Posted on 04/06/2002 6:15:05 AM PST by kosta50
Yugoslavia vs. The Hague
BY DRAGAN STOJKOVIC Belgrade
Last week late-night television viewing in Serbia was interrupted for a special announcement by Serbian Minister of Justice Vladan Batic. April 1 was the deadline issued by the U.S. Congress for Yugoslavia to start cooperating with The Hague tribunal in order to qualify for U.S. financial assistance. On the evening of March 31, Batic made his dramatic appearance, reminding citizens that the prospect of international sanctions once again loomed on the horizon.
Although in the last few weeks Serbia had met other U.S. conditions, such as ending financing of the Bosnian Serb army and releasing all ethnic Albanian prisoners, Belgrade hasn't yet met the key requirement of extraditing more war crime suspects to The Hague-based U.N. war crimes tribunal and making Yugoslav military archives available to the tribunal investigators.
Forty million dollars' worth of U.S. aid was cut off automatically on 1 April. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that he would indefinitely defer submitting his report on whether Yugoslavia was cooperating adequately to the U.S. Congress. The decision in effect provides the authorities in Belgrade with a few more days to extradite war crimes suspects. On 1 April, Yugoslav officials indicated that a number of suspects will be extradited this week and that the country will provide the tribunal with access to its military archives.
But the issue has again exposed the divisions among the country's leading politicians, most notably between Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica and the rest of the governing Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS), which supports Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. Kostunica opposes extraditing Yugoslav citizens without domestic legislation but has proven unable to persuade the Montenegrin deputies in the federal parliament—who all used to be allies of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic—to vote for such legislation. Djindjic, on the other hand, argues that the country must implement the tribunal's own statute in the absence of domestic legislation. The statute obliges all states to extradite any person indicted by the tribunal found on their territories.
Top DOS officials met without Kostunica prior to Batic's dramatic TV appearance. "The government of Serbia is building all the time, while others—the president of Yugoslavia among them—destroy overnight what we build during the day with their empty stories about fake patriotism and a possibility of solving this problem in another way," Batic said after the meeting.
But Djindjic went one step further. In his statement to the BETA news agency, Djindjic said that "we have a president who isn't doing his job." He slammed Kostunica, accusing him of "cowardly, hypocritical, and irresponsible behavior" and concluding that such behavior "cannot be tolerated anymore."
On 27 March, the Serbian government adopted a decree stipulating that cooperation with the tribunal will be regulated by the tribunal's statute until Yugoslavia gets its own law on the matter. A similar decree of 28 June 2001, which enabled Milosevic's extradition, has since been ruled unconstitutional by the Yugoslav constitutional court.
Meanwhile, Kostunica and his Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) maintained that extradition unfounded in domestic law damages the dignity of the country. Responding to frequent calls from the Djindjic camp to admit to the public that the price the country will have to pay for non-cooperation is international isolation, Kostunica said that destabilization of the country is the price to be paid for cooperating without proper legal framework. Kostunica insisted that his personal negative view of the tribunal didn't mean that he was advocating non-cooperation. In one of his statements last week, Kostunica even said that he feels "sick to his stomach when he thinks about the tribunal, but we have to cooperate with it."
On 1 April, Kostunica appealed to the federal government to initiate the adoption of a law on cooperation with the tribunal in the federal parliament. At the same time, the federal government held an emergency session and voted unanimously to support the Serbian government decision to cooperate directly with the tribunal.
Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic explained later that the federal government's decision means that all state institutions are obliged to cooperate fully with the tribunal, "which means to provide access to archives to the extent and in a way that does not endanger national security, as well as that those who are indicted for war crimes be arrested and transferred to the Hague." Djindjic said that extraditions could be expected this week.
The Serbs have yet to realize this. It took them longer than any other ex-Yugo people to get rid of communists, or of the Yugoslav identity, etc., so it is no surprize that they have no clue what they have done when they elected DOS to power. The Serbs cast a stupid protest vote, not a responsable vote. The short moment of satisfaction is coming back to haunt them long-term, as foreign and non-Serb interests begin to prevail in their own country, thanks to the quisling DOS regime they elected.
