LAW ON AMNESTY

Those Who Started the War Pardoning Those Who Did Not Wish to Fight

Subtitle: The most flagrant deviation of the Law on Amnesty is neither in the legal nor in the political, but in the moral sphere. Those who are guilty of having started the war which has destroyed a country, taken several hundred thousand lives and made life miserable to millions of people are now allegedly granting pardon to those who refused to participate in that crime. That is why this topic will be closed only when those who are nowadays bestowing mercy find themselves in the situation to await amnesty.

text:

AIM Podgorica, July 3, 1996

Last week the Federal Assembly adopted the Law on Amnesty. There is no doubt, this "act of charity" was forced out of the state in favour of those who had no understanding for expanding borders of Serbdom by methodology of armed force. That adoption of this law is the result of international pressure and not of a moral catharsis of the authorities will be shown by a short reminder of the attitude of the authorities towards "deserters" in the past few years.

In the beginning of 1995, the Serbian Revival Movement (SPO) warned the public against the intention of the Federal Government to adopt a decree banning return to the country to the citzizens who had gone abroad in the past few years because of the war, unemployment, social persecution and poverty in the fatherland. Such a decree has never been publicized, but the SPO claims - owing only to its timely warning. However, the climate in the public made adoption of such a document quite possible, even logical. The Assembly of Serbia, although this was not within its competence, back in 1992 voted on the proposal of deputy Ratko Ristic to ban return into the country to persons who had avoided military service. Deputies of the ruling Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) had voted unanimously in favour. Just before leaving for Dayton, Slobodan Milosevic had signed the Law on Inheritance, which was, by the way, adopted several hours later(?), and which prescribes "unworthiness of inheritance", among other, of "conscipts who have left the country in order to avoid the duty of defending it". Finally, Zoran Lilic, at the time still just the head of the Club of SPS Deputies in the Federal Assembly, declared on the occasion: "I think that those who have not responded to call-up and who have fled the country cannot expect anything from the community they have fled from". NIN cynically commented on this statement with - "of course, they cannot. Had they expected anything, would they have fled in the first place".

The Dayton Accords ordered signatories of this document to enable safe return to all refugees and displaced persons, regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliation and political stances. All obligations assumed in the military base in Ohio must be met. At the same time, Milosevic never stops confirming Lord Owen's first impression about him by completing his homework only partially. That is how it came about that the Law on Amnesty exempts from criminal persecution and serving a sentence only persons who had avoided military service until December 14, 1995. But not all of them either, because this does not refer to professional soldiers, officers and non-commissioned officers. Citizens who had left the country for other reasons have not even been mentioned. "The regime has managed to create the impression that the problem of return exists only for conscripts who did not wish to participate in the war. President Milosevic, in his interview for Der Spiegel, past the law, had already amnested military fugitives, while the others were qualified as 'unfortunate persons who loaf about the world' and who present themselves as victims of persecution by the 'Serb dictatorship'", writes in Nasa Borba Biljana Kovacevic-Vuco, Secretary General of Helsinki Committee in Serbia. Her conclusion is that "there is no essence of the Dayton Accords in the Law on Amnesty".

The severest foul in this document is certainly exemption from amnesty of professional officers and noncommissioned officers. Draft Law was forwarded to the Federal Assembly by Kontic's Government towards the end of February this year. Deputy of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) of Montenegro, Ranko Krivokapic, submitted an amendment of the text demanding that the part of the sentence "except professional soldiers, i.e. active officers and active junior officers" be deleted from Article 1. In other words, that they too be cleared of responsibility for evading military service. The solution proposed by the Government was assessed by Krivokapic as discrimination of citizens and their rights to equality before law, in view of the fact that pursuant the Constitution of SFRY, defence of integrity of the country was a general obligation. "The authorities should give up punishing honourable officers because they refused to take part in the policy condemned by the entire international community", deputy Krivokapic wrote in explanation of his amendment.

