EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Serbian minister: 'Better to negotiate than make a war'

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 19 February 2013, updated 05 March 2013

Serbia has all the potential to become, with EU support, the most developed and the most powerful economy in the Western Balkans, Serbian Minister of Justice and Public Administration Nikola Selaković told EurActiv Germany in an exclusive interview.

Nikola Selaković has been a member of the Serbian Progressive Party of President Tomislav Nikolić. .

He spoke to EurActiv Germany’s Chief Editor Ewlad König.

For the very first time the Serbian president, Tomislav Nikolić, and the Kosovo president, Atifete Jahjaga, had a meeting in Brussels last week to start a dialogue. Brussels and most of the EU member states are watching closely the developments. How would you describe the future relationship between Belgrade and Pristina?

As you know, Serbia has entered into these full negotiations with institutions from Pristina from the end of last year and we are continuing these negotiations.

Of course this is not an easy issue for my country. The final solution has to be made only through the dialogue from both sides. I am not the one thinking that is going to be easy, I think it is going to be really painful for both sides. But if we want to make a final solution in which both of us would be satisfied or unsatisfied showing in the fact that this a compromise between two parties I  think that is the really right way in which we have to find the final solution.

You know that we have Serbian population in Kosovo and that we are trying to get the best rights for these people. During the past this problem hasn't been tried to be resolved through the dialogue between two parties. I believe that with the good will on one side and with a rational approach on the other side we can find a solution acceptable not only to Brussels but also for Pristina and for Belgrade.

So you agree that there must be and will be a solution one day?

Of course we have to find a solution. I think it is better to sit around the table and to negotiate for years, rather than to have one single day of war and riots.

So we have to find the best solution and I think this solution is going to be something positive for both sides. What I think what is uniting us, is the European future of the region.

Now we can see that all the countries in the region are interested in the membership in the European Union and in reaching these European standards. I think this is the best way for the region. When we are talking about the relation between Pristina and Belgrade, as I've said, it is going to be difficult to find on sustainable solution for this problem. But what's important to be said now is that we are committed to this process of reaching a solution.

You mentioned years of negotiation – can you give a time perspective?

It is really hard. I just use this sentence as a symbolic sentence. It is better to negotiate than to make a war. I am completely sure that the past is teaching us that we can't find the final solution in such a way. So the negotiations are the best way to find a solution.

After Croatia's joining the EU [on 1 July], there are more and more critical voices in Brussels and in the member states against further memberships. Is it something that makes you frightened?

We know that these critical voices are existing. But we don't have a reason to be frightened if we are devoted to build up the system and institutions. What is our final aim? Our final aim is to reach this level of efficient, legal and a good state and good governance which would be acceptable for European Union.

What is important for us now is to get the date for starting negotiations for the membership to the EU. Because this shows to all other countries – not only from EU, but also from other regions and other continents – that Serbia has become a country with a good level of legal stability and with good operating institutions.

Can you describe the role of Serbia in the future of the whole region of the Balkans?

The position of Serbia has been one of the reasons for its rich history, the geographical position of Serbia, its population, which is – compared with other countries of the Western Balkans – the biggest one. I think that Serbia has to be one of the big partners, also for Germany.

The fact that Germany is one of the greatest investors in Serbia in the last decade shows the importance of Serbia for Germany and its foreign policy in the region.

Many experiences from the past are teaching us in which direction we have to try to find the best solutions for our people for our economy and for the future. Serbia has to be a good partner and a good neighbour for all its neighbours. Serbia has to be a good bridge between the west and east as it has used to be in the past.

We have to use all good experiences from the past as well as the bad experiences in the sense that we don't want to repeat these mistakes.

Serbia has all the potentials to be the most developed and the most powerful economy in the region. We are still having huge export capacities as well as good and cheap workers. I believe that with a good will and a good support from our partners from European Union we can become their first partner in the Balkans and in this region of former Yugoslavia.

Recently you participated in a demonstration against the rulings of the Hague tribunal [the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]?

Yes.

Why did you participate?

The perception of the activities of the Hague Tribunal in Serbia is very bad, and the credibility of the tribunal itself is on the lowest level from the day of its establishment.

Why?

We have hundreds of thousands people who escaped by force from Croatia to Serbia - 1,700 people were killed in the so called "Operation Storm". And we don't have anybody sentenced for this. These people were trying to reach justice for these victims for their relatives, for their parents, for their children.

As you know I used to work at the University of Belgrade at the faculty of law, I've got this invitation from the students, many of them having escaped together with their parents 17 or 18 years ago.

