulties and the logistics of trials themselves can be sorted out. Otherwise, it would not be possible.

Nobody from the new authorities denied that numerous crimes were committed by the Serbs, but they also stressed that other sides cannot be treated as innocent. Yet, there are some concrete steps to be made. As VREME managed to find out, when Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Goran Svilanovic was negotiating over the option of putting Milosevic on trial within Serbia, American administration wanted to obtain a sign of concrete readiness of Serbian authorities to put all war criminal suspects on trial. If it has so far been easy to excuse with the fact that the entire judicial system in Serbia must be reformed, but such excuses will no longer be valid after the constitution of the new government. All presidents of the Supreme Court and district courts, which had reasons to protect the former regime, can immediately be replaced by new personnel. New charges can be put forward and something can move from the zero point. It is not only about courts and prosecutor’s offices. President Kostunica, Minister Svilanovic and others talked about establishing the so-called Commission for Truth and Settlement, something similar to a commission established in South Africa. The idea was born several months ago, but, as we find out, no steps have been taken towards its establishment.

CONFRONATION: These issues are important for at least two reasons. First, Serbia will not be able to draw a line underneath the decade of Milosevic’s regime or to embark upon a healthy democratic revitalisation of the country, if it does not confront with its role in the wars on the territory of former Yugoslavia, if it does not admit that there were Serbs among those who issued orders to wage wars and perform systematic extermination of civilians, and if it does not place such individuals in custody and put them on trial.

‘I do not support the cooperation with the Hague Tribunal in order to obtain international credits, but only to clear up the question of crimes and guilt in the name of higher national interests’, said Zarko Trebjesanin, Professor of psychology at Belgrade University, adding that he is not of opinion that Vojislav Kostunica should make amends in the name of the Serbian nation by kneeling down in Vukovar and Srebrenica. That would give legitimacy to the opinion that the entire Serbian nation is to be blamed, while a belief in the collective guilt belongs to the category of tribal thinking. Kostunica should, instead, settle accounts with those who had committed crimes in our name. I think that all citizens of this country expect him to do so.’

What is a general opinion on the destabilisation of the conditions in the country in case of the extradition of war criminal suspects to the Tribunal?

Prof. Trebjesanin estimates that the mood of the people is no longer as it used to be during the armed conflicts; the people began to be aware of many things as soon as the war propaganda disappeared and different evidence against the Serbs began to emerge on the surface. The fact that we are dealing with a delicate and agonising problem does not mean that we should not clear it up. The stance of the previous regime was obvious because of their own guilt, but it is still puzzling why the current authorities did not stop such a policy’, says Trebjesanin.

It is clear that we should sort out the problem of Serbs as war criminals primarily for internal reasons. However, not even the argument of ‘foreign credits’ should be neglected.

Carla Del Ponte announced before coming to Belgrade that her foremost aim was to try to persuade President Kostunica to extradite his predecessor to the Tribunal. ‘The FRY is a member of the United Nations and, therefore, has to respect all legal obligations of that organisation’, said Del Ponte. In case she does not reach a consensus on that, she would visit all European capitals and ‘do whatever she can in her power to persuade the FRY and all other countries of the region to collaborate with the Hague Tribunal’. She also referred to the basis of Tribunal’s Statute: if some country wishes to abstain from that collaboration, she can contact the Security Council, which can impose certain measures, such as sanctions. Del Ponte also added that it would not be the case with Yugoslavia.

All that does not mean that Yugoslavia must extradite Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague prior to March 31st, but it does mean that something has to be done in the direction punishing war criminals. In that case, the deadline can be postponed for another six months or even a year.

If the new Yugoslav authorities do not pass The Hague ‘examination’, American Ministry of Finances will give directions to all American representatives in various international financial institutions to cut off all means intended for Serbia. According to the American law, it refers to IMF, the International Bank for Reconstruction, the International Financial Corporation, the Multilateral Agency for Investment Assurances and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Reuters reports that the leading American Congressmen, which are going to use their influence on George Bush concerning his decision on American humanitarian aid to Belgrade after March 31st, say that Kostunica’s attitude towards receiving Ms. Del Ponte represents a ‘bad signal’.

It would be fair if the new government notified the citizens about the precise cost of denying the cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, and to explain them that Milosevic not only managed to load a package of unjust sanctions on our backs while he was in power, but also places us before risk of losing everything for the sake of his personal protection.

It is a question of how many citizens of this country, and especially how many leaders of DOS (the Democratic Opposition of Serbia) believe that we should repudiate all necessary aid and international support by protecting Milosevic from the Hague Tribunal. The majority of them probably do not support the legal foundation and the way of functioning of that Tribunal – but is it at the cost to live worse than they should. Finally, we do not really need such a political trend, according to which the leaders of DOS, less inclined to those high principles and more oriented towards the basic needs of the country, are actually receding from the viewpoint of President Kostunica, while he gathers support from the Socialists and the Party of Serbian Unity. The Socialists of Uzice, for example, laid blame on Minister Svilanovic’s readiness to cooperate with the Hague Tribunal, while they expressed their satisfaction with Vojislav Kostunica’s attitude of ‘confrontation towards those who carried out the major crime against humanity by bombing our country’. A similar remark came from a high SPS (the Socialist Party of Serbia) official, Branislav Ivkovic.

However, the situation can still be remedied without consequences. For start, it would be enough if the Ministries of Judiciary and Police (on both Federal and Republic levels) would undertake the jobs that belong to them. In that case, Milosevic would soon be behind bars.