WE ARE NO MORAL LIGHTHOUSE

Interview with Vesna Pesic

The first lady of the Serbian opposition, Mrs.Vesna Pesic has succeeded in being elected delegate at the recent parliamentary elections. As the saying goes - third time lucky. Namely, at the previous elections in 1990 and 1992, the party she is heading (The Reform Party, i.e. The Civil Alliance of Serbia - GSS) did not manage to make the 5% vote census and enter the Parliament. But, this fact did not prevent the GSS from animating a significant number of people with its acitivities and stands. Apart from being the leader of the party, Vesna Pesic is also the most prominent activist of the anti-war movement in Belgrade, and was therefore labelled a national traitor by aggressive champions of national policy. What is held against her in the country is respected abroad. Last year she was awarded the prize of a renowned American institution - The National Foundation for Democracy - for her contribution to the development of democracy. The American President congratulated the laureates so that last year Vesna Pesic was the only Serbian woman to be received by Bill Clinton.

* When civil war broke out on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, in contrast to other opposition parties only the Civil Alliance you are heading, together with other peace movements and groups dared say - NO - to this war. Some are of the opinion that such an attitude will be recorded as your greatest contribution to a different Serbia, while still others claim that such a political orientation will not be able to play any important role in these territories for a long time to come and that all that has been and is still being done is - utopia. How do you see your work to date and how would you comment on such stances? What was the outcome of these anti-war activities? Has the policy of war changed?

• It is true that we were gathered around several groups and that all of them gave their contribution, although it was somewhat unfortunate that I was both the founder of the Center for Anti - War Activities and, that by dint of circumstance I found myself in a political group that had similar views on the events in the former Yugoslavia, so that these two roles merged into one in my person, which might not be so good. What is important, however, is what characterizes our position and the option we advocated. In brief, we believed that the national aims of the various nations in the former Yugoslavia were not illegimitate per se. It was normal that some of the states wanted to be independent. The Serbian nation found itself in a difficult position since it remained separated in several states. This should not be denied as a problem. Apart from that, the situation in the former republics was far from ideal. The circumstances were rather unfavourable. Here, I have primarily Croatia in mind. As it is known, there were open threats, dismissals from work, plantings of mines to houses. On the other hand, we had fierce propaganda from Belgrade, and also unpleasant memories of the Second World War, which were abundantly used by that same propaganda. The formation of new national states instead of Yugoslavia created enormous problems and led to the war. When speaking of political responsibility, I do not think that only Milosevic is to be blamed, but also the Slovenian leadership which actually caused the domino effect in this whole affair. Nothing was observed in parliamentary procedure, everyone made one-sided decisions without thinking of the other parties involved, or of the situation it would place others in by causing the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

It thus, disintegrated in chaos. The fact that we insisted on respect for the existing institutions and their possible transformation, did not mean that we were in love with that Yugoslavia - we anticipated a chaotic disintegration which could bring every individual nation in a tragic situation. Instead of reaching agreement on how to draw borders between us, we started a war. National states started to be formed, headed by exceptionally aggressively oriented elites which began reinforcing their power through national issues. What is even more tragic is the concept of ethnically pure states which ensued. Its implementation started with the expulsion of Serbs from Croatia and of Croats from areas occupied by the Serbs, who became exiles in Croatia. When Yugoslavia could not survive, how could Bosnia? First Milosevic and then Tudjman as well, embarked on an aggressive war and the dismemberment of Bosnia.

In this, they regrettably failed to adhere even to that ethnic principle, but rather opted for the strategic one. Namely, they were not guided by what would be better for the nations, but by what was closest to their own borders - the borders of Croatia or Serbia. Had the national principle only been abided by, the situation at the peace negotiations in Geneva would not be such as it is now. Such a situation was very difficult - a state of hysteria where the emotions of the citizens are easily won over - there were no universal principles any more. One's own identity as a member of a collective entity could only affirmed through war and the seizure of territories, so that there was little the opposition could do, no matter what its orientation. We could only insist on the principle that legitimate national interests couldn't be achieved by force, by ethnic cleansing and by countless crimes. The pursuit of national objectives in this manner has tied us all into a knot which can no longer be untied.

The opposition could do nothing but insist that the very same people who failed to reach agreement put that issue on the agenda now, but so as to define their interest by taking account of the interest of the other party as well, because peace can be achieved only in that way. We have and still are struggling against an aggressive national policy which, on the one hand, produces a conflict without and, on the other, within one's own state. All those states which are being established are becoming extremely conflict

• ridden and unstable internally, and are constantly threatened by disintegration. The concept we advocated had no real chances of getting overwhelming political support in Serbia. This is our reality, but we never gave up promoting our positions.

* How difficult was it, under such conditions, to go out into the streets, light candles, carry olive branches, while tanks were seen off from Belgrade with songs?

• It called for profound belief in what we were advocating, very much energy which we, over these past two and a half years, had manifested and managed to preserve, to collect one hundred thousand signatures, to light candles every evening, to organize anti-war marathons. From the very beginning we protested because of Vukovar and Dubrovnik. Later, on countless occassions we organized manifestations against the destruction of Sarajevo and Bosnia as a whole. While it was possible we were heard on Radio Zenica, Tuzla, Mostar. On one occasion I personally called general Perisic when he threatened to bomb Mostar. We were very active. But, some new things, which we did not forecast, happened. What was a surprise for us is that the international community agreed , in seeking a peaceful solution, to proceed from the so called situation on the ground. The question there arises if someone is, in view of the options he upholds, in favour of reversing the entire process, or if he is forced, if he does not accept it, to seek a solution, to proceed from where we are.

Since the world accepted Milosevic's and Tudjman's proposal on the division of Bosnia, I don't know how things will develop there further. I think that the war will continue for the simple reason that no party to the war wants to be defeated. Everyone prematurely anticipated that the defeat of the Moslems was in sight. They even tried to present their defeat as a compromise between Milosevic - Tudjman. It is completely clear to the Moslems that no compromise is in question, but that they are demanded to sign a defeat. The question of the war in Bosnia cannot be solved by insisting on the winners and losers. There will be no peace until a genuine compromise is proposed.

* It is a fact that no political grouping in Serbia was satanized and accused of anationalism to such a degree. You have been on the list of national traitors for some time now. RTS cameras zealously record all your contacts with foreign diplomats. Part of the public is convinced that you from the Civil Alliance are merely a branch office of the West. How do you see these accusations and such an attitude of the ruling party towards those sharing the same views? Did you feel endangered on account of your anti - war activities?

• When a stance is isolated from the body of official politics, it is immediately labelled with a tag. That means that we have not entered parliamentary democracy and that we are still moving within a totalitarian regime.

Truth to tell, such things used to happen to me in the past too. I was active 20 years ago also, I went to prison, only then I was an enemy of the state because every deviation from what the state formulated as its interest was labelled. This label of traitor is the product of a race in patriotism. We had occasion to see someone putting a label on someone else, and his superior immediately labeling him a traitor afterwards. Remember when Milosevic asked that the Vance - Owen Plan be signed, how Seselj also called him a traitor. There in fact exists a scale of competition in patriotism. Naturally, the person with the most power - the one who has the media and the police at his disposal - has the largest chances to stick a label on you. I constantly fling labels at the authorities, but they won't stick, as I am not powerful enough. However, this should not overly concern one, although I am tired of fighting them all the time, beacuse I think that this situation, even from the Serbian standpoint, confirms that I was right. Who can now tell me that the Serbian national interest has been achieved because some states, unrecognized by the world, in which utter economic and civilizational disaster reigns, have been formed. I must say for myself that I was not bothered much and that I do not feel endangered.

* It is believed that your party often played the role of an ice-breaker on the Serbian national scene, that it never dissolved its point of departure, namely that the sovereignty of the citizen is first and foremost, in stronger or weaker concetrations of nationalism. The coalition with DEPOS was therefore, received with surprise and resentment both under the national wing of SPO and among the symphatizers of the civil option. Is that an unnatural or just a tactical coalition for election puproses?

• That coalition had a realistic basis. Although Vuk Draskovic made his entrance on the political scene with national rhetorics, over time he changed and mitigated it. Vuk Draskovic came to light candles, he made anti - war statements, on a number of occasions he emphasized that he was against the use of force in the pursuit of national interests, he did not accept that war crimes should be committed to that end, that everything should be "swallowed". It was a link of sorts, a thing in common enabling our coalition with such a party. It, as opposed to others, was the most active in its anti - war work. That's one factor. The other is that the coalition practically came into being last summer, after the events in front of the FRY Assembly and the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Draskovic, when we from the Civil Alliance, for principled reasons - for the protection of the sovereignty of the citizen - not only the party leader and his wife, but also of other SPO members who were arrested - formed a Committee for the Protection of Political Freedoms. This resulted in differentiation even in SPO itself. Some members dissociated themselves from our support for Vuk Draskovic, but we were joined by some other groups, which supported our actions for the protection of political rights and freedoms. What people do not understand is that the Civil Alliance can no longer survive as a political party if it does not have representatives in the Parliament.

We had come to the point when we could say that we would not take part in the elections or say that we would enter a coalition, so that we could make one more step upwards. Some people, when commenting on this, love to see things in black and white and make the Civil Alliance a moral lighthouse of sorts - in which not a single move aimed at strengthening the positions of the party can be made, but where you are held captive as if impressed in wax, without daring to move either left or right.

If we had failed to enter the Parliament again, we would not have been able to survive as a party. I personally would not regret that, we do not have to exist as a political party - but people have to know that if they wish the Civil Alliance to survive then it must make a step in that direction.

* Every invoking of the unity of the opposition so far resulted in its new divisions. There was no uniting or association of the opposition on a broader scale this time, but opposition parties have started to "multiply". What is your opinion of the latest schisms in opposition parties ( DS, SPO) and of the latest developments on the political scene in general?

• Everything is very clear. The opposition is constantly being torn apart by the state party. First, by its constant plotting against parties through its secret police, and second because it actually wishes to dicredit the opposition. Milosevic did not achieve his objective of the Socialists as an individual party gaining a majority, so that they could do what they wanted in Parliament. Therefrom this attack by political moles - they simply want to destroy the opposition. Since the forming of the government is pending shortly, they want to show the people that the opposition is divided, that this or that leader is a dictator or a Stalinist, or something similar, so as to convince the people that the opposition is a frivolous lot. Second, Milosevic wants to weaken the opposition because of possible social unrest. A special target is SPO, because Vuk Draskovic has much influence among the people. Should social unrests erupt, the ruling party would not want the opposition to be in the forefront. And, finally with respect to national policy, Milosevic wishes to make leeway for a possible about-turn which would suit his purposes.

Interview conducted by: Vesna Bjekic