This topic is something really, really painful for us. And at the end of the activity of the Hague trial we have statistics telling us that Serbians were sentenced for 1,125 years of prison. What about Bosnians, what about Croats? The civil war that happened on the territory of former Yugoslavia hasn't been a war in which only one party has been killing, forcing, deporting the others. It is the same thing if we are talking about these verdicts and sentences in Kosovar cases.

There is one man suspected as a criminal who had written three books with his memoires with all details how he killed people or forced them to huge deportations. And he was sentenced not guilty! We expected in some obvious cases that these people from the other side would be sentenced.

On the other hand you have all the highly appointed Serbian officials sentenced to a huge punishment, life-long or for 30 or 35 years of prison. That’s the reason why we don't believe totally in the Hague justice.

Some sentences were delivered very fast compared to other cases in which many people are waiting for years for their sentences. This is suspicious for us.

I've been taking part in the demonstrations of my students because we used to teach these students that international justice is existing, and at once many of them who were witnesses of all these happenings have found themselves in a situation without a minimum of justice for themselves and for everything that had happened to their families.

Serbia is the country with the greatest number of refugees not only in the region but in all Europe. And there are hundreds of thousands of these people living there. The only thing they expect is justice.

Your ministry of justice is the key ministry for reforms in Serbia. Obviously there are many problems there. What are the priorities for your ministry?

For the first time in our modern history in the last 20 years we have one ministry with such a huge portfolio – not only justice, but also the public administration. And for the first time we have such a huge number of lawyers and civil servants in the ministry, and we have a really, really huge task. 

We are hard working on three strategic documents right now. The first one is judicial reform strategy, the second one is anti-corruption strategy, and the third one is public administration reform strategy. 

All of these three strategies have to cover the period of the next five years. Serbia is in the process of fixing some of the mistakes of its judicial reform.

Which mistakes?

The judicial reform process started 3 years ago. It has some positive sides but there are also some obvious negative effects of the started reform. We don't want to make a new reform, we just have to fix these mistakes made. For the first time we are trying to use a more institutional approach to these problems and not a personal approach which has been present in many other countries in the period of transition as well as in Serbia. It is a hard job because what we are building up is a matter for future decades.

What does it mean?

It means that we have to build up strong and powerful institutions and reduce the competences of persons and to provide legal security to all citizens on the one hand and on the second hand to the economy.

It is important to be said here in Germany, because Germany is one of the biggest foreign investors in Serbia. Providing the legal stability in our system has a good implication in providing a good economic stability. That’s one of our main tasks.

Without efficient, impartial and independent judiciary you can’t have a good implantation of the legal system and all the laws in the state. Of course it is strongly connected with our public administration, its functioning and its capacities.

Concerning the anti-corruption combat I've learnt that one third of the proceedings end with a not guilty verdict. If so this does not sound very credible.

First of all I have to mention when we are talking especially about anti-corruption activities that these activities were not so present in the past. We've had initiated fight against organised crime. But I must say I was not satisfied with this.

Why?

Because it seemed to be a fight without a transparent principle of zero tolerance.

What does it mean?

It means that in this fight you don't have protected people. But the majority of the public opinion says that there are protected ones.

Nowadays when we have got some dozens cases, in the prosecutors’ offices we have reached only three cases of this fight:

Only 6 months ago we started with investigations of corruptive privatisations processes. Four years ago we got the list of 24 privatisation suspected to be corruptive. We got these documents from the European Commission. The former government did not have the strong political will to resolve these cases. We started these investigation, and in some cases we've got arrestments of people who had been involved in most corrupt activities – not only in the last four or eight years but for two and a half decades. This was a clear sign that there were no protected individuals in this anti corruption fight.

For the first time we had this huge activity. Serbia didn't have a strong institutional capacity to deal with this. I am not the one who will tell you now that we have a complete and full institutional capacity now. But we are building up this capacity of fighting against corruption, and in parallel improving our institutions. In this area many, many things are changing now.

What are the main obstacles in fighting organised crime?

Well, a couple of years ago the former government had initiated this fight against organised crime and especially against money laundering. But at once it had stopped.

What I would like to underline is that now we have started building up completely new institutions in Serbia. For example we've confiscated more than €350 million. For Serbia it is really huge amount of money. And of course we are continuing with these processes.

To read the full interview in German please click here.

COMMENTS

  • As there seems to be a good grasp of the suffering of expulsion and refugees/human rights and a high importance of good Serbian-German relations, I would expect the minister and his government to finally make sure all the former internment camp sites for the ethnic Germans of the region from the mid- to late 1940s, where tens of thousands (aged 0-99) perished become accessible and protected memorial sites. The victims' families have been trying for a long time to erect memorials at the site, but hurdles on the Serbian side keep preventing them from doing so. The clock is ticking for some of the last survivors.