Proposer of the law remained insensitive to arguments of numerous critics of the decision not to grant amnesty to active officers and non-commissioned officers. "The status of these persons and obligations which result from it eliminate all tolerance concerning a negative attitude to military service. Amnesty of these persons would have a negative effect on professionalism of military service, since in accordance with their own choice they were educated and trained to perform this service, or have taken the obligation to do so by signing a contract". This stance from the interpretation of the Law on Amnesty was repeated by the Minister of defence Pavle Bulatovic at the session of the Assembly. The intolerant attitude towards former officers is most probably a concession to the predominant hard-core faction in the army of Yugoslavia, but also quite practical, economically determined move in view of the already existing surplus of officers and unenvious financial situation of the Serbian-Montenegrin army. The Government claims that the number of "deserters" is about 12.5 thousand, and those who are well informed say that there are a lot more.

Minister Bulatovic was not ready to comment on any extenuating circumstances for the deputies and the public, which could, if not altogether eliminate, at least contribute to a more tolerant attitude towards responsibility of the officers and non-commissioned officers. No wonder, since a whole series of questions should have been answered: where the officers and non-commissioned officers of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) had been "educated and trained" to shoot at the citizens of the SFRY, to demolish cities, massacre civilians, plunder them and torture them; whether the oath of allegiance they have bound themselves by obliged them to wage war for the "western borders of Serbdom" or to protect frontiers of the SFRY; whether they had been "educated and trained" in "the forge of brotherhood and unity" or in a Serb army; whether they had been "educated and trained" to recognize an "Ustashe" in any Croat and a "jihad warrior" in every Muslim; whether the definition of patriotism given by Branko Kostic or Bora Jovic was a dogma which the officers and non-commissioned officers were not allowed to doubt; whether dissolution of the SFRY and chaos in its space should have caused for a single moment chaos in the minds of professional soldiers "educated and trained" to "safeguard brotherhood and unity as pupils in their own eyes"... It was the time when civic opposition in Montenegro taught the youth that it was heroism not to go to war. "The war the nonsense of which reached as far as the wisdom of some of the members of the Academy" - as in the Federal Assembly Ranko Krivokapic, deputy of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) of Montenegro picturesquely said.

But, the opinion prevailed that these were just ordinary "miserable impotent poltroons" (term used by who else but Momir Vojvodic, federal deputy of the National Party) who simply proved to be cowards and took to their heels. Perhaps majority of those who had voted in favour of the Law on Amnesty actually share this opinion about officers who had not wished to participate in the war. In that case, the problem is rather in the minds of these deputies, and not in the hearts of the "deserters".

Law on Amnesty does not have only foreign political background, but was motivated also by quite specific domestic reasons. It is assessed that in the past 4 or 5 years, about 300 thousand highly educated persons have emigrated from Serbia and Montenegro. The very fact that life in this ambience has become unbearable, shows that this is indeed a significant group of voters of the opposition parties. If they returned, the already endangered position of the authorities would additionally waver. That is why their interest is not to create conditions for their return, but to speed up departure of voters who are not inclined towards them. Serbia and Montenegro are intended to become a haunt for uneducated, old, poor people, by origin from the country. This is the "identity card" of an average voter of the ruling SPS and DPS.

From the legal aspect, amnesty imposed itself as the only possible solution. To take everyone to court is technically unfeasable, to try only some is - unprincipled. Statistics shows that there were more than 100 thousand criminal indictments in former Yugoslavia. The courts would have to spend two years of incessant work only on "deserters", and nothing to say about all the other cases!

The greatest deviation concerning the Law on Amnesty, one could say, is neither in the legal nor in the political, but in the moral sphere. Those who are guilty of having started the war which has destroyed a country, taken several hundred thousand lives and made life of millions of people miserable, are allegedly now offering indulgence for sins of those who had refused to take part in this crime. Lawyer Nikola Barovic says in NIN: "We are in a pathological situation in which those who are guilty of having destroyed Yugoslavia are asked to offer amnesty to those who had refused to participate in its dissolution". That is why this case will be closed only when those who are offering mercy find themselves in the situation to await amnesty.

Darko SUKOVIC (AIM Podgorica)