The aim is clearly to discredit Koshtunitsa and all those who feel that the Serbs need to protect their rights and their sovereignty. Unfortunately, Koshtunitsa went about it the wrong way. Serbia and Montenegro should have been occupied after the Kosovo war, rather than help DOS defeat Miloshevich. A foreign occupation would have solidified the Serb public. This way, the public remains divided and confused, and Serbia has another disgraceful Obrenovich-style collaborationist leader who is described as a "pragmatist" but in reality is simply an opportunt.
Yup,it's about setting precedents. Start with the poorer,smaller, and less organized nations,and then work your way up to the "majors".
One more reason why Yugoslavia should have chosen to lose the war and become occupied, rather than throw in the towell. A nation occupied retains its sovereignty and simple human pride generates national survival. Those who work or collaborate with the occupiers -- even if for pragmatic or humane reasons -- become tainted and eventually rejected.
Allowing a ruling coalition that is more interested in pleasing "special needs" of foreign powers and internal ethnic groups was by far more destructive. Koshtunitsa is unfortunately the one who made it all possible for Djindjich and his non-Serb coalition partners to form a government that is dedicated to serving the interests of its paymasters and local ethno-political lords whose aim at dismembering Serbia into meaningless ethnic enclaves.
That's why it rings hollow when Djindjich threatens the people of Serbia with yet more sanctions. Serbia lived under sanctions for 10 years and today doesn't live much better. Money that was supposed to be given for the head of Miloshevich was sunk in the loan interests accumilated over the years. The same will happen with the $40M promised. But it sounds real enough to give Djindjich the appearance of caring for the Serbian people, when in fact those who keep him in power, from within or without are not the Serbian people.
Multiethnicity may be a workable mechanism in immigrant countries like the US, Canada and Australia. In Europe, countries are based on ethnicity. We are mixing apples and oranges. And even the immigrant countries have a "base" population and an "absoprtive" mechanism that, after a few generations makes immigrant families "native." That does not happen anywhere else in the world -- from civilized Japan to Germany to Isarel. One cannot be a Jew and accept Christianity. One cannot be an Arab born in Israel, and an Israeli citizen, and considered a "Moslem Jews." Never, ever! Unless, he or she converts to Judaism! Generations of "Koreans" are born in Japan and are still cosnidered "Koreans." And in countries like the US and Canada, becoming an "American" or "Canadian" is a matter as much of losing your "roots" in a generation or two, then staying ethnically and culturally intact. Jews are not considered "foreign" in the US because they use the same Biblical names and "look" like Americans. Arabs and other groups have unpronounsable "foreign" names (what is an "American name") and "look" foreign. Some are even accused of not being "patriotic" because they are not like "the rest." And, the US at least actively choregraphs its ethnic issues for domestic consumption and public digestion: all American citizens are awlays expected to be loyal to one country, one flag and one set of interests -- those that have been set forth by the Founding (Anglo-Saxon, English-speaking, Caucasion, Fathers of the Republic). One is expected to speak English (not American). One is expected to pledge allegiance to the Flag regardless of the color, breed, national origin. Can the same be said of Serbia's minorities? I would say no.
In Serbia, Hungarians will not become "Serbs" after generations, nor will they look at Serbia's interests as their own. That is also obvious from "Bosniaks" in Sandzhak. They are not Serbs. They only live in Serbia, but their loyalty is elsewhere.
Those who keep stressing that Serbia is the most multiethnic country of all ex-Yugo states, as if that were actually good for Serbia, are not looking after the Serbian people. Multiethnicity is what destroyed Yugoslavia and particularly shortchanged the Serbs who, in 1918 hit the jackpot and squandered everything trying to be everything to everebody. Even today, they are still on a self-destruct path with people like Djindjich at the helm. Trouble is, no one in Serbia sees that.
One in which ethnic politics have no place! One in which political autonomy based on ethnic makeup is not the norm. One in which those who choose to live in Serbia become Serbs in their hearts. There are no Serbian genes, no "Bosniak" genes, no Hungarian genes. At birth, they all look the same. But they are taught, generation after generation, that they are not Serbs. Becoming a Serb is not a genetic formula -- it is a culutral one. It means accepting Serbian culutre as your own. Insisting on ethnicity as a political factor is what I reject.