    Also, of course, Serbia needs to come to terms with its role in the wars of the 1990s. The minister portrayed it mostly a victim, which is not accurate. The wars were fought almost exclusively outside Serbia - in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and the autonomous Kosovo, but many soldiers from Serbia were fighting there with a lot of equipment from Serbia and Serbia paid most of the Serbian forces not from Serbia. How can be war be of a defensive nature when it was not fought on home turf?

    By :
    Andrej Novak
    - Posted on :
    19/02/2013
  • This article begs the question, why was it not better for USA-NATO, in 1999, to negotiate rather than to make war? Was it all about the law of the jungle taking precedence at that time, because of the need for a military footprint in the Balkans, i.e. Camp Bondsteel? And, for Mr. Novak's information, when the wars of the 1990s were happening, there was a Yugoslavia.

    By :
    Liz
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • @Liz:
    How about the US-NATO bringing peace and law back to a region ravaged by racist wars for almost a decade and indirectly helping Serbia get rid of an oppressive regime?

    As for Yugoslavia, after free elections and with the full constitutional right to do so, Slovenia & Croatia left Yugoslavia in 1991 and Bosnia followed in 1992, Macedonia left as well. By mid-1992 Yugoslavia consisted of what is now known as Serbia (including Kosovo) and Montenegro. Apart from Kosovo, the war happened mostly outside of the borders of Yugoslavia. This is really 90s Balkan wars 101.

    Then again, even if there had still been a Yugoslavia to save, the methods chosen to do it were totally against the spirit of post-1989 Europe & the Soviet Union (e.g. Baltics) and more similar to Romania and China (e.g. Tiannenmen).

    Also, the order to deploy the Yugoslav army against Slovenia & Croatia according to some reports amounted to a military coup in Yugoslavia, as civilian authorities had not given authorization as required by the Yugoslav constitution.

    By :
    Andrej Novak
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Andrej, it would be great if you could comment in an unbiased fashion. Obviously, whatever you say here is laced with bias throughout. I know about the history of the region. Yes, there was the sovereign country of Yugoslavia, whether you want to admit that or not. All of the republics joined willingly into that union. The West (I don't have to name the countries / entities) had other interests for Yugoslavia, and knew they could get away with their meddling ways in the 1990s, knowing full well what transpired, and who was allied in the 1940s. I trust I don't have to repeat chapter and verse here. So, Mr. Novak, stick to the facts.

    By :
    Liz
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Liz:
    So Yugoslavia was a union into which republics joined willingly, perhaps somewhat analogous to the Soviet Union.

    Then some republics decided to secede. Sounds like the Baltics leaving the Soviet Union in the 1991. Strangely, no Soviet tanks and artillery stopped the rebellious republics from doing so and there were free to pursue their own destiny. Ethnic Russians in those republic may be worse off than before, but there were not expelled and did not have to experience war like Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia.

    Also the Baltic states similarly to Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia have a history of being on the wrong side in WWII. And Russians/Serbs as prominent victims of the Fascists.

    So could it be that the Baltics experienced no war, because there was Gorbachev in the Kremlin and not Milosevic? Because the Soviet army (except for isolated incidents) stayed in their barracks and did not fight their own people?

    If you disagree with this analogy, could you kindly explain why the transition in the Baltics was peaceful unlike in Yugoslavia and why that route was impossible in Yugoslavia?

    Also, please explain what the 40s have to do with the 90s in Yugoslavia, without resorting to the crude and wrong point that Serbs are always the victim historically/by birth.

    By :
    Andrej Novak
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Andrej, of course I disagree with your analogy with Soviet Union. I know where you're going with that, and no doubt you well know that there was a Yugoslavia before Tito came along with his version of Yugoslavia.

    Why do you continually use the word 'victim'? Don't put words in my mouth. You said it, I didn't. How the '40s relate to the '90s, is as you (should) know, i.e. what transpired in the 40s led to the 90s. Study up on the history. And, not only history according to one Andrej Novak.

    By :
    Liz
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Liz, one thing about bias is that it often shows itself in that one cannot see anything wrong with what one side did and sees everything in black and white, when in reality what factually happened is shades of grey, but this does not mean all sides were equally to blame for everything (moral equalizing), that is too simple and also wrong.

