WITH THIS REGIME - FOR A LONG TIME TO COME

Milovan Djilas, the best known former Yugoslav dissident, a man who rejected his communist ideals in the early 1950s, and from the very top of the communist authorities ended up in prison, now, as an eighty-two-year-old man is living quietly in Belgrade. Journalists often visit him, because he proved to be a competenet forecaster of Yugo-events. Far from the influence of any nationalism which bcaused the bloody war in the former Yugoslav space, Milovan Djilas anticipates that Milossevicc will not disappear from the political scene of Serbia soon. He is not surprised at the victory of the Socialists, because he believes that the opposition in Serbia did not offer a serious alternative.

AIM, Belgrade, Dec. 23

AIM: How do you commment on the election results? How do you interpret the fact that this people, in hunger and misery, for the third time in a row since 1990, chose these authorities and did not vote for changes?

Djilas: Nobody, I mean none of the major parties, offered the people anything better. They all, actually, offer a national state which is just being created. Second, there is a psychological aspect. Although the people are predominantly depressed, they are afraid that any change would only bring deterioration. I also believe that that there are no guarantees that it would not. Namely, an even more anarchic situation would have been created in this crisis with the war going on. National euphoria is still present, although it has lost its intensity. The people expect a solution from these authorities, because a new regime would have to pave the road to a solution first. I think that these are the reasons, and one of the significant reason is the weakness of the opposition parties which do not differ from the regime concerning the crucial issues of war, the national issue.

AIM: Does it surprise you that there is no serious citizens' option in Serbia?

Djilas: Well, to tell you the truth, since I have closely observed what has been happening in the past few years, I am not surprised. But, sometime ago, I had expected that there would be a powerful, authentic democratic movement in Serbia. The reasons why this did not happen are numerous. Primarily, the communists did not permit formation of certain institutions, liberation of the economy, and finally, they too became nationalists and paved the road to other nationalists.

AIM: Do you forecast, like the opposition, that this regime will soon fall, in view of the economic situation in Serbia, or do you thnk that one should get adjusted to it for a long time yet to come?

Djilas: I think that the present regime will remain in power for a long time. They have four years ahead of them until next elections, at least formally. Something exceptional must happen to force them to call new elections. And there are no guarantees that with the current parties, their programs, anything would change even then.

It should be stressed that of all the Yugoslav politicians, Milossevicc is the most skillful one. This is not fortunate for Serbia, nor for any authentic democratic development, but that is how things stand.

AIM: Does this mean that it is true that the victory of Milossevicc actually suits the West, since there is danger that the opposition would be more radical that Milossevicc in the negotiations?

Djilas: The international community is confused. They do not have a uniform and clear attitude. This vagueness, disunity, differences in the West contributed to stirring up the war. They are not the cause, though, the cause is in ourselves, the Yugoslavs, but they have contributed to it. They did not do anything when they should have, that should and could have been done. They did not even understand the nature of the movements in Bosnia. They did not understand that they were extremist nationalistic movements which cannot communicate and will not communicate, but seek solution by means of war, extermination, ethnic cleansing. When I say that, I mean all three nationalistic movements in Bosnia - both the Serbian, the Croatian, and the Moslem movement. But, of course, their actual roles and guilt in the war are not the same. These movements differ only in their ideological motivation.

AIM: Had you, Mr. Djilas, been the leader of the Moslems, would you have adopted and signed a peace plan such as the one offered?

Djilas: NO, I would not have signed it. According to my opinion, the Serbs have taken too much, their great strategic objective is to unite the Serbs into a compact entirety to the extent possible, and this is not possible without conquering territories where mostly Moslem population used to live. This refers to the Drina region. All the cities along the Drina were mostly Moslem. The population is mixed in Nothern Bosnia. With the exception of Semberija, the majority are the Croats and the Moslems over there. Such a Moslem state with no exit to the coast, the river Sava, and even the Drina, cannot survive. Then you leave these oases disconnected. They cannot accept this. I have watched Milossevicc and Tudjman communicate with apparent easy. And yet, not a single serious issue has been resolved among them. They offered 3 % of the territories to the Moslems, but they did not offer anything vital. I do not believe that the Moslems will accept those 3%.

AIM: When speaking of Tudjman and Milossevicc, do you think that the election of Babicc will frustrate Milossevicc's designs, concerning the agreements with Tudjman?

Djilas: I am not well acquianted with Babicc's attitudes, his personality. They change as politicians. But, I think that Babicc, as an independent personality, could become a problem to Milossevicc, both in relation to the Croats, and among the Serbs themselves. Milossevicc is an authoritative person, and he will not stand digressions and heresies within his movement. It should also be added that Milossevicc is to a certain extent a hostage of the Serbs in Bosnia and in Krajina, and that they are his clients. Hence, there is an interdependence. Milossevicc manoeuvred well in this, but some day this may come to an end, especially if peace treaty is not signed.

