In the course of 2005 the Serb elite on several occasions realized the
importance of the minority issue. Firstly, it happened in early 2005, during
the EU Parliament commission visit to Vojvodina aimed at collecting information
on the status of minorities and nature of incidents which had so strongly
marked the previous year 2004.[1]
According Žolt Bečei the commission's report « as an official document of
European parliament shall make part of the Serbia file» and “shall be taken
into consideration during deliberations on accession of Serbia and Montenegro
to Europe.”[2]
Secondly, in its Resolution on the Protection of Multiethnicity in Vojvodina,
European Parliament made it clear that «the respect of human rights and
fundamental freedoms” is a precondition not only for «acceptance of European
parliament to conclude the Agreement on Stabilization and Association with
Serbia and Montenegro,» but also «for any future partnership with EU in
general». And finally, Olli Rehn, EU Commissioner for Association, draw
attention to the importance of the minority issue in the first half of October.
In his address to Vojvodina MPs he underscored that the respect of human and
protection of national minorities rights constituted one of the most important
political criteria of EU. Furthermore he tried to get the following message
across: the Agreement on Stabilization and Association could be suspended if
the said rights are violated anew.[3]
Those repeated warnings, uttered by various bodies and representatvies of
the international community, have not always been adequately met or responded
to by the Serb public and political elite. Instead of being prioritized, from
the standpoint of strategic interests, as an important integrating and
developmental resource, the minority issue is constantly marginalized in
Serbia, and due to such sidelining thereof it has become a major security issue[4]
and the one which is constantly monitored by the international community as its
primary concern. Instead of using that issue for a more accelerated and easier
integration into supra-national structures, in the first place into EU, the
Serb political elite position on minorities is still steeped in Milosevic era
political rhetoric which tends to see in a pronounced interest in the
minorities status «evil intentions and a deft engineering.».[5]Nervous
reactions which followed internationalization of the minority issue[6]
indicated that in the Serb political agenda it was accorded a second-ranking
status. Attempts of national minorities, notably of the Hungarians to draw
attention of the international community to its position, not only call into
question an already impaired credibility of the Serb authorities, but also its
committment to European values. Recent makever of public rhetoric and its
stilted pro-European tones, can hardly cover up the inability to make a clean
break with the past state of affairs in the field of national minorities
status. Several incident and scandals which happened in 2005, led to a bleak
conclusion that Serbia was still in a vicious circle, that is, moving within
the same ideological framework which fueled the war in the first place. [7]
Against such a backdrop it should be emphasized that the number of incidents in
2005 was reduced with respect to 2004. However that fact should not illude us,
for at work are still all those factors which contribute to escalation of
inter-ethnic relations,[8]
and whose potential for conflict, without assisstance of the international
community cannot be either pacified or removed.
The international community responded differently to problems in
multi-ethnic relations: - by monitoring,[9]
by a discussion on situation in Vojvodina and on status of national minorities
held in Brussels[10] in
the first half of October, and by the Resolution on Multiethnicity of Vojvodina
adopted in late September 2005. Other institutions, notably the Council of Europe,
High OSCE Commissioner for Minority Rights, EU countries ambassadors, also
showed their concern for and interest in developments related to inter-ethnic
relations.
Driven by the intention to use the interest of the international community
in stabilization of Serbia for improvement of position of their own
communitites, various ethnic prime movers endeavoured to keep the minority
issue open.[11]
Thus, the three political parties of Vojvodina Hungarians[12]
– Democratic Party of Vojvodina Hungarians (DPVH), Democratic Community of
Vojvodina Hungarians (DCVH) and the Civil Party of Vojvodina Hungarians (CPVH)
decided to forward their proposals[13]
on a desirable model of autonomy for Vojvodina Hungarians to Marti Ahtisari,
the UN envoy to Kosovo and Metohija, and Stephen Lene, EU representative, and
ask for their assisstance in the realization of the project. [14]
In mid-December the three Bosniak parties – National Movement of Sandžak,
Sandžak Alternative and Sandžak Democratic Union-have defined “Initial guidelines
and principles for the resolution of status of Sandžak and status of Bosniaks
in Serbia and Montenegro.» In view of their assessment that human and
minorities rights of Bosniaks are violated, and that the status issue of
Sandžak is neglected, the aforementioned parties think that the State Union of
Serbia and Montenegro “should be administratively and territorially re-arranged
and transformed into a democratic community of equal peoples,” in which Sandžak
would be arranged/defined “as a whole political-territorial unit within Serbia
and Montenegro.” The document furthermore underscored the following: «In case
of separation between Serbia and Montenegro, citizens of Sandžak would decide
in a referendum with which state they would unite their the whole teritory .»
The three Bosniak parties also called on all the state bodies and institutions
to back their «Initial Guidelines and Principles,» in order to resolve the
issue of status of the Bosniak people and Sandžak.
And finally, in late October 2005, Presidency of the Democratic Alliance of
Croats (DAVC) put forward its “Declaration on Status of the Croat People in
Vojvodina”. That Declaration stressed that members of the Croat community were
in an inequitable position with respect to the majority people, and also with
respect to the other minorities. Declaration listed the biggest problems:
discrimination, non-implementation of principle of proportionate
representation, and lacking provision on the official use of the Croat language
and alphabet. Declaration pointed out that a special problem was an active
policy of division of the Croat community into Croats and Bunjevci, with the
goal of assimilation of Croats. In the final part of its document DAVC stressed
that « all the aforementioned problems shall be reported to the competent
domestic and international organizations, notably to Council of Europe,
European Parliament and High Envoy for National Minorities.»
All the three aforementioned attempts to inform the international
institutions of the issue of minorities and consequently prompt them to
pro-actively tackle that issue, were met with negative public responses.
Minister for Human and Minority Rights opposed internationalization of
Sandžak-Bosniak issue, for «minorities, in all the previous cases, had experienced
more harm than benefit from internationalization. And, according to Ljajic, it
would be especially harmful now when negotiations on Kosovo are to start,
because possible tackling of Sandzak-Bosniak issue would be understood by the
Bosniak people, as a minority conspiration against Serbs and their state”.[15]
Ljajic also had a negative stance on the Declaration on Status of Croats, for,
according to him «it was awash with ungrounded assessments and accusations”.[16]
According to Petar Lađević, Secretary of the government-run Council
for National Minorities, DAVH in its declaration «espoused a series of lies»,
while Oliver Dulić, official of Democratic Party and President of the
Serb-Montenegrin Committee for European Integrations assessed that the «DAVH
document was out of sync with reality.»[17]
In contrast to the previous two, the proposals and “papers” of the
Hungarian political protagonists, attracted great attention. Mandate of special
envoy for negotiations on status of Kosovo, Marti Ahtisari, was considered to
broad, and according to Dušan Janjić, Director of Forum of Ethnic
Relations, «it is likely to cover Vojvodina, though no symmetry can be drawn
between Kosovo and Vojvodina.»[18]
Social-Democratic Party MP, Meho Omerović, criticized leaders of Hungarian
parties because of their demand that negotiations on autonomy of Hungarians
start in parallel with negotiations on Kosovo: “Equalization of status of
Hungarians in Vojvodina and Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo is totally
inadequate, totally irresponsible, harmful and very dangerous.” In Omerovic's
mind by making such demands leaders of Hungarian parties «joined the ranks of
those bent on weakening the international position of Serbia”.[19]
Borislav Novaković, Vice President of Assembly of Vojvodina, criticized
Andraš Agošton, Šandor Pal and Laslo Rac Sabo, for bypasing the provincial
bodies in their campaign to enlist support for their demands. [20]
In his mind the initiative of the three Hungarian parties is «extremely
detrimental to the preservation of the principle of multiethnicity of
Vojvodina.”[21]
Proposals of Hungarian parties were opposed by the Social Democratic Party of
Vojvodina. In its communique the latter underscored that «carving up of
Vojvodina on ethnic basis is impossible, and that discussion about such project
is harmful, for its fuels tensions and plays into the hands of nationalists.»
Demand for simultaneous negotiations was also assessed as unacceptable by Rasim
Ljajić,[22] and
criticized by the Vrbas municipal Committee of Democratic Alliance of Vojvodina
Hungarians. In its communique the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians thus
responded to the initiative of its political opponents: «the Finnish diplomat
does not have a mandate to take any decisions relating to Vojvodina and
Vojvodina Hungarians.[23]
Noteworthy are two elements in the AVH communique. In contrast to DAVH and
CAVH that is, Šandora Pal and Laslo Rac Sabo,[24]
who think that the issue of autonomy is the Serb matter, AVH stresses that from
the viewpoint of suprvival of Hungarians and their equality, broader autonomy
of Vojvodina is important, for it creates or has created more favourable
framework for attainment of Hungarian interests. It is however also underscored
in the communique that «in addition to personal, the regional Hungarian
territorial self-rule is also important.»[25]
However, the demand for the regional territorial self-rule [26]
was also met with criticism. Position of Democratic Party, a coalition partner
of AVH in the provincial government was espoused by head of the MP club and
vice prime minster of provincial government, Dragoslav Petrović :
“Introduction and formation of territorial autonomy on national basis is not in
the interest of citizens living in the area claiming indepndence, as it is not
in the interest of the minority collective, or in the interest of development
of autonomy of Vojvodina in general...for if the AVH idea were translated into
reality about 120,000 Hungarians, that is over 40% of Hungarian population,
would remain outside the imagined area of the Hungarian regional autonomy and
then, in the face of the mood of pressure and hatred they would tend to
concentrate in the autonomous area, and that, by extension, would lead up to
new escalations.[27] In
explaining his opposition to the AVH proposal, Rasim Ljajic, the Serb and
Montenegrin Minister for Human Rights, stressed that ethnically-based
autonomies are not a solution for they lead to transformation of Serbia into a
confederation of ethnic autonomies. He also warned that «the things then could
easily get out of hand, that is, other minorities could as well lay claim to
ethnic autonomies.»[28]
Similar criticism was voiced by Đorđe Bašić, Vice President of
Vojvodina Parliament: “That kind of ethnic region would not be good for anyone.
