Resignation

The Commission for Truth and Conciliation started to break up even before it was officially founded: the historian Latinka Perovic and Prof. Vojin Dimitrijevic submitted notices of resignation to that commission, which was formally named by the FRY President Vojislav Kostunica. Although at a preliminary session of the potential commission members, on March 23rd 2001, some fundamental questions were raised concerning the mandate and the way of functioning of the future commission, and although the schedule of the next session was already announced, the FRY Gazette published the news on the foundation of the Commission for Truth.

TERRIFYING LEGACY: ‘There is enough space for everyone who wishes to take part in the release and emancipation from the terrifying legacy that has become a burden imposed on the Serbian nation by the previous regime; all people of good will, regardless of their political determination and general experience, are welcome to give their contribution. Luckily, the Serbian population has not been impartial to the outrageous crimes against humanity during the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and in Kosovo. However, a painful confrontation with our immediate past, the detachment from the notion of crime and moral purgation are something that each citizen of Serbia should be subject to. Another independent commission, in which every individual human being would be free, could contribute to such a goal. But, in spite of all assurances, the Commission for Truth and Conciliation, as seen from its decrees, is a state commission. Its mandate is not clearly defined, but it is firmly institutionalised. I have difficulties finding a place for myself in such a working group’, writes Dr. Latinka Perovic to President Kostunica. She adds that she agreed to attend the first session of the commission out of respect for Kostunica, above all because he was the leader of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, which

Secured its victory at the election of 2001 against ‘the regime which politics had erased the all conventions of Serbia’s modern history; the regime which is responsible for ethnic nationalism, wars on the territory of the former Yugoslavia and committed war crimes; the regime which has eaten Serbia from within: economically, socially and morally.’

LIABILITY FOR CRIMES: Professor Dimitrijevic estimates that the commission is endowed with very narrow authority (it does not include the right to summon witnesses), which confuses the legal nature of the commission. ‘The content of the commission’s work is partly determined by the decision, which in turn imposed on it ‘the organisation of research work, the uncovering of evidence about social, inter-social and political collisions which led to armed conflicts, as well as the clarification of the causes of these events.’ In that direction, as can be seen from the existing material, the focal point of investigation will be the period prior to the disintegration of the SFRY, regarded as a historical process. Nevertheless, many of those who are no longer citizens of the FRY, used to live and exercise power in the former Yugoslavia. ‘The Commission for Truth is composed only of the FRY citizens (however, there is not a single member from Montenegro), and as such is unlikely to appear impartial when passing judgments concerning the events on the territory beyond the current territory of the FRY’, explains Prof. Dimitrijevic.

Prof. Dimitrijevic also underlines in his notice of resignation that, as a lawyer, he is more interested in bestiality demonstrated in our wars. He claims that the commission is expected to uncover and verify Great Truths: ‘I am not afraid of Great Truths, since they were the causes and motives of brutal violence. The appeasement should be encouraged; the intentions are no longer important, nor is it important who was right and whose behaviour can perhaps be justified – it is important to establish who was human and who was not.’ Prof. Dimitrijevic is of the opinion that the commission should open an analysis of the degeneration of society as a whole: political murders, exiles and kidnapping of people, the provocation of ethnic, national and religious detestation, the war propaganda, the ousting of politically unsuitable judges, teachers, journalists, and so on, the police brutality, the mass dismissals, the blackmailing on the part of the state authorities, etc. He insists that someone has to undertake to assign the responsibilities to the state itself where necessary – the state has remained one and the same, only the regime has changed, so they are accountable for making up for everyone’s moral and material damage. Only on that basis could our citizens start finding a compromise among themselves, while those who manage to evade sanctions should be compelled to think their misbehaviour over. That would bring about reconciliation, at least to a certain extent, at least in Serbia and Yugoslavia. Only with a working group conceived in such a way would I like to exchange opinions and experience.’

The Commission for Truth, however, continued its work with a reduced staff: Radovan Bigovic, Mirjana Vasovic, Tibor Varadi, Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic, Mihailo Vojvodic, Djordje Vukovic, the Bishop of Sumadija Sava, Ljubodrag Dimic, Slavoljub Djukic, Aleksandar Lojpur, Zoran Stankovic, Svetozar Stojanovic, Darko Tanaskovic and Sulejman Hrnjica. The staff expressed their disappointment at the early departure of Dr. Latinka Perovic and Dr. Vojin Dimitrijevic. The question remains whether such a commission will launch a pursuit for truth and reconciliation after all? Two supporters of peace and truth, active during the terrifying final years of Milosevic’s regime, the years of war and overall devastation, do not see themselves as members of the commission established by Dr. Vojislav Kostunica. Is there a danger that the idea of truth and conciliation at our territory is already being compromised?