Mexican Americans, Italian Americans, Greek Americans, etc. are more than welcome to practice their religion, learn thier acestors' languages, cherrish their ethnic art and cuisine at home or in private schools, but America expects those born in America to be Americans first and foremost, loyal to America, regardless of ethnic origin, race or religion. America expects its citizens to speak and use in official application one language -- English (they have no problem being a nation and using a "foreign" language; tell that to those individual stupid Bosniaks or Montenegrins who harp on the notion that a nation without a language is not a nation -- something that moron Vuk Karadzhich came up with).
Instead, what you have in Serbia are special interest groups based on ethnicity whose "loyalty" is measured by the degree of benefits they get from that "loyalty." In other words, it is bought or bartered, whichever way you want it. But their true loyalty is to their "home base," for "Bosniaks" to Muslim Bosnia; for Hungarians to Hungary; for Albanians to Albania, etc.
Being born in Serbia means nothing other than the fact that for some stupid reason you can get a Yugoslav passport issued by Serbia. Rights come with responsabilities; citizenship comes with loylaty. The way they have it in Serbia is a left-over ethnic insanity codified by the 1974 Constitution.
I would like to see Serbia in which its native sones and daughters, regardless of faith, ethnic origin, or race for that matter, are Serbs in their hearts. You have a problem with that?
IF I were Kostunica, I would write Bush an offer to make Serbia the 51st US State, I'm sure Germany wouldn't like that cuz she's got dibbs since 1914.
”Rights come with responsibilities; citizenship comes with loyalty”
Absolutely, and in that case, votes of Serbian citizens are Serbian votes ”regardless of faith, ethnic origin, or race for that matter”, period! You can not discriminate votes of Serbian citizens into "Serb" and "non-Serb", and blame the "non-Serb" voting for undermining Serbian national interest to serve international interests. That is a dangerous territory and if the case needs to be overcome with political programs that Serbian parties offer on the table. Not all of the 1/3 Serbian voters from other faith or origin fit your examples. Btw, when will Serbian parties reach a consensus of what is Serbian national interest in general? That would stop popular bickering of which party is anti-Serb. And moronic arguments of who’s more or less of a Serb (i.e. Ilic vs. Labus) are tragi-comic and lead nowhere.
I beg to differ with you. A vote by a Serbian citizen is a Serbian vote you say? So, then "Croatian" applies to anyone who lives in Croatia? Are Serb votes in Croatia "Croatian" votes? Technically yes, but substantively no. In the 19th century, Croatian Serbs sided with Hungary to counter the (real) Croatian aspirations. Is siding with those who bombed you really looking after Serbian national interests (even if they are not clearly defined)?
Being a Serb is something each and every citizen of Serbia ought to feel. In such multiethnic societies as Canada, the US, Australia, etc. the immigrant newcomers are expected to "adjust" and their children "melt" into the nation, keeping their ethnic names, and religious preferences, but not nationality. That is not the case in Serbia, Tamodaleko, and any suggestion to the contrary is a lie! Serbian Hungarians are not Serbs in their hearts; they are Hungarians! That is not "discrimination" against one ethnic group -- that is a fact based on that ethnic group's preference. Croatian Serbs are not Croatians; they are Serbs. And their interest is to keep Croatia as divided and weak as possible, just as it is in Serbia's ethnic minorities' interest to keep the "Serbian" factor as weak as possible.
That is why Yugoslavia was the best solution in this situation. You could be of any ethnic background -- even mixed ones -- and still be a Yugoslav. However, the problem with that was that in their hearts the non-Slavs did not partake in that identity, nor did they get goose bumps at singing the national anthem. Do you know why? Because it starts with "Hey Slavs!"
You can rationalize anyting, but the fact is that non-Serbs and Serbs in Serbia cannot have the same, or even similar interets. Look at BiH. In 1991, the Croats and Muslims bandedtogether to outvote the Serbs and proclaim independence (illegally). Is it because the two groups "love" each other so much? Is it because they all feel as part of the same "Bosniak" "nation?" Or is it because it was opportune for the Croats to create a divided country so they could join Croatia. They were doing the same thing the Krayina Serbs were doing to Croatia.
I don't buy your denial. Non-Serbs have yet to show that what they are interested in is anything other than further partitioning of Serbia into ever smaller and weaker units. I would like to see one group stress Cyrillic as thier preference rather than the Latin script. Why? Because the Cyrillic is what Serbian culutre is based on. If for no other reason then out of respect.
In Serbia, those born of Hungarian parents do not call themselves Serbian. They are Hungarians (born in Serbia) -- for generations on end.
Serbia can, and should be a multiethnic society -- made up of Serbs (native sons and daughters) whose roots are from various parts of Europe and who enhance Serbian society with a multitude of cultural traditions -- but not a multiude of national identities.
In America you don't have a German autonomous province (although people with german roots represent the majority of Americans to this date), or Italian "enclave" where Italian is the official language, and similar crap.
Even the Indian reservations are "nations" only on paper. The interstate highways crossing them are patrolled by state troopers and not tribal police, and English (not American, not American-English, and so on) is still the official language.
Ethnic politics will end when enthnicity as a political block vote ceases to exist, when all Serbs citizens regardless of faith or ethnic background engage in politics as Serbs and not as foreign nationals with a right to vote.
Need I remind you that Sudetten Germans embraced Third Reich over their native Bohemia? Do you honestly think Voyvodina's Hungarians would object to being re-absorbed by Hungary or that the Catholic and Croatian-speaking population of Voyvodina would protest ananexation to Croatia, or Rashka's Mulsims to Muslim Bosnia, or ethnic Albanians in Kosovo to Albania? No, Tamodaleko, your multiculturalism is a seed of disloyalty for Serbia and Serbia's grave weakness. You may disagree with that, call it what you want. The fact remains, Serbia's minorities are more interested in parceling out what's ledt of Serbia and making a deal with the Devil himself rather than look after the interests of Serbia. Why? Because they are not Serbs; they are foreigners; their loyalty is not there any more than the loylaty of Bosnia's Croats or Serbs is to some fictitious Bosnia, or the loyalty of Croatia's former Serbs was to Croatia.
Why? Becuase the laws and the concepts of "equality" are still in the communist frame of mind. Tell me, do you honestly believe that Israeli Arabs (Arabs born in Israel) are part of the Jewish nation? They are citizens, but are they loyal citizens?
Citizenship is not something God-given. It is man-given. It is no different than a decision which side of the road is the "right" side! In many countries (Norway, for example), birthright is not a pre-qualification for citizenship. And, for a Jew from anywhere in the world, being Jewish is enough to get an Israeli citizenship. Each country regulates its citizneship accoridngly. If the citizens of Serbis are not showing loyalty to the nation of their birth -- redefine the citizenship! Is that a problem?
Minority rights in the world have limits, except in Yugoslavia. Mexicans in the US do not have an "autonomous Mexican province." Does that mean that they can't speak Spanish at home and in their private organizations and cutural gatherings? Of course not! But being a minority does not give anyone a right to carve out, and atomize a nation of the majority.
In the contrary case, pretty soon someone will object to the name Serbia, saying that the country is not made up only of Serbs, the way non-Slavs were complaining that Yugoslavia did not include them! And, given the communist-era blockheadedness of thought, somwhere in the Paleozoic era, they will have every right to demand that the name oif the country be changed. They are citizens of "equal rights" right?
Where is the multi-national policy leading? To greater unity? I seriously doubt it.
No, not at all. I actually agree with your points from top to bottom.
I respectfully disagree. Or at least partially. If the region was economically developed and bustling with entreprenours (sp?), if the jobs were plentiful, trust me, nobody would care who is who, but rather what job you can do for me. It's simple, that's why US is a melting pot in the first place. Only here you can find the worst enemies like Pakistanies and Hindus working on the same project in the same company.
The national problems in Yugoslavia would be non-existant if the West and US, instead of spending of billions dollars to bomb it, or to pit one nation against another, had given that money for development. Why the things are not that simple, I don't know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.