Tomorrow Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs and Rhutenians could place similar demands.
And then, should we make the ghettoes?”[29]
Criticism of the Serb establishment was both directed at domestic,
political protagonists, and at international institutions acts. In late
September, European Parliament adopted the Resolution on Protection of
Multiethnicity in Vojvodina, [30]
which, in view of continued violations of human and minority rights, [31]
called on authorities in the Republic of Serbia and the State Union of Serbia
and Montenegro, to legally recognize as criminal offences acts targeting the
minorities and their rights, and to act successfully in order to prevent their
repeat in the future. By pointing out “a high security risk of intimidation of
national minorities in Vojvodina” European Parliament demanded the Commission,
Council, and High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy to continue to
monitor the situation in Vojvodina, and to send EU observers to the province. [32]
There were different responses to the European Parliament document. Smaller
part of the political elite, notably Bojan Kostres, President of Vojvodina
Assembly, responded in a restrained fashion, by saying that the Resolution is a
clear message and a serious warning to the Belgrade authorities that worsening
of inter-ethnic relations in Vojvodina[33]
would no longer be tolerated. The second and more numerous part of the Serb
elite[34]
continued to relativize the importance of Strasbourg-adopted document,[35]
even by saying that it was not grounded in real facts. Public statements
varied, some said that formulations in the Resolution were overemphasized and
ungrounded in reality,[36]
some asserted that the resolution was of a political character and its findings
contrary to the status of inter-ethnic relations on the ground, [37]
others maintained that it was utterly ill-intentioned and contrary to fostering
of human rights,[38] some
that it was incorrect and false,[39]
or too sharp-toned, [40]
or that it was provoked, but not justifiable,[41]
that it was full of doctored elements written on the basis of actions of
lobbies and ill-intentioned reports of some, domestic NGOs,[42]
that the Resolution contained political assessments and enabled interference
into internal affairs of a state,[43]
- and there were also demands that European Parliament should instead tackle
violations of human rights of Serbs in Kosovo.[44]
Responding in that way to not- at- all- laudatory assessments of the
Resolution, parts of the political elite only emulated the very conduct which
in the first place had made the status of minorities attract the attention of
international institutions and compelled minorities proper to seek allies and
assitance for resolution of their problems outside Serbia. Instead of
recognizing political and economic interests for stabilization of situation in
Serbia in activities of European Parliament and those of other international
institutions, the fear was expressed that internationalization and open debate
would be conducive to further radicalization.[45]
Despite that manifest and repeated fear, internationalization proved to be a
useful and adequate vehicle, for it primarily led to the fall in the number of
inter-ethnic incidents in Vojvodina. [46]
Smaller number of incidents is one of the positive spin
offs of internationalization, but the public attention should be drawn also to
an important aspect of that problem, namely that incidents are a tell-tale sign
or information about developments in the depth of the society. In addition to
laying bare the fact that some important institutions were malfunctioning, [47] recent
incidents also pointed at the problem of ethnic divisions and segregation.
Causes of that phenomenon may be found in the policy which Serbia pursued in
late 20th century and its deep impact on inter-ethnic relations. According to
the UNDP survey on humane development in Serbia in 2005, over half of
respondents – 50.5%-think that ethnic and cultural differences invetiably lead
to tensions and that countries without national minorities are in a better
position. 85.4% of minorities members, with respect to 56.8% of Serbs, have a
positive attitude on those differences. The biggest degree of ethnic distance
expressed was the one towards Albanians,[48] and the
highest degree of ethnic- centrism was registered among the youngest population
( 20 to 23 years of age). They are the people,[49] who were born,
who grew up and were socialized in the society deeply involved in the war, in
which intolerance, hatred and ethnically motivated violence, represented a kind
of patriotic duty. Big ethnic distance and lack of inter-ethnic familiarization
not only lead to national divisions and parallel lives of members of various
ethnic communities, the phenomenon registered in several Vojvodina
municipalities, (Kanjiža, Senta, Temerin), but by thinning inter-ethnic
communication, they create an empty social space, which, in absence of an
adequate state reactions, is filled by violence against minorities perpetrated
by various nationalists and militants. Traces of their presence were seen
throughout 2005 on facades of public institutions, schools, religious and other
buildings. [50]
Intolerance was not only expressed by sprays, but also by assaults on members
of minorities, their property and symbols, with metal rods, or Molotov
cocktails. Unidentified persons attacked on 7 January the seat of the Bosniak
National Council and damaged the Bosniak flag and the ones of EU and Serbia. [51] Several days before arrival of the commission of
European Parliament windows on houses and the van windshield of two Futog
locals, of Romany ethnicity, were broken. [52]
The last day in January in Subotica was assaulted Lorant Hevera, a local
correspondent of the Hungarian state radio. [53]
In mid-February three skinheads beat up at Nis fortress two young Romany .[54]
On the facade of Dimitri Pinku's house the graffiti “KLA” was written, and
before that he received phone threats. [55]
A group of 10 hooligans attacked locals of the Romany shantytown in Vršac.
Romany were insulted on racial and national grounds, and one of was repeatedly
stabbed. [56] On
the first of March a group of Serb pupils beat up S.A. while he was waiting for
a Novi Pazar spa bus. [57]
In downtown Senta in front of the fire brigade headquarters on 13 March the
Serb flag was burnt, and three months later two soldiers beat up another
soldier, Maćaš Kovač, who allegedly commited that offence. [58]
A group of soldiers in May, around 22.30 hours raided the Pozarevac garrison
dormitory and beat up soldier Anis Mašović, who thus sustained lighter
bodily injuries.[59] In
Stara Moravica Jožef Mike (23) was beaten up by a refugee, who maintained that
„Hungarians should be re-settled in order to make the village totally Serb.»
Mike sustained grave head injuries. In early June in Bor unidentified persons
broke windows of the Vlashs-Romanian Cultural Society, “Arijadne filum”.[60] In Novi Sad Klisacka street, upon
leaving the cafe “Bela lađa” two Hungarian youths were beaten up for speaking in
Hungarian. [61] In settlement Tošin bunar unidentified youths threw several Molotov cocktails on Romany
houses, and similar incident was reported in a Romany settlement in Bežanijska
kosa.[62]
In late August unidentified youths threw two Molotov cocktails on
Romany-inhabited barracks in Sumatovacka street.[63]
Murder of one and wounding of another youth by an underage Romany contributed
to escalation of anti-Romany mood in Sivac. At the protest rally of citizens
held on 30 August in the building of municipal assembly of Kula the authorities
were given a deadline to re-settle all Romany from Sivac by 20 October, the
Liberation Day of that town. Some citizens suggested that the Romany Cultural
Centre “O đila” be destroyed by Molotov cocktails, and when someone
remarked that Romany were not second-class citizens, a group of citizens
shouted out: » Of course they are! We want Hilter!”[64]
In fear of retaliation, all six Romany families with a total of 27 members left
the settlement. [65]
Intolerance towards Romany was also
manifested by denizens of New Belgrade settlement Dr Ivan Ribar. At protest
rallies against the city authorities decision that containers be placed to
temporarily accommodate Romany, citizens yelled “We don't want Romany”, and
«Mayor Radmila Hrustanović go back to your native Sarajevo”.[66]
At dawn, on 30 August, a bomb was thrown in front of the family house of Jožef
Kasa, the AVH leader.[67]
In late night hours of 18 September in Novi Itebej signposts with Hungarian
names of locality were re-painted. [68]
In Srbobran was repainted the traditional Hungarian name for that locality,
Sentomaš,[69] and
before that the cyrillic name of locality was repainted and the date January
1942 was added. [70] In
late October several drunk youths stoned a group of Romany in a parking place
behind Najlon market in Novi Sad.[71]
Youths with crew-cuts, donning black leather jackets, and armed with metal rods
and wooden batons, in the course of November, demolished a Romany shantytown in
the vicinity of the Old Fairgrounds, and insulted its inhabitants on racial
grounds.[72] On
Christmas Eve in Banatski Dvor, Stojan Novković and his peer Branko
Stevandić physically assaulted Janos Drobina from Sombor and Tibor
Belovaija from Novi Bečej and compelled them to shout out “I am Serb” and
recite the Serb Orthodox litany. [73]
During the Catholic Christmas in village Torda, municipality of Žitište, a
group of youths from a nearby village Cestereg, barged into the local disco and
demanded that DJ played Serb songs instead of the English and Hungarian ones.
After that they started shouting out “This is Serbia”. The police removed the
youths from disco, but they continued to shout nationalistic slogans in front
of the church. [74]
In some cases it is very difficult, due to contradictory information, to
establish the nature of incidents, [75]
and sometimes, by wrong qualifications, the nature of incidents is changed.
Thus the police reported the Torda incident as «disturbance of public peace and
order» and not as a nationalistic incident. According to Jožef Kasa, AVH
leader, «that is yet another proof that the police in Serbia is not actively
engaged in clarification of cases of nationalistic incidents.”[76]
Kasa has repeatedly criticized the police work. In late March, he expressed his
satisfaction with a quick arrest of persons who in Belgrade had affixed
anti-Semitic posters, but took the police to task for «failing to act as
efficiently in identification of authors of most strident chauvinistic
graffitti «. He then posed the following question: “Why the police has not yet
found those who have attacked family Šetet? Why there is no progress in
investigation and why the police keeps mum about the brutal murder in Horgoš?”.