    The 40s are one factor to explain the 90s but not the only one as there were people from both sides of the 40s on either side in the 90s. It was not "my grandfather fought yours, so I fight you".

    From today's perspective we must take the side of condemning all human rights abuses and war crimes and all offensive instigators of violence.

    Therefore, to return to my original point, it was wrong for the Tito Yugoslav government to put 90% of the post-WWII ethnic German population into camps where tens of thousands, mostly children and elderly died in horrible conditions. Today, Serbia should have changed enough to be able to recognize these victims and let their families erect worthy memorials to them (in my case it's 50% of my family on my mother's side, the youngest was Ana Fechtig, who was less than 2 years old when she died in the Backi Jarak camp. I do not think this is asking too much of a Serbian government that claims they are best friends with Germany. Human rights are universal and therefore extend to Germans as well.

    Another curious fact & question for you:
    The Serbian state media during the Bosnian war years lied to the Serbian population about the siege of Sarajevo and pretended it did not exist. They even showed old footage of normal pre-siege life in Sarajevo to convince the population of it. Why did they engage in such a propagange excercise (to name only one of many) if the Milosevic government were sure they were fully right to lay siege to the city and that they had popular support for that? Or were they afraid it would be too obvious at home where people know the city's geography that this has nothing to do with defending Serbs and everything with a drawn-out massacre of civilians?

    By :
    Andrej Novak
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Actually, both Croatia and Slovenia violated the constitution in the way they broke off from Yugoslavia. Besides a referendum there also needed to be coordination with the other republics in advance.

    The abuses that were leveled against ethnic Serbians as well as other ethnic groups (i.e. Romani) that preceded and followed succession lasted for decades.

    It would be a good idea for Andrej to look at some unbiased sources (e.g. The Weight of Chains) and look to the background in the conflicts of the Balkans. Using the spin that's spouted by CNN just doesn't work anymore. We're a lot more informed today. :)

    By :
    Bozana
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Andrej, speak for yourself re bias. It's your bias that gets in the way of intelligent discussion here. And, speaking of 'lies'. Well, look in the mirror.

    By :
    Liz
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Bozana and Liz,

    most of what you are saying is directed at me (ad hominem) i.e. insulting me, sometimes in a rude way and not making an argument. Since any neutral reader whom you might want to convince of your point of view will recognize this anyway, I recommend not continuing down that path.

    Your point about the constitutional right to secede has some value as there is indeed a legal dispute over it in the case of the Yugoslav breakup. However, the common sense question remains if tanks are the right answer to those processes. In the case of Yugoslavia with the 5th largest army in Europe at the time, with an 80% Serb officer corps and no other army to speak of in existence in Yugoslavia in 1990/91, that is the main question. Fairly quickly the Yugoslav People's army mostly turned out to be the Serbian People's army. For example the distribution of weapons systems in Bosnia in 1992/93 was approximately: Serbs - 300 tanks, 400 artillery pieces, 7 war planes / Croats - 30 tanks, 40 artillery pieces, 0 planes / Bosniacs - 3 tanks, 4 artillery pieces, 0 planes (these numbers are not accurate, just reflect the general distribution of weapons systems). So who might have had an interest to solve the conflict by force of arms?

    The point about victimhood was inferred from the fact that none of you seems to have noticed anything wrong that has been done by Serbs or Serbia. Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions, but your further comments seem to confirm them, as there is still no word about Bosnian, Croatian, Albanian or German victims. On the other hand, I am ready to tell everyone everywhere that the Fascists started WWII and conducted multiple genocide all over Europe, including of Serbs and others in Jasenovac and that this partly explains the harsh reaction afterwards towards groups perceived as collaborators (Germans, Italians, Hungarians, but also Serbs, Croats, Bosniacs and Slovenes). I confirm that hundreds of war crimes have been conducted against Serbs in the 90s and I wish none of them had happened and each person who died and suffered could have been saved.

    As for CNN, you should not judge a book by its cover and reject all content because of a label. To make up my mind on the Yugoslav breakup, however, I do not rely on the media alone. I speak Serbocroatian and reas original sources. I have been to Zagreb (pre-war & post-war), Mostar (pre & post), Split (pre&post), Zadar (pre&post), Dubrovnik (post), Vukovar (pre& post), Ilok (pre & post), Plitvice lakes (pre & post), Sarajevo (post), Brcko (post), Belgrade (post: 2002 [3 years after NATO bombing] & 2010), Novi Sad (post) and Ljubljana (pre&Post), many of these places multiple times. I have relatives who are Croatian, Serbian and German. In the 90s I helped refugees and heard many first-hand accounts. I even was in Dayton during the peace talks in 1995. I know that non-Serbs in Ilok and other places had to wear white ribbons when in public under Serb Krajina Republic control. I know the Croats covering up a massacre of Serb civilians fought Canadian UN soldiers in the Medak pocket in 1993. I know that the village where they caught Mladic in Voivodina was a German village before WWII and that people there still live in the houses built by the Germans like in many villages.