AIM: What do you anticipate will be happening in Serbia in the future? Is any step towards democratization possible under Milossevicc's rule, or is the other road - towards dictatorship in line for us?

Djilas: I think that dictatorship is out of the question. People often mention the state of emergency. Against whom, against themselves? There are no political reasons for that.

AIM: You mean to say that Milossevicc has no serious opponents? Djilas: There is no reason for it, against whom? Against Kosstunica, Djindjicc, Ssesselj? They are only dufferent nuances of the same basic issues. And another thing, he is powerful enough to have no reason to take emergency measures. I do not anticipate any vital cjanges in the near future, Milossevicc has a firm stand, he has no reason to change anything. He is actually a conservative politician. We still have, if we can speak of any economy at all in Serbia and Montenegro, state socialism. It is in ruins. I do not think that dictatorship rules in Serbia. It is an authoritative regime with certain political freedoms. In itself, it is undemocratic, because everyone else has been excluded from power and the public political life. But this public political life is not subdued, there are political parties, you can express yourself freely, so this is not a dictatorship.

AIM: Many foresee Milossevicc's end in Kosovo, where he had started off on his way up. Do you also foretell anything of the sort, and what will happen in Kosovo?

Djilas: Kosovo certainly is not a miner problem than peace in Bosnia or the solution for Krajina in Croatia. In a way it might even be more difficult. It is more difficult for Serbian democracy. In the Middle Ages there used to be a punishment for great moral violaters: a mill-stone around their necks and into the water with them. The mill-stone is hollow and it cannot be taken off the neck. Kosovo is the0 stone around the neck of Serbian democracy. The opposition in Serbia has a wrong attitude that once Serbia is liberalized, after removing Milossevicc, that they would find common language with the Albanians. This is completely incorrect, it is wrong. The issue of Kosovo must first be resolved in order to initiate democracy in Serbia at all. And quite the opposite: there will be no democracy of the modern, Western type until the issue of Kosovo is resolved.

AIM: And how do you see the possiblity for resolving the issue of Kosovo?

Djilas: I do not what is the limit of the readiness of the Albanians to make concessions, and that of the Serbs. None knows that, becuase none is negotiating. In order to find that out, one must negotiate. The consciousness of the Albanians, I said so when I spoke to Demacci, is long past the autonomy and the republic. The Serbs are very much to blame for that, for having dissolved the autonomy and having arrested Vlasi. The fact that the democrats have come to power in Albania is less favourable for the Serbs than the regime of Enver Hodzza used to be. Because they have the support of the West now, they have an attractiveness thhat the previous regime did not have. Demacci agreed with me, of course. This must be done in phases, step by step. I do not have a specific plan, a definite idea, I just think that this must be resolved, radically and for good. It is absurd that the Serbs have total power there, with 92% of Albanians living there. The authorities in Kosovo are corrupt, isolated from the Albanian population. The Albanians are alienated, as if they do not live in this state: they already have their own internal organization, authorities, education... Such alienation cannot last for ever. Then, another thing is that the Serbs are constantly preventing internationalization of this issue. And it is already internationalized.

AIM: Do you not think that Kosovo as a territory is lost for Serbia?

Djilas: Why should it be lost? This territory is not Serbian ethnically speaking, but historically, it was Serbian, but the relations have changed.

AIM: Do you expect quick union of all Serbian lands? Djilas: There will be difficulties concerning that, it will not be easy. It is still not a fait accompli. First of all, in Croatia, a Government which will agree to the secession of Krajina is inconceivable. At this moment, the Croats are offering a liberal autonomy, but whether they would keep their word is another question. It is planned that Krajina would have its own judiciary, police, local autonomy. But this refers only to the territory from Knin to Glina. The Croats still do not say anything about the northern parts. They do not agree even to talk about it, which means that these parts must be held by force. Or a compromise must be sought for the parts where the Croats used to be in majority to remain Croat, and those where the Serbs are the majority to be given autonomy. But, noone on the Serbian side is ready to negotiate about it. Therefore, this issue will drag on, occasionally to become strained, than to loosen up. In Geneva, Tudjman and Milossevicc have indicated that there is certain understanding between them for resolving the relations between Serbia and Croatia. I think that these are just wishes, pleasant words referring to Bosnia. It is unbelievable that they have conjectured a plan without the Moslems, which the Moslems are expected to simply accept.

AIM: Were you 20-30 years old, would you remain here or would you, like many young people, seek opportunities somewhere else?

Djilas: I would remain here. As a dissident in 1968, I was offered to remain in the USA, at Princeton University. I refused, I said, I would rather be in jail in Yugoslavia, then in your freedom here. I have bonds to this country, intellectually, emotionally, family ties, my biography.

AIM: Do you think that the young generation has any prospects in near future?

Djilas: For gifted, educated intelligentsia, the circumstances are very bad, with no prospects within this system, which is constantly deteriorating, in ruins, in this economic abyss.

BRANKA MIHAJLOVICC