After accusing the police of being a political institution and of using double
standards in clarificaiton of crimes, Kasa cautioned that «Concrete steps
against perpetrators are made only when the political will exists».[77]
Various individuals and organizations repeatedly expressed their discontent
with the police and judiciary work in clarification and punishment of
perpetrators of inter-ethnic incidents. In mid-October, NGO “Civilian
Movement”, disgruntled with the police work, staged a public protest in
Subotica.[78] Pal
Sandor told a 200-strong crowd: “Representatives of Vojvodina Hungarians in the
past 15 years have resorted to all institutional recourses in order to resolve
their problems, but they have not succeeed in their intent. That is why this
time around we opted for a public demonstration.» Pal then accused the Interior
Secretary Dragan Jocic and the Justice Minister Zoran Stojković of “waging
a psychological war against minorities» and «for failing to timely schedule
trials of perpetrators of anti-Hungarian incidents.» After mentioning the
Temerin case, he stated that »an equitable treatment of cases of inter-ethnic
incidents does not exist.»[79]
Now we should point out some facts. Though the Temerin case was judicially
finalized, it is still 'alive' in political terms. It was a case of brutal
violence. Namely in mid-2004 5 youths inflicted grave, life-threatening
injuries to a denizen of Novi Sad, Zoranu Petrović.[80]
For that crime, the five youths of Hungarian nationality were sentenced to a
total prison term of 61 years. Local public opinion assessed that sentence as a
«draconian one», and also as «an example of unequitable law enforcement, for in
similar cases, perpetrators of Serb nationality, have not been passed such
harsh sentences.» As an example of double standards was also quoted the case of
soldier Maćaš Kovač. [81]
Namely the two soldiers who beat up Kovač and gravely injured him, were
sentenced to a total of 2 years and 4 months in jail. [82]
In cases of inequitable enforcement of legal provisions in sentencing
procedure it is difficult to prove ethnic bias, but reactions of public opinion
to differences in prison terms should not be ignored. Hence we would like to
point out in this report that public opinion tends to interpret such sentencing
as steeped in ethnic bias, which could potentially represent a major problem in
recovery of inter-ethnic relations for such interpretations impact the formation
of positions and conduct of people and may represent an additional element of
radicalization.
As regards the police, it is noteworthy that public attention was focused
on lack of efficiency in its work, and on the national composition, that is,
prerogatives of Vojvodina administration. After assessing that members of
minorities are underrepresented in police forces, provincial government asked
the republican bodies to prepare measures for removing that disproportion,[83]
and fine-tune the national police structure to the population structure. On the
other hand, worsening of of multi-ethnic relations indicated that, at least in
Vojvodina, the police had its hands tied. Namely the police are still a very
centralized organization, over which the provincial govenrment has no power or
control. Demand of Bojan Kostreš, President of Vojvodina assembly, that the
police administration for Vojvodina be formed, was rebuffed. Kostres stated:
“While we had our police there were no inter-ethnic tensions...inhabitants of
municipalities, the scene of incidents, are convinced that an inter-ethnic
police would protect them more efficiently.[84]
Republican authorities took a very hard line on problems which marked the
year 2005, namely they treated them only as-incidents.[85]
They insisted on that position even when incidents spread horizontally and
involved an increasingly large number of minorities members. By sheer
politicking they tried to relocate the problem from Serbia and Vojvodina to the
neighbouring Hungary and interpret it as a reflection of internal political
strife in that country. The basic underlying reason for such a rigid stance of
the Serb political elite should be seen in preparations for negotiations on the
final status of Kosovo and the elite's assessment that opening of the minority
issue would present an additional burden for them and make more difficult its
negotiating position. According to some assessments more efficient work of the
police in 2005 was not accompanied by an efficient work of the judiciary, despite
resolute statements of politicians that «the Serb state would do its best to
punish all perpetrators of incidents.»[86]
The foregoing may be interpreted by the need to reduce pressure on the
government in order to enable it to devote its full attention to Kosovo-related
negotiations thanks to a «pacified» issue of minorities.
Kosovo issue is present in inter-ethnic relations in several ways-as an
element of radicalization, as an element of pacification, and as a factor
impacting formulation of claims laid by ethnic protagonists.[87]
There is a palpable public fear that if settlement of Kosovo issue results
contrary to interests of Serbia, radicalization and a major pressure of
nationalists[88] on
minorities would ensue. A direct spin off of such radicalization would be
direct violence against some minorities, notably Albanians, Romany and Ashkali,
which their fellow-citizens liken to Kosovo Albanians, and a major pressure on
autonomy of Vojvodina. However, in that regard opinions varied. In his
interview to Novi Sad daily Dnevnik, Bojan Pajtic, Vice Prime Minister
of Vojvodina, stated that opening of discussion on Kosovo, despite negative
reflections which had been felt after the March 2004 violence in Kosovo, should
not lead to new escalation of inter-ethnic tensions in Vojvodina.
That interview was particularly interesting from the angle of
responsibility for worsening of inter-ethnic relations. In denying the
provincial administration responsibility, Pajtić pointed out that “the
graffiti, physical incidents, underrepresentation of members of minorities in
the police and judiciary belong to competence of the republican, and not
provincial administration”.[89]
The issue of responsibility was raised in October, after appearance of
anti-Hungarian graffiti in the Novi Sad suburb of Telep. Then the Alliance of
Vojvodina Hungarians demanded resignation of Rasim Ljajic, Minister for Human
and Minority Rights. Ljajić thus responded to that demand: „Insistence on
my resignation is tantamount to politization of current developments in
Vojvodina. By the way if the issue of someone's responsibility is raised, then
we should bear in mind that Tamas Korhec, the provincial secretary for minority
rights and member of the AVH, has larger prerogatives than I do, which
practically means that he should assume responsibility for the status of
inter-ethnic relations in Vojvodina.”[90]
In contrast to the republican administration, the provincial one
demonstrated a higher degree of sensitivity to problems which had arisen in the
field of inter-ethnic relations. In early March, the provincial authorities
adopted a project “Affirmation of
multiculturalism and tolerance in Vojvodina”[91] with a view to
presenting to secondary school pupils linguistic, cultural and religious
diversity as a value, advantage and prospect.[92] In presenting
the project, Tamaš Korhec, Provincial Secretary for Administration, Regulations
and National Minorities, stated that preservation of good inter-ethnic
relations is one of the priorities of the provincial government, and as such a
condition of stability and integration of the country into the European
structures.[93]
In his mind «we don't only need responses by the judiciary and police...that
is, we in fact need preventive actions, that is curbing of phenomena which lead
to upsetting of inter-ethnic relations.» [94] He added: “The
existing inter-ethnic tolerance stems from prejudices and ignorance, and the
goal of this program is education and revival of a multi-lingual system
conducive to strengthening of inter-ethnic confidence.”[95]
We should mention the Youth Camp of Tolerance, organized
at Palic jointly by the Serb and Hungarian Parliament,[96] as an example
of good practice, that is an attempt to relax inter-ethnic tensions and to
affirm multiculturalism and tolerance. The same holds true of a series of
initiatives taken by civilian organizations[97] or announced
by the officials. Thus, for example, the provincial government showed its
readiness to create, as of 2006, all the necessary conditions for education of
members of Macedonian minority in their mother tongue, in municipalities of
Plandiste and Pancevo, and to finance Macedonian language newspapers. As
regards information of minorities, it bears noting that after 64 years the
Ukrainian language daily «Ridne Slovo» was re-launched. Its publishing shall be
funded from the provincial budget.
Two more events are noteworthy. At the meeting between the
provincial prime minster and representatives of national councils the lack of a
consistent state strategy for promotion of status of national minorities was
indicated. It was also established that a new democratic platform aimed at
improving that status, should be also drawn up. All participants in the meeting
agreed that the said platform should include the strategy on the minority
policy in the fields of the official use of language and alphabet, culture,
education and information, as well as prevention, that is the penalty policy
towards perpetrators of inter-ethnic incidents. [98] The second
important devleopment was a rapid reaction of the state bodies to the 9
November incident at the Novi Sad Faculty of Philosophy. Namely, in order to
mark the International Day of Struggle against Fascism, Anti-Semitism and
Racism, the panel discussion was staged. The said discussion was interrupted by
a group of neo-Nazis who insulted the participants. Public opinion responded by
sharp condemnation of that incident and a demand that all neo-Nazi
organisations and groups be outlawed and banned. Vojvodina parliament then also
demanded that the Serb government and other competent institutions did
something in order to prevent actions and activities of skinheads and
organizations “National Squad”, “Blood and Honour” and “Racial Nationalists”,
and banned activities of the political movement “Cheek”, and those of Movement
of 64 Districts, which harmed integrity of the Republic of Serbia and insulted
national feelings of citizens.[99]
And finally it should be mentioned that in a series of
municipalities, on the basis of the Act on Local Self-Rule, Councils for
Inter-Ethnic Relations were set up. From the standpoint of exercise of minority
rights those councils are important for they more or less indirectly indicate
the status of some minorities. According to the unofficial data, Romany are the
most numerous minority, but a very dispersive one, which strips them of some
important collective rights. Due to their territorial non-concentration in
certain percentages in municipalities in which they live, participation of
representatives of that minority in constituting and work of their pertinent
Council is not envisaged.[100] Other
minorities, notably Montenegrins, Yugoslavs, or Vojvodinans, are in a similar
situation. Though they, in contrast to Romany, are represented in the envisaged
percentage in the structure of Novi Sad population, representatives of those
minorities are not legally entitled to membership or positions in that Council.
Such a nihilistic position on Yugoslavs and Vojvodinans indicates a repressed
chauvinistic nature of the majority, Serb nationalism. Attitude towards
Montenegrins is even more complicated, because it is mediated by the Serb
Orthodox Church. Namely in order to improve its status, the Association of
Montenegrins of Serbia, “Krstaš” announced an international conference on the
status and rights of Montenegrins in Serbia. Nenad Stevovic, president of
«Krstas» said: “We shall bring pressure to bear on the political elite in
Serbia in order to make it improve the status and position of the Montenegrin
ethnic community, that is, to effect its equalization with all other national
minorities.» He assessed that “the rights of Montenegrins in Serbia are now
very threatened, including the right to freedom of religious expression, the
right to their mother tongue and the right to political activities.” The
Association plans to build in Lovcenac the Montenegrin Orthodox church, but the
Serb Orthodox Church opposes that plan in view of fact that its own church is
being built there. According to Ljubomir Perovic, most people who back
construction of the Montenegrin orthodox church are vexed by the fact that the
Serb Orthodox Church refuses to enter into the churh registry their new-born
children as Montenegrins. Perović added that people were hurt by the
Christmas message of Bishop Irinej Bulović in which he said that people
who were building the Serb Orthodox church were entrusted by God himself with a
holy mission of serbizing that area.[101] It should be
stressed that the Association asked Minister Ljajic to protect the human and
civil rights of Montenegrins by returning to the country and publicly
destroying the list with names of Montenegrins in Serbia, which had been
handed to the EU representatives by the Serb Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica.
If a response to that demand fails to materialize then Association “Krstaš”
intends to internationalize the issue of violations of the rights of
Montenegrin national minority. [102]
Problems in attainment and exercise of the minority rights
may be registered and monitored in several areas: in relations between the
state and minorities, in relations between the majority and minority, in
relations between minorities, and in intra-minority relations. Public attention
is usually focused on the first two areas. The state is expected to protect
human and minority rights, and not to call them into question by its decisions
or moves. [103]
However the existing problems cannot be reduced only to the first two areas,
and public attention should also be focused on inter-ethnic and intra-minority
relations. In those terms we should list problems which exist between members
of Croat and Bunjevci Minority, partly because of their long-standing nature.
As it has been earlier mentioned in this report, Presidency of Democratic
Community of Vojvodina Croats, in its Declaration listed as a special problem,
«an active, state action aimed at dividing the Croat minority» and “efforts to
artificially morph a regional Croat ethnic group (Bunjevci) speaking one of the
Croat dialects (ikavica), into a new ethnic group under a regional name and to
confront it with the Croat community.» The goal of that campaign is «to
facilitate assimilation of the Croat community.». DCVC in early 2005 sharply
reacted to the annoucement of the National Council of Bunjevci Minority that
Bunjevci language from the start of the new school-year would be studied in
primary schools. The follow-up was an open letter of 50 Croat Bunjevci from
Serbia, Croatia and Hungary to the Serb and Croat authorities, in which they
asked for an end «to the process of division of the Croat ethnic community in
Vojvodina into Croats and Bunjevci.»[104]
And then there were responses by the other side. In
assessing that the aforementioned Declaration confirmed the existence of
serious inter-ethnic problmes in Vojvodina, Bunjevci Party dedicated special
attention to the position that the state was encouraging an artificial division
in the midst of the Croat community, and stated that such claim was tantamount
to a classical misplacement of thesis and an attempt to assimilate Bunjevci.[105] According to
Mirko Bajić, provincial MP and member of the Committee for Inter-Ethnic
Relations of Vojvodina Parliament: “It is not right and legal for the national
minority or its political representatives to contest the right of other
national minority to existence, and to other rights which it lay claims to.”[106] He asked the
state bodies to protect Bunjevci rights and condemn “unfair and unargumented
attacks aiming to facilitate assimilation of Bunjevci by the Croat national
community.”[107]
Darko Babić, President of Bunjevci Party, stated that a letter was sent to
the Serb Prime Minister Kostunica, and that President of Serbia and
representatives of competent committees in the republican parliament were
familiar with contents thereof. He added that charges were filed against
President of DCCV for instigating racial, religious and inter-ethnic hatred. [108] Davor Vidis,
Consul General of the Republic of Croatia in Serbia, also spoke about existing
problems between Croats and Bunjevci. Namely he stated that “the Republic
Croatia considered Bunjevci in Vojvodina as a sub-ethnic group which clearly
belongs to the Croat national body.”[109] In
underscoring that such a position was based on scientific and objective facts,
Davor Vidiš added: “if part of that community does not consider itself as
members of the Croat people, and maintains that it it is a distinct enhnicity,
they are entitled to do so, for nationality is a subjective feeling.”[110]
And finally attention should be paid to the following
fact: minorities are not homogenous communities, all minority members don't
have equally developed national awareness, nor they all are equally ready to
engage temselves for the sake of attainment of community's goals, and not all
members of pertinent minority agree on measures which should best serve the
interests of their community in the given case. For example the decision of the
Hungarian National Council to resort to overhaul of popular Hungarian language
daily «Madjar so» [111] was strongly
contested by part of (non-party members) of the Council, [112] journalists ,[113] but also by
members of the Hungarian community proper. [114] That decision
was publicly interpreted as an attempt of the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians
to establish a full control over the newspaper and also as a signal to
Hungarians to relocate to North Vojvodina,[115] that is as a
bad sign [116]
for Hungarians in South Backa that other institutions would be relocated to
Subotica too. [117] Responses to
the decision of the Council also reflect distinct interests of some regions in
which members of the Hungarian Community live. Interests of Hungarians in Novi
Sad differ from interest of Hungarians in other parts of Vojvodina, and the
ability of Novi Sad to harmonize various interests impacts its authority.
Regarding the foregoing it should be stressed that legitimacy of the National
Council of Hungarians has been contested since its inception. Some Hungarian
parties and renowned intellectuals [118] think that
the NCH was formed in a legal, but not in a legitimate way, and that it
represents interests of the strongest party, AVH, instead of representing
interests of the national community. In mid-September a group of Hungarian
citizens disgruntled with the work of the NCH launched an initiative, that is
sent a proposal on formation of a new organization more legitimately
representing the community interests to 400 addresses. Other ethnic communities
have also manifested their discontent with the work of national councils. In
early May 7 Bosniak parties launched an initiative for convening an
extraordinary electors assembly. In their opinion the NC currently does not
have the legitimacy to represent interests of Bosniaks, for the influence of
List of Sandzak on the electorate has waned. Interests of the two conflicted
political groupings within the Bosniak community were manifested in conflicts
between the executive and representative bodies in Novi Pazar, their mutual
accusations and a series of criminal charges. [119] Conflicting
interests among the Romany minority culminated with a demand that the National
Council be be replaced, that is, banned. [120]
Faced with a deficit of legitimacy national councils are
one of the elements contributing to escalation of inter-ethnic relations.
Indirect, undemocratic election of councils via electronic assemblies proved to
be a bad solution. Thus party fractions of national elites were favoured,
members of minorities were stripped of their influence, and the very idea of
minority self-rule was called into question. It was repeatedly stated that the
act spelling out more precisely manner of the council's election, mode of
financing and its prerogatives, should be urgently adopted. In early 2005
round-table held in Novi Sad it was pointed out that the process of adoption of
the minority-related legislation was slowed-down, and the legal framework,
within which the minorities should exercise their rights, was incomplete and
contradictory.
Conclusion
The Serb authorities did not respond adequately to the 2005 escalation of
inther-ethnic relations. Instead of facing the problem, they decided to
minimize it. Disgruntled with such a tack of the authorities, political
representatives of the Hungarian minority decided to attract interest of the
international fora, for their and other minorities status and problems.
Internationalization of the probelm proved to be an efficient vehicle, for
it led to reduction of incidents. It additionally showed that the Serb problems
with minorities were in fact problems with European Union.
In 2005 the number of incidents fell, but ethnic and cultural rifts in the
society continued to deepen. Initiatives to straddle those rifts were met by a
strong autism of the incumbent authorities. [121]
Inability of the political elite to make a U turn and constitutionally
(re)definine identity of Serbia, effect comprehensive decentralization, broaden
prerogatives of local self-rules, has a frustrating effect and tends to
radicalize the minorities. Faced with a moral insensivity of the majority,
cultural racism, economic marginalizing and political repression-the current
Serb parliament has less minority parties MPs than during the Milosevic
regime-minorities are increasingly looking for a way out in the shape of
–special arrangements.
In current circumstances most attractive are the solutions which in the
case of a well thought-out (not only) minority policy would enjoy a marginal
backing. In absence of comprehensive reforms the assertion that the claim to
territorial autonomy is rather an efficient means of isolation of minorities,
than a successful vehicle for problem resolution, is becoming less convincing.
Aside from the Hungarian, other minorities in the province don't have
resources to impose themselves as influential political protagonists. Added to
that they don't do anything to become more influential in order to prevent
down-scaling of inter-ethnic relations to the two, in Vojvodina, most numerous
ethnic communities.
Deeply ingrained prejudices and
stereotypes cannot be removed by limited affirmative actions. That task should
be taken on by social sub-systems, like educational ones, informative one,
cultural one, etc.
The fact that minorities are formally recognized and legally guaranteed the
rights with bearing on preservation of their identity, can barely conceal the
prevailing conviction that minorities are still “a burden”, and not “an
advantage, value or prospect.”
Recommendations
·
Interest of the
international community in inter-ethnic relations in Serbia should be used for
further promotion of status of minorities;
·
In the institutional
respect it is very important to set up on the republican level the Ministry for
Human and Minority Rights, to pass a law on minorities and all the accompanying
provisions and regulations;
·
An anti-discrimination law
should be passed;
·
Autonomy of Vojvodina
should be re-affirmed and its prerogatives expanded to the police; a special
Vojvodina police administration should be also formed;
·
National set-up of the police
and judiciary should be overhauled to reflect the national population structure;
·
Work of police, prosecution
and judiciary should be made more efficient;
·
Media should be encouraged
to more sistematically cover the issue of minorities;
·
Educational
programs should include contents promoting inter-culturality and encouraging
familiarization between different ethnic communities;
·
Demands
for introduction of language of the social milieu as a mandatory school
subject-matter should be backed;
·
Work of NGOs dealing with
human and minority rights should be backed;
·
Systematic actions aimed at
improvement of the status of Romany minority should be taken, in view of the
April 2005 start up of implementation of a decade-long project «Decade of
Romany» in which the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro also takes part;
·
Formation of the Council
for Inter-Ethnic Relations should be accelerated and its composition expanded
by representatives of all groups meeting the legally prescribed conditions
(Vojvodinans, Montenegrins...);
·
Process of adoption of the
minority-related legislation should be accelerated. A law regulating the issues
of election, prerogatives and financing of national councils should be passed;
·
Representatives
of minorities should be included in the process of adoption of the new
constitution.
[1]Commission was led by Doris Pack, and its
members were Johanes Svoboda, Jelko Kacin, Đura Heđi and Žolt
Bečei.
[2] Građanski list,
29/30 January 2005.
[3] “European Union shall
monitor the status of national minorities in Serbia and Montenegro, notably of
Romany, and in case of reported violations of human and minority rights, under
a clause of the Agreement on Stabilization and Association, it could suspend
entry in force thereof. ” Dnevnik 12 October 2005.
[4] See Resolution of European Parliament,
point 7.
[5] Milorad Mirčić, high official
of the Serb Radical Party, in his statement to “Dnevnik” assessed that “some
parties are again raising the issue of minorities and if the Resolution is
adopted, that will only exacerbate the whole situation, not only in Vojvodina,
but in Serbia too.” Mirčić also stressed that “EU is directly
interfering into internal political issues of a state”. Dnevnik, 17
October 2005.
[6] In his interview to «Dnevnik», Petar
Lađević, Secretary of the Serb Council for National Minorities,
stated that “every internationalization of the minority issue in Serbia was
unnecessary» and “utterly ill-intentioned”, for, “globally speaking, the rights
of national minorities in the Republic of Serbia are fully respected», Dnevnik,
4 November 2005.
[7] Currently in
[8] Laslo Joža, President of the National
Council of Hungarians, stated that a lesser problem is a decrease in the number
of incidence, and the bigger one a poor inter-personal and inter-etnic mood in
the soceity for it leads to incidents. Građanski list, 12 October
2005.
[9] European Parliament commission toured Serbia, in early
2005, with a view to collecting facts and figures on the status of minorities
and nature of incidents which so strongly marked the year 2004. During their
visit the commission members toured several towns and had talks with
representatives of minorities, NGOs, media, parties, religious communities, and
different local, provincial and state officials.
Doris
Pack then stated: « All officials, our interlocutors, gave us their assurances
that they were committed to multiethnicity, that they were concerned about
incidents, and that they were resolved to prevent their repeat.» Without going
into details of the causes of incidents, she mentioned a bad economic situation
and a high unemployment rate as the principal causes, and also pointed out that
an important vehicle in incident prevention was a more integrative educational
system and higher prerogatives of the local and provincial authorities. Having
in mind a large number of refugees in Vojvodina, «who, though Serbs, are
obviously not accustomed to the life in a multi-ethnic milieu», Doris Pack
underscored that “via education refugess may get used to the idea of European
Vojvodina”, and “familiarize with characteristics of their new milieu”. That
statement of Doris Pack promted the following reaction by the Regional
Committee for Aid to Refugees in Vojvodina: «her words are an insult to
refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.»
One
of the most important insights of the commission was the following: “The whole
state cannot be blamed for recent multi-ethnic incidents in Vojvodina. We were
convinced that those incidents were acts of individuals, but what remains to be
explored are the whys and wherefores of the mass character of those
incidents.”. Danas, 31 January 2005.
[10] 10 Discussion in Brussels was convened after the European Parliament adoption
of the Resolution on Protection of Multiethnicity in Vojvodina. Participants in
the discussion were representatives of the state bodies of Serbia and
Montenegro, national councils of Vojvodina Hungarians and Croats, and NGOs.
Before the Brussels discussion, Committees for European Integration and
Minorities Rights of the Serb-Montenegrin Parliament, adopted their conclusions
assessing that «minorities-related allegations in the European Parliament Resolution
on the status of minorities in Vojvodina are-exaggerated and totally
ungrounded.»
Josip
Pekanović, President of the National Council of Croats and one of the
participants in the discussion, assessed that in the course of the Brussels
discussion emerged conspicuous differences in positions of Belgrade and
Vojvodina representatives, for the Belgrade authorities tried to downsclale the
problems in inter-ethnic relations, and also showed their reservations with
respect to autonomy. Rasim Ljajić, Minister for Human and Minorities
Rights of Serbia and Montenegro, after discussion stated that he was surprised
by the sharp-toned exposes of political representatives of Vojvodina Croats and
Hungarians, which «could play into the hands of nationalists both among the
majority and minority people.» Petar Lađević, Secretary of the Serb
Council for National Minorities, assessed the discussion as «an attempt to
internationalize the issue of autonomy of Vojvodina and territorial order of
Serbia, which, is entirely the matter of every soverign state, even of Serbia.»
According
to the pertinent press coverage, the state delegation was especially revolted
by the expose of Sonja Biserko, Chair of the Helsinki Committee for Human
Rights. She stressed that despite the efforts made so far, the negative stance
on minorities and overall animosity-rife mood towards them in the society has
not changed. She added that the ethnic concept of the state was still
prioritized though within that concept the issue of minorities cannot be
solved. She said that in a response to such a concept, minorities demand
special arrangments and statuses, which then cast doubt on their loyalty.
In
her expose Sonja Biserko pointed out that the Helsinki Committee continually
monitored the issue of minorities, and consequently forwarded its relevant
reports/findings to competent domestic and international institutions, and that
«the Helsinki Committee insists on the need for the facing up to the past,
which made that NGO a target of attacks, and its representatives a target of
the public lynch.» According to her opinion, in Serbia room shold be made for
the civilian society, notably organizations dealing with human rights. Having
in mind such a goal, in the last 2 years the Helsinki Committee activites
focused on human and minorities rights education of secondary school pupils and
students with a view to equipping them with knowledge to contribute actively to
decomposition of the predominant ethnic model. She advocated constitutional
independence of Vojvodina and stressed that imposition of the ethnic model on
Vojvodina would be a dangerous precedent, and not only for Vojvodina and the
region.
[11] According to «Danas» coverage, the
thirteen MPs of Council of Europe from 10 countries, at the proposal of a Moldavian MP, demanded a resolution on
violations of the rights of Romanian minority in Serbia. Rasim Ljajic, Minister
for Human and Minority Rights of Serbia and Montenegro, stated that the
declaration was still under discussion on various levels of different
committees of Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, and that it was
highly likely that the Serb-Montenegrin delegation in that body would prevent
the adoption of that declaration, Danas, 4 November 2005.
[12] Leaders of those parties in mid-December
2005 sent their proposal on the start-up of talks on autonomy of Hungarians and
other minorities in the country to President of Serbia Boris Tadić, Prime
Minister, Vojislav Koštunica and the Serb-Montenegrin Foreign Secretary Vuk
Drašković, in view of their assessment that «preparations for negotiations
on Kosovo are an ideal moment for a discussion on possible forms of autonomy.»
Those leaders stressed that «problems should be solved in Serbia, but we
noticed that the authorities lack the will and courage to start dialogue with
the Hungarian minority, for authorities in some countries who thought that the
minority issue would be resolved by appointment of “some representatives of
minorities to positions of Vice Prime Ministers or Ministers for Human and
Minority Rights”, were terribly wrong, for those appointees were guided more by
their self-interests than interests of their community. Dnevnik, 15 December
2005.
[13] At their Novi Bečej meeting the
three parties failed to agree on one model of autonomy. Instead they decided to
forward to the domestic and international addresses “three ideas on the paper”
– DPVH urges personal autonomy, DCVH proposal consists of elements of personal
and territorial autonomy, while CAVH opts for a territorial autonomy.
[14] Laslo Rac Sabo, leader of CPVH, stated:
«We have not informed Vojvodina Parliament of our proposals, since that body cannot
take pertinent decisions.» Građanski list, 23 November 2005.
[15] Danas, 28 November 2005
[16] Građanski list, 26 October 2005
[17] Građanski list, 26 October 2005
[18] Građanski list, 5 December 2005
[19] Dnevnik, 16 December 2005
[20] “Address for resolution of the minority
issues is neither
[21] Dnevnik, 24 November 2005
[22] Initiative of the Hungarian parties was
assessed by Rasim Ljajić as their attempt to impose themselves onto the
Hungarian community as its sole political representatives. Danas, 24 November
2005
[23] Dnevnik, 26 November 2005
[24] Laslo Rac Sabo thus explained his
advocacy of the territorial autonomy of Hungarians: “We back autonomy of
Vojvodina, but it cannot solve, for example, continuing inter-ethnic incidents,
re-distribution of goods in which Hungarians don't participate, high
unemployment among Hungarians, or consistent enforcement of laws. It is up to
the Serbs to settle the issue of autonomy of Vojvodina, but if Vojvodina were
granted autonomy similar to the one it had in the pre-90's period, it would not
improve the status of Hungarians because the present-day Vojvodina is different
from the pre-90's one.” Građanski list, 23 November 2005.
[25] Dnevnik, 26 November 2005, The
AVH communique includes the following stance: “Autonomy is not a magic wand
which could resolve all the worries and troubles of Vojvodina Hungarians. We
need an economic and political revival of Serbia, its European integration,
creation of a decentralized legal state, of new jobs and legal security, in
order to make it possible for Vojvodina Hungarains to live equitably, freely
and in prosperity.”
[26] That demand was present in the “New Serb
Constitution-related Platform of AVH”: «in the areas traditionally inhabited by
national minorities and in which they make the majority population,
multi-national territorial self-rule (MTS) may be formed...to include the
territory of at least 5 units of local self-rule. Decision on formation of MTS
is taken by bodies of local self-rule and confirmed by citizens in a
referendum. MTS guarantees full equality of the Serb languge and language of
the pertinent national minority. Officials and employees, barring those elected
in direct elections, are duty-bound to know both official languages, while
local bodies, organizations and public services are duty-bound to
proportionally employ members of national minorities. MTS has financial
prerogatives and manages finances to the extent it was entrusted to do by the
units of local self-rule. Province and Republics also may entrust MTS with
certain prerogatives and some finances for the exercise thereof.
[27] Dnevnik, 5
November 2005
[28] Građanski list, 1 November 2005
[29] Jozef Kasa thus responded to
criticism that territorial autonomy claims led to ghettoization of Hungarians:
»no-one has the right to prescribe to us recepies for our better life. We,
Hungarians in Vojvodina, we all who live here, we are the ones who should say
wheteher our claims would lead to ghettoization or not. Alliance of Vojvodina
Hungarians is not telling anyone how to resolve problems in their entities.»
Građanski list, 8 November 2005
Andraš Agošton, a political rival of Jožef
Kasa, also availed himself of the opportunity to float his stand: “There are no
genuine prospects or need for establishment of territorial autonomy of
Vojvodina Hungarians...Ideal solution is a personal autonomy, for it does not
entail any demarcation, but only creation of areas of importance for
preservation of identity and their running by minorities in question. « Dnevnik,
2 April 2005.
[30] Resolution was adopted by 88 votes. There
were no against votes and only two abstention ones.
[31] Not a single Serb institution, governmental
or governmental, has the accurate figure of ethnic incidents. None of the
disclosed facts and figures were correct. Helsinki Committee was led to make
such a conslusion, after its activists' conducted interviews with
representatives of Hungarian NGOs in Subotica. There we were told that some
families did not want to report cases of physical and verbal harassment of
their members, in order to avoid additional troubles.
[32] In its Resolution European Parliament confirmed “its readiness to exercise
all its budgetary prerogatives in order to bring pressure to bear on Serbia and
Montenegro to respect fundamental human rights and liberties, including the
rights of national minorities, but also to encourage them to do that and assist
them in that endeavour. ” European Parliament also backed the initiative of the
Inter-Parliamentary Delegation for Relations with South East Europe countries
to organize a public debate on the political situation in Vojvodina and on
problems of national minorities. Having in mind domestic responses, one element
of the Resolution is also noteworthy. Namely, in its point 6 European
Parliament calls on authorities in Serbia and in the State Union of Serbia and
Montenegro to re-establish in Vojvodina the autonomy which the province had enjoyed
until the year 1990.
[33] Građanski list, 2 October 2005
[34]
It is interesting to note that the criticism of resolution helped homogenize
diverse ideological elements, starting from the Socialist Party of Serbia and
the Serb Radical Party to Democratic Party and G 17 plus.
[35] Several sides repeatedly demanded discussion on positions expressed in the
Resolution. Thus MP group of the Serb Radical Party in Vojvodina Parliament
demanded an emergency session of the provincial parliament to discuss the
Resolution; Radicals suggested the text of their own resolution rejecting the
controversial positions of European Parliament. Committee for International
Co-operation and European Integrations suggested to Vojvodina Parliament to set
up a committee to probe into allegations of the Resolution. At the republican
level Meho Omerović, member of parliamentary Committee for Inter-ethnic
Relations asked the president of parliamentary- Esad Džudžević had been
relieved of his duties-to urgently convene a session which would discuss the
aforementioned document of European Parliament. At a session held in late
October, international community was, inter alia, accused of using double
standards, disregarding the status of Serbs in Kosovo, of trespassing its
prerogatives for the Resolution of European Parliament dealt with
constitututional order of Serbia. Added to that Hungary was accused of misusing
that issue for its day-to-day politics. (Danas, 27 October 2005.) At the
joint session of the Serb-Montenegrin Parliamentary Committee for European
Integrations and Minorities' Rights, members of those committees assessed the
Resolution's positions as exaggerated, and out of sync with the reality of
multi-ethnic Vojvodina on the ground.
[36] Oliver
Dulić i Asim Dizdarević, presidents of the Committee for European Integrations
and Human and Minority Rights of the Serb-Montenegrin Parliament, without
casting doubt on good intentions of MPs of European Parliament, told
“Građanski list” that «positions espoused in the Resolution could
backfire, that is make more difficult life of all citizens in Serbia and
Montenegro, and even of national communities, and consequently destroy very
fragile democratic structures and institutions in our society.» Građanski list, 11. October 2005.
[37] Momčilo Grubač, Danas, 3
October 2005. According to professor Grubač, the most important thing is
that violations of minority rights, which exist, are no longer, tacitly
enouraged by the state.
[38] Petar Lađević, Secretary of the
Republican Council for National Minorities, Građanski list, 27
October 2005. Lađević stated that the wording of the Resolution
reminded him of police lingo, and that its goal was not internationalization of
the issue of minority rights, but an attempt to impact the contents of the
future constitution. Dnevnik, 27 October 2005.
[39] The Resolution was qualified as false and
inaccurate by Željko Tomić, member of the Committee for Inter-Ethnic
Relations of Assembly of Serbia. He added that the Resolution should be linked
to activities of Jožef Kasa, leader of the AVH, “who instead of calming the
spiritis, is fuelling passions.”Građanski list, 1/2. October 2005.Contrary
to Tomić, Jožef Kasa, stated that he agreed with the appraisal of the
Resolution. Kasa's rival from the DAVH, Andraš Agošton, assessed the resolution
as justified, and underscored that any pressure aiming at betterment of
situation, was most welcome. Danas, 3 October 2005.
[40] That was the opinion of president of
provincial government, Bojan Pajtić (Dnevnik, 12 October 2005), president
of provincial committee of G17 plus Goran Anđelić (Dnevnik, 13
October 2005), members of the Serb-Montenegrin Parliamentary Committee for
European Integrations and Minority Rights (Dnevnik, 12 October 2005). According
to Ksenija Milivojević, president of the Serb Parliamentary Committee for
European Integrations, «the Resolution is rather a result of very good
lobbying, than a reflection of a situation on the ground. ”. Građanski
list, 1/2 October 2005
[41] Dušan Janjić, Co-ordinator of Forum
for Ethnic Relations, Danas, 3 October 2005.
[42] Milorad Mirčić, high official
of the Serb Radical Party, Dnevnik, 15 October 2005.
[43] Statement of Milorad Mirčić,
President of the Security Committee of the Serb Parliament, Dnevnik, 17
October 2005.
[44] Vuk Drašković, Foreign Secretary of
Serbia and Montenegro, asked the president of European Parliament “to finally
deal with the most gross trampling upon national and civil rights of Serbs and
other non-Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija”. Danas, 3 October 2005.
[45] The stand that internationalization in
recent cases was more harmful than beneficial for members of minorities was
repeatedly floated in public.
[46]
The fall in the number of incidents was publicly explained both by
internationalization and more efficient police work. Judging by all
appearances, the more active police work resulted from the international
community pressure.
[47]
This is a reference to the police, prosecution and courts of law. The list
could be expanded, for the Serb public opinion also ignores the importance of
the minority issue.
[48] Over one quarter of citizens of Serbia
are against Albanians becoming the citizens of Serbia (25.5%), 30.4% of them
don't want Albanians as neighbours, and 44.4% of them don't want Albanian
superiors in theri workplaces. 65.5% of respondents oppose marriages between
their family members and Albanians. Danas, 3 October 2005.
[49] The survey conducted in 2003 by the
Centre for Study of Alternatives established that «every fourth respondent, if
empowered to do so, would introduce discrimination in employment policy, every
fifth respondent believes in intellectual superiority of his own nation, and
every seventh respondent opposes ethnically mixed marriages”. Hrvatska
riječ, 8 April 2005.
[50] In March graffiti and anti-Semitic and
chauvinistic posters appeared on entrances to premises of NGOs , the
Humanitarian Law Fund and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. Sonja
Biserko, chair of HC, was branded as “the Jewish stooge-an obedient servant of
the Jewish World Order. ” On the wall of the Jewish cemetery the following
message was sprayed: “We must put up resistance to the Zionistic-5 October
occupation of Serbia. B92- Jewish TV. Out with Jews, parasites. We want freedom
and not the Jewish occupation. Serbia belongs to Serbs.” On posters signed by
the National Squad, the following was demanded: “We should boycott B92 because
of its : anti-Serb activities, lethal influence on the Serb youth, support to
independence of Kosovo and Metohija, support to spreading of drug-addiction,
homosexuality and other diseases imported from the West, support to the
multi-racial New World Order.” On facades of many schools, companies and
monuments the following messages were sprayed: “Serbia belongs to Serbs”, “For
White future, for race and nation” with crossed-out Star of David “Out with
Shiptari”, “General Mladic thank you for the Serb Srebrenica”, “On your knees
before Serbs”, “Crystal-clear 11. 11.”, “Equality between races is a Jewish
trap»; graffiti were written in Zrenjanin too: “Have healthy white children,
and not homosexuals”, “Serb Orthodox religion or death” and “Here devils
serve”, “White power” and “Yelow scum”. Graffiti against Chinese appeared in
Novi Sad: “Out with Yellow scum. Serbia belongs to Serbs.» and also graffiti
“Knife and wire make Srebrenica”, “General, thank you for liberation of
Srebrenica. 1995 – 2005. National Squad”, “Less Negroes, less racism”, “Don't
wait for an uprising, wake up, we butcher Hungarians. Serb children”, “Your
rebellion, our revenge”, “Slobo, Serb, come back”. Subotica was the scene of
anti-Croat graffiti: “Croats, you are lesser beings”, “Ustashi we shall
slaughter you”, and anti-Serb ones: “Kill a Serb” and “Hungary = Vojvodina”. On
several buildings in Nis Nazi swastikas and graffiti appeared: “Nataša
Kandić, the Muslim of the 21 century”, “Death to servants of Zionism”,
“Serbia belongs to Serbs, out with Turks”, “Ratko Mladić thank you for
Srebrenica”, Ratko Mladić, the Serb hero”, “Knife and wire make
Srebrenica”. In Nis, the group convicted of torching the mosque in front of a
municipal court sang: “After many years spent in prison because of torching of
Islam Aga-mosque I am singing again – Death to Muslims”. In Novi Sad on 15
October windows of the Christian Adventist Church were broken, and two months
later the two upper wings of its entry gate were demolished and two sound boxes
and a cassette-player were taken from the church. Graffiti “Knife and wire make
Srebrenica”were written in Sivac, Novi Pazar, Belgrade, Niš, Sremska Mitrovica
and in other towns. Posters with the same message appeared during the football
match between Serbia-Montengro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Temerin, in
Hungarian language were written graffiti with insulting contents, and double
cross and the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Hungary. In Temerin anti-Semitic
graffiti also appeared, while graffiti: “Shiptari bitches”, “For killers of
Serbhood, a bullet anytime –National Pride”, were found in Odzaci, etc.
One detail is noteworthy: Djordje Mamula
(DPS), member of the Defence and Security Committee of Parliament of Serbia,
asked: «Have you recently seen the graffiti with messages instigating national
hatred»? Mamula asked that question in response to claims made by Jožef Kasa
that inter-ethnic relations have worsened. Danas, 21 September 2005.
[51] Građanski list, 10 January 2005.
[52] Charges were filed against under-age B.
M. For instigation of racial, religious and national hatred. B.M admitted that
he was promted to commit his misdeed by his membership of Skinheads, and
nationality of the damaged party. v nedela M. B. je naveo nacionalnost
oštećenih i svoju pripadnost “Skinhedsima”.
[53] Građanski list,
31 January 2005. Hevera said that the attackers, three or four persons,
probably heard him speak Hungarian, that they asked him for money, and insulted
him on national grounds.
[54] Robert Dimić
sustained lighter bodily injuries. Danas, 23 February 2005.
[55] Građanski list, 22 February 2005.
[56] Građanski list,
23 March 2005.
[57] That case was reported
to Sandžak Helsinki Committee by the boy's father, Nevzat Alomerović. He
stated that a group of pupils while beating his son was shouting “Chetniks, get
ready, get ready”.
[58] Kovač sustained
grave bodily injuries, and doctors had to remove his spleen.
[59] Initiative of the Young
for Human Rights filed charges against a group of soldier for instigating
racial, religious and national hatred, Danas, 19 August 2005.
[60]
Građanski list, 7 June 2005.
[61] The jaw of one of them
was broken, while the other lost consciousness.
[62] According to communique
of the Centre for Minorities Rights, the first incident took place on 30 July
at 21 hours, while the second one happened on the 1st of August. There were no
injured persons.
[63] Municipality Vračar
condemned attacks on Romany.
[64] Građanski list, 1 September 2005.
[65] Thanks to mediation of Tamaš Korhec, the
Provincial Secretary for Administration, Regulations and National Minorities,
that is, his appeals to the police and prosecution to «prevent cruel, inhumane
and irrational» treatment of Romany, in early September all Romany returned to
Sivac. But all windows of the Romany Cultural Centre had been broken.
[66] As regards Romany, it is worth mentioning
that the Centre for Minorities Rights in January-September period reported 121
cases of unlawful police conduct and violence and discrimination against Romany
committed by private persons.
[67] Kasa stated that he did not want to
qualify the bombing attack as an international incident before the final police
report. He added that he was in the house with his family when the bomb was
thrown, and that they were woken up by the explosion. According to him the
police swiftly appeared on the scene to conduct inquiry and the Interior
Secretary Dragan Jočić, and President of Serbia Boris Tadić
phoned him. Vojislav Koštunica, Prime Minister of Serbia assessed that the
attack on Kasa was tantamount to an attack on the state of Serbia. Dnevnik, 31
August 2005.
[68] Danas,
20 September 2005
[69] Danas,
11 November 2005.
[70] Građanski list, 10 November 2005
[71] Građanski list, 25 October 2005.
[72] Građanski list, 19/20 November 2005.
[73] Građanski list, 28 December 2005.
[74] Građanski list, 28 December 2005. According to Šandor
Sič, owner of the club, a group of youths from Banatski dvor and
Čestereg occasionally comes to Torda to cause trouble. Sič maintains
that minorities-Hungarians, Slovaks, and Romanians-in villages belonging to
Zitiste municipality, feel threatened and object to the work local policemen,
that is, accuse them of not using the same standards for Serbs and members of
minorities.
[75] Restaurant “Mala gostiona” at Palic in
May was the scene of an incident.[75]
According to Albert Boroš, the incident started when he and his friend were
approached by a girl who then criticized them for speaking Hungarian and
moreover told them: “Go to Hungary, this is Serbia”. Soon the two youths turned
up and started provoking and cussing them. Then the physical brawl ensued.
Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Đurčanj, in his response to the
incident, demanded an energetic action of the Serb authorities against the
perpetrators. Tamaš Korhec, Provincial Secretary for Administration,
Regulations and National Minorities, then stated that the Hungarian Prime
Minister was not sufficiently informed of the case, for according to «the
police head in Subotica the brawl between the Serb and Hungarian youths was not
nationally motivated.” According to the police communique, Boroš and his pals,
who were sitting on the bench in front of the restaurant, started making passes
at the girls sitting nearby. Revolted by his conduct, Cvijanović (the
youth who took part in the brawl) took his girl in, and then came out for a
showdown with Boroš. Then Cvijanović hit Boros several times and inflicted
on him lighter bodily injuries. Against Cvijanović were filed misdemeanour
charges. Građanski list, 1 June 2005.
[76] Građanski list, 29 December 2005.
[77] Dnevnik, 26 March 2005. Presidency of the AVH interpreted
charges against the party's frontmen as «political persecution and a covert
attack on Vojvodina Hungarians». AVH announced that it would ask the
international fora to protect its president, officials and membership from «a
dishonest campaign targeting protectors of a national community.» The AVH
communique also stressed that «it was only question of time when the Serb
police would resort anew to covert attacks on Vojvodina Hungarians, that is,
its President Jožef Kasa, Vice President Imre Kern and Zoltan Bunjik.» Dnevnik,
4 June 2005.
[78] Speakers at the rally were Andraš Agošton
(DAVH), Pal Šandor (DCVH), Laslo Rac Sabo (CAVH), Tibor Sabo (former President
of Department for Diaspora Hungarians of the Republic of Hungary), and Agota
Gubaš (NGO Arač). Protest in Subotica was assessed as a badly staged
performance (Meho Omerović, SD), as a protest of militants, and not
Vojvodina Hungarians (Oliver Dulić, DP), as manipulation of young people
(Tihomir Simić, PSS), as an attempt of marginal politicians to stage their
political comeback (Velibor Radusinović, DPS). Minister for Human and
Minority Rights, Rasim Ljajić, interpreted the protest as -an expected
response: “I have announced in Brussels an imminent power struggle within the
Hungarian community, and also within other minorities' communities. Namely, now
every minority politician shall try to prove that he is the best protector and
guardian of interests of his community.” Jelica Rajačić Čapaković,
president of Democratic Vojvodina, told a press conference that «there are
evident threats to the rights of Hungarian national minority....tensions in
Vojvodina additionally escalated because of relocation of Mađar so to Subotica, and trials of Đerđ Ozer,
Zoltan Bunjik and Jožef Kasa. Građanski list, 18 October 2005.
[79] Dnevnik, 16 October 2005.
[80] After beating up Petrović,
the youth started firing up matches on his body, and finally pushed a branch
into his anus.
[81] Kovač had his spleen
removed by doctors.
[82] Atila Juhas, Mayor of
Senta, told journalists that the conviction was to mild, and incomparable to
the one meted in the cas of Temerin incident. Građanski list, 26/27
November 2005. The youth's parents complained of being banned from speaking to
him in Hungarian and of being beaten up after arrest. Jožef Kasa, leader of the
AVH, stated that he would demand repeat of trial and inform of the case
international institutions.
[83] Građanski list,
22 April 2005.
[84] Građanski list, 17/18 December 2005.
[85] In Dictionary of Foreign
Words and Expression, written by Radomir Aleksić, Prosveta, Beograd, 1978,
page 313, incident is interpreted as 1. an unexpected, unpleasant event 2. a
small –scale conflict, a skirmish (cross-border incident)
[86] During his visit to Budapest, President
of Serbia, Boris Tadić, stated that “protection of minorities is an
important, civilization-wise, issue for every society» and that «the Serb state
would do its utmost to punish those who have provoked incidents in Vojvodina”, Danas,
4 October 2005.
[87] According to Andraš Agošton, Hungarians
in Vojvodina should have the same autonomy being urged for Serbs in Kosovo, Danas,
12 January 2005.
[88] According to Vladimir Ilić from the
Centre for Development of Civilian Society, unfavourable developments in Kosovo
could affect inter-ethnic relations in Vojvodina, frustrate the majority
population and lower the threshold of tolerance towards ethnic communities. Dnevnik,
24 June 2005.
[89] Dnevnik, 2 November 2005
[90] Dnevnik, 28 October 2005
[91] The project was backed by the Hungarian
government, the US embassy and the OSCE mission in Serbia and Montenegro, and
company “Bambi” of Požarevac. Danas, 27 September 2005.
[92] The project would be realized via sports
competitions, exhibitions, quizzes, distribution of educational ethnic tradition-themed
publications, and other activities.
[93] Dnevnik,
4 March 2005.
[94] Danas,
4 March 2005.
[95] Građanski list, 27 September 2005. According to Korhec, all actions which shall be
realized within the project shall be accompanied by educational publications,
which in near future could become part of the school syllabus.
[96]
The Camp was inaugurated by Katalin
Sili, President of the Hungarian, and Predrag Marković, President of the
Serb parliament. In early February they signed an agreement on tollerance, of
which the holding of the aformentioned Camp made part. The agreement also
envisaged development of economic ties, for tolerance, according to the
president of the Hungarian parliament, is possible only if followed by economic
support and regional development. Dnevnik, 27 May 2005.
[97] As an example of good practice we should mention the re-painting grafftti
action taken by a group “Reaguj” in several
towns of Vojvodina and Serbia. The painting brush was used throughout 2005 by
members of the Council of Local Community South Telep, as well as members of
the establishment, -Rasim Ljajić i Tamaš Korhec.
[98] As announced the working group, made up
of representatives of the Executive Council and national councils, should start
its work within 10 days. Dnevnik, 11 November 2005.
[99] Građanski list, 21 December 2005.
[100] During constitution of the Council for
Inter-Ethnic Relations in Novi Sad the following question emerged: should a
representative of Romany take part in the Council's work. Under the law the
Council members should be only representatives of those minorities which
account for 1% of population structure, and that is not the case with the
Romany minority in Novi Sad. Some MPs of the city assembly criticized the
proposed composition of the Council and asked for amendments relating to the
scope of work, composition and mode of work of the Council. Subotica
municipality was faced with the same problem, but it was resolved in «an
elegant way.» Thanks to the proposal of Mayor Geza Kučera a Romany
representative made part of the Council, but without the voting right.
[101] Građanski list, 11 August 2005.
[102] Građanski list, 13 July 2005.
[103] On 11 April the municipal assembly of Šid abolished the official use of Slovak and Ruthenian
language and Latin alphabet in the municipal territory. National Councils of
Slovaks and Ruthenians criticized that decision, while the Provincial
Secretariat for Administration, Regulations and National Minorities, warned
that in case of its enforcement, they would ask the Constitutional Court to
institute proceedings for the apprasal of constitutionality and legality of
that decision. With only one against vote, assembly MPs then repealed their
decision. In other cases the right to the official use of language and alphabet
because of indolence or resitance of (local) authorities is not fully
exercised. The most salient example thereof was the opposition of local
authorities in Srbobran to enforce the decision of the Provincial Secretariar
for Minorities to add the traditional Hungarian name Szenttamas to official
signboards and inscriptions. [103]
Problems with which
members of Romany minority are faced, are best illustrated by the following
figure of the Centre for Minorities' Rights: in January –September 2005 period
121 cases of unlawufl police actions, violence and discimination by private
persons were reported.
[104] Dnevnik, 26 February 2005.
[105] Dnevnik,
27 October 2005.
[106] Dnevnik, 28 October 2005. Petar Ladjevic, Secretary of the Council for National
Minorities stated that the appraisal that the state backed Bunjevci, and not
the Croat National Council, was very cynical. He added that «in the near future
we shall stage an expert meeting dedicated to the official use of Bunjevci
language. Experts of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences alongside
representatives of Bunjevci minority would also take part in that meeting.»
Petar Kuntić, president of DAVC, said that in regard to that issue his
organization has already contacted the Serb, the Croat, and the provincial
academies, and that their positions were different. According to him only the
Serb Academy of Arts and Sciences thinks that introduction of Bunjevci langauge
should be approved. Dnevnik, 8 November 2005.
[107] Dnevnik, 28 October 2005.
[108] Dnevnik,
27 October 2005.
[109] Dnevnik, 16 February 2005.
[110] Dnevnik, 16 February 2005.
[111] That overhaul includes above all downsizing
in Novi Sad and relocation of desk and internal affairs and cultural affairs
column-writers to Subotica.
[112] On its 23 September
session by the majority vote ( 22 votes) the National Hungarian Council
approved the newspaper's overhaul. One of members of the council who opposed
that decision, Dr Laslo Gerold, stated that the decision on relocation had been
taken long time ago, even before “Altis”, a consulting company of former
Finance Minister Božidar Đelić, came out with its analysis. According
to “Altis” analysis «Mađar so» was in dire financial straits, hence the
suggestion to downsize its Novi Sad office and relocate its seat to Subotica.
According to Đelić, readers want mostly local information, and they
are best covered and found by local journalists, “which means that branch
offices in Hungarian milieus in North Backa and Banat should be enlarged, at
the expense of Novi Sad and Zrenjanin ones.” Dnevnik, 30 August 2005.
[113]
Journalists did not contest the need for overhaul, but they thought that it
would be best dealt with by a consulting house, and not by an expert body. It
bears mentioning that the conflict between journalists and the publishing house
leadership is a long-running one. The official celebrations of the 60-anniversary of the newspaper were not
attended by journalists. They organized their own modest celebrations. Ferenc
Čik Nađ, journalist, was fired because he allowed a photo-reporter of
“Dnevnika” to take shots of the journalistic celebrations of the jubilee,
without authorization of «Madjar so» editor-in-chief.
[114]
Before a large audience in the hall of cultural association “Šandor Petefi” a rally discussing relocation of
«Mađar so» to
[115] Građanski list,
15 August 2005.
[116] “That is a bad sign for Hungarians in
South Backa, I fear that a similar fate awaits other institutions of Vojvodina
Hungarians. I fear that in 2-3 years time it shall be assessed that the editorial
staff cannot function in three places, and then it will be decided that the
newspaper would be printed in Subotica, which in turn would mean a loss of job
for the printing facilities of Forum.” Danas, 27 September 2005.
[117] Zoltan Siflis, member of the National
Council stated: “This hue and cry should not postpone reorganization of the
paper, for then we would face an even greater outcry when we begin
reorganization of other Hungarian institutions.» He also stated that because of
those words of his «I was attacked by my colleague Laslo Galamboš, who accused
me that we were also planning to relocate from Novi Sad the radio, theatre,
Acting Department in Hungarian language of the Dramatic Arts Academy, and
publishing houses. But we have not discussed that in the council and in the
party. Though we should discuss re-organization of publishing activities in
Hungarian language.” Šifliš then went on to explain that he was referring to
reorganization of the Cultural Institute of Vojvodina Hungarians in Senta, founded
by the National Council. The Institute plans to make a database of cultural
heritage of the local Hungarains, while in his mind, old paintings,
photographs, books, documents, films from various museums and localities in
Vojvodina should be all collected and kept in Senta. Građanski list,
29 September 2005.
Laslo Galamboš stated
that for Hungarians physical presence of «Mađar so» in Novi Sad was very
important and that old institutions of the Hungarian Community should remain
where they are, and that Subotica could become a seat of the new ones. Dnevnik,
27 September 2005.
[118] That initiative was launcehd by
academician Dr Bela Ribar, historian Đerđ Gal, Geze Nemet, Antal
Bozoki, Margit Nađ, Julija and Josip Orovec, Marija Matuska and others.
[119] Soured relations between Bosniak parties
became manifest during inauguration of a bridge in locality Lug. Bulding of
that bridge «was funded by Novi Pazar and American people», and the bridge was
inaugurated by US Ambassador Michael Polt, municipal president Sulejman
Ugljanin and president of the municipal assembly Azem Hajdarević. Arrival
of Hajdarević with his collaborators, was loudly boed by Ugljanin's
followers. Shocked by such conduct Ambassador Polt discreetly threatened that
he would leave if the public did not quieten now. ” Danas, 10 October 2005.
[120] It was said that the current Council
should be disbanded on ground of its financial mishandling, status misuses,
breaches of legal provisions, division of Romany on religious basis, etc.
[121] Ljubica Kiselički (DP, Subotica)
submitted an official request to the Pedagogical Institute of Vojvodina to
launch an initiative regarding the introduction of mandatory classes of the
language of social milieu (until 1992 such language classes were an optional
subject-matter). Provincial Secretariat for Education also launched a similar
initiative. But the final decision on that matter is to be taken by the
Republican Ministry for Education and Sports. Slobodan Vuksanović, the
Serb Education Secretary, thinks that «to implement that initiative would be
tantamount to doing something by force. We believe in the freedom of choice of
children ...so I don't see why we should compel someone to learn languages, for
they now live and fraternize together. ” Vuksanović added: “Demand of a
municipal committee of a party is the least important one. If such a demand is
prompted by a wish to attract voters of Hungarian parties in Vojvodina, I, as a
politician, can understand that. I can even understand if such a demand is
prompted by elections in Hungary. But that demand is totally unrelated to
interests of children.” Dnevnik, 20 October 2005.