    The general problem with ethnic chauvinism, racism and nationalism is that it only sees and counts the victims of one's own group and never of the enemy, the Other. This virus is still affecting the former Yugoslavia. Before it is overcome and human rights are respected universally, the path to a peaceful and united Europe will remain long and arduous.

    By :
    Andrej Novak
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • Andrej,now you're really rambling. Bozana? Again, look in the mirror and you'll see rudeness and a whole lot of hatred. No rational conversation can take place under such conditions. Adios!

    By :
    Liz
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • I'm not denying that crimes were committed by Serbians as well. But it feels like I need to balance the scrutiny you put against the Serbians in the wars. Moreover, I'm laying blame on the Slovenian government and Croatian government for the violence that followed because of the way that they separated. If it was done properly then relations between all ethnic groups today would be a lot better.

    At the end of the day, Serbia went out of it's way to hold together Yugoslavia, to it's own detriment.

    By :
    Bozana
    - Posted on :
    20/02/2013
  • @Liz:
    Is it hatred to be intolerant towars ethnic cleansing at any point in history and any place in the world? Am I expecting too much when all I ask of Serbs and Serbia is the unequivocal condemnation of genocide and acceptance their/its own historic responsibility in the region? I am a friend of any Serb who honestly fulfills this requirement and stands up for this principle.

    Why have I not read one single word of regret from you about the toddler Ana (see above) or about the thousands of other German civilians who died in camps in Serbia or any of the other innocent civilian victims of genocide at the hands of Serb perpetrators? Is it so difficult to express a little empathy on the grounds of common humanity and universal human rights? Or does your "ideology", whatever it is, not allow showing such a sign of "weakness"?

    @Bozana:
    You are not denying Serbian crimes, which is a start. But you must realize that there was no good reason for either side to turn neighbour against neighbour and engage in warfare. At the time, borders were redrawn in Europe (e.g. Baltics, Czechoslovakia, etc.) in a peaceful fashion. Mostly, it stayed peaceful where the governments decided against the use of force.
    Even with some armed groups with light arms present in Slovenia and Croatia at the time and some serious incidents between the ethnic groups (Plitvice, Borovo, Zadar, etc), there is no justification for bringing the Yugoslav army into the conflict and for not trying all diplomatic avenues including bringing in international actors from the outset. Mind you, there had also been a nationalistic media campaign in media from Serbia under the indirect control of Milosevic for a long time before the outbreak of war, which massively increased the threat perception among the Serb populations outside Serbia to the level of expecting another Jasenovac and being ready for preemptive military action. Many Serbs and Serb politicians deny this reality and prefer to see themselves as victims.
    I have seen the destruction in Vukovar after the siege of 1991 and in Belgrade after the NATO bombings of 1999 and I can assure you that Vukovar(1990 population: 45.000) alone sustained many times more bomb and war damage than Belgrade (1999 population: about 1.5 million), which is more than 30 times the size of Vukovar. Per capita Vukovar was probably hit 100 times worse than Belgrade but NATO is worse than the Yugoslav army? By the way, Vukovar was totally ethnically cleansed and almost all non-Serbs expelled after the 3-month siege. There was also a massacre of hospital patients and non-Serbs were forced to wear white ribbons on their right arm in public under Serb Krajina administration. How do you explain that with saving Yugoslavia? It is not more consistent with creating a racist-nationalistic Greater Serboslavia?
    Despite this, I think that Croatian nationalists who today are insinuating that the war was fought against the Cyrillic alphabet are lunatics and victims/adherents of the same destructice ideology.

    By :
    Andrej Novak
    - Posted on :
    07/03/2013
  • Andrej, I know something about genocide, my maternal grandfather was massacred during WWII because he was not an RC Croat. You may have heard of that genocide, when some 1 million Serbs, and 10s of thousands of Jews and Roma were also their victims during that horrific genocide.

    I detest wars and genocide, no matter by whom perpetrated. I don't know your age or what sources of information you relied upon. I've forgotten the totality of everything you wrote here. However, if I haven't sent you this link, here it is: http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html

    I make my exit.

    By :
    Liz
    - Posted on :
    07/03/2013
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Advertising

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Video General Promoted 2

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising