interview by Senad PECANIN
DIZDAREVIC: That is a sad story. I can not resign myself to the fact, neither emotionally, nor rationally, nor professionally, that Svijet should cease with publication and fold. Mostly because of that and some sort of conviction that it would be a shame if the magazine were gone, we are continuing with efforts to keep it going and are looking for new sources of funding. Actually the problem is in funding and nothing else. We need funding in order to continue with publication of the magazine in a dignified manner, because everything that has been happening and is happening now is simply humiliating. Begging, pleading, trying to convince people... I really do not have strength nor nerves for that type of work, nor do I want to keep doing it, nor do I think that is the way things should be. On the other hand, the reality is brutal. The problem is not in somebody's money which should provide exclusive support for Svijet, but in a relatively small funding supplement to our revenue. Today, that supplement is proving to be impossible to find under the conditions that would be acceptable to us. We've heard thousands of promises, been tapped on shoulder, told that there is no way that Svijet can fold, that that would be a catastrophe... Of course, I do not think that that would be a catastrophe. Whole countries disappear, and many more significant newspapers have disappeared, but in our local framework, and even from my personal point of view, the damage would be huge. Briefly, we still haven't made the final decision but our situation is bleak.
What sorts of reactions did you encounter while you were looking for assistance for Svijet in this crisis? Who did you approach and what were their replies?
We have put together a business plan which explicitly states what and how much we need in short term, and what in a somewhat long term, until we definitely get out of the red. Together with a cover letter, this business plan was sent to a number of organizations, institutions, embassies, all the individuals for whom we thought that they would understand the matter. Many of them responded; I cannot say that good will was lacking. However... It turned out that... Well, that is the essence of the problem with independent media in Bosnia-Hercegovina. First, many representatives of the International Community have no idea what is happening with the independent media here. They have fragmentary, partial information, but are not seriously engaged with this problem. Secondly, the international community has absolutely no strategy for the independent media in Bosnia-Hercegovina. There are a lot of declarations, such as for example the Madrid Declaration, basically various promises in international documents, but they do not know what that really means. There is no consciousness of what media today and here are. Then they are absolutely unable to back us up in practice. The result is linear wasting of funding, which is distributed by a spoonful to everyone that shows up and asks for assistance. Of course, all that leads to the present situation. Living from one spoonful to the next is only a false promise; on the basis of such promises you do something, invest your efforts, enter various projects, go into debt, and in the end it turns out that everything was a sham. Finally, lately, we are seeing the appearance of, I believe, a very cynical theory that all projects, not only newspapers but also everything else, must be self-sustaining. In the country that cannot "sustain" itself, but is under a certain type of protectorate, the country that does not have a self-sustaining parliament, since if it had the High Representative would not have to enact laws, the country that does not have a self-sustaining economy, that does not have anything self-sustaining apart from crime and corruption, in the country to which you brought 30,000 soldiers and as many civilians, because it is not self-sustaining, it is absolutely cynical, wicked and stupid to insist on economic self-sufficiency of the media. My take on this whole story is that the International Community does not know what is happening with the media here, that it does not care, and that it used the funds earmarked for the independent media and democratization in general in its own backyard. I have thousands of reasons to conclude that as much as eighty percent of funding earmarked for various democratization projects, including the support for the independent media, is spent on their own people. In Bosnia-Hercegovina, at this moment, only in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, there are tens of individuals who are in the country in connection with various projects of support to the independent media. When you add up all of their salaries, rents paid for apartments and offices, blue and white Range Rover jeeps etc., you get at least DM1 million [$600,000] per month. On the other hand, the publication such as Svijet is dying because of DM200,000 [$120,000] per year. After everything, I am in the situation to confirm what I sensed even during the war, that all of this is a huge circus, which moves from Croatia to Bosnia, form Bosnia to Kosovo, and from Kosovo to East Timor etc. Unlike us, this circus is "self-sufficient" and lives and functions primarily from its own financial and political profit and regenerates itself in that manner.
Would you agree that the situation of the media such as Svijet, Dani and Slobodna Bosna, which in one issue after another point out the examples of behavior that hinders the creation of normal democracy in the country, is somewhat absurd? Of course I am referring to topics such as corruption, crime, nepotism, lack of rule of law, and incompetence. Isn't it becoming, from the journalistic point of view, professionally absurd and for the public tiresome, even for that part of the public more inclined to trust its own eyes than the assurances and claims of anointed national leaders?
It is not accidental that newspapers of this sort are not attacked directly, physically and brutally, apart from certain incidents, and that there are no arrests as in classic and obvious authoritarian states. We are here all rarely hindered in the way that would provoke a reaction abroad. Therefore there is an illusion of the freedom of expression, which serves to the political leaders as an argument for the International Community: look, they say, they are free, they can do whatever they want. However, on the other hand there is the concept of organized silence, organized lack of reaction to what we do. In simple terms, after every issue of Dani and Slobodna Bosna, and once upon the time Svijet, in every normal country at least ten individuals from the political and public sphere would have to end up in jail, or the editor-in-chief and journalist would have to appear in the court. All of these articles contain precise and concrete accusations, confirmed by numerous documents, papers, names, addresses, figures, etc. And what is happening? Neither you, nor they are in prison. That means that the complete system, including the media, complete political and social system, including judiciary, political leaders, and political parties, is essentially corrupt and prepared to such situation, since the only way to devalue what you wrote, the only way to cancel the significance of what you published is to keep silent. And everyone must participate in the organization of the silence. Their concept is to devalue facts, evidence, the truth, accusations... That concept actually brings about the situation that you have just described. Nothing they read in the newspapers tomorrow would be an argument for the public. It would not have any weight. Thus, we enter the phase of total amnesia, total apathy, and essentially total acceptance of a brutal political reality. Of course, such a concept requires a "suitable" people as well. Unfortunately, such a people exists. What does it mean to tell pensioners that they won't receive their pensions, that it was stolen, and then watch those same pensioners two months later voting for exactly the same people who told them that they would not receive their pensions? That is an absolute political, human, and moral perversion. I think that that vicious circle has been closed and that in such a situation everyone who sticks out, every attempt to speak out, every attempt to open ones eyes has in itself in a perverse manner become counterproductive, actually "unpatriotic", bad, confrontational, etc.
At the beginning of the war Bosniak intellectuals were silent. They have remained silent until today. As a person, as one of the rare people who spoke out, and pretty much only the journalists were speaking out, how do you assess that silence?
I am going to say something that is somewhat heretical and will definitely not be understood correctly. I've always been rather skeptical about that theory according to which we [Bosniaks] were champions in forgiveness, goodness, and tolerance. On the contrary, I believe that in many situations that we tried to portray as tolerance and goodness, the real issue was cowardice. What can one say, for example, about all those University professors who remained silent about the new proposal of the University law according to which the University will become a cantonal fief, so that small local bureaucrats will get to approve deans and professors... And all that for a few hundreds of [Convertible] Marks per month. What can one say about prosecutors who get a call from Ganic, who treats them like small children and orders them what to do, and they still remain silent. On the other hand, the people were also cheated by the theory that the new time, new leadership, personified in concrete personalities, did bring a new quality and give a new impetus to this people and this nation, contributed to its awakening, and national and political elevation. Then, politicians were forgiven a lot because of that initial perception. However, not only do I not believe that the current political leadership of the Bosniak nation has contributed to the betterment of this nation, but I believe that it has returned this nation in many ways to the past and brought it objectively to the position that is even below the position to which they today refer as dark times. Finally, when we talk about silence, there is something that is called in journalistic and political practice, a patriotic politeness during a war. In other words, we are under attack, or were under attack, an aggression has been conducted against us, and indeed an aggression was conducted against us, and because of that it is necessary to keep quiet about certain things; on the other hand when all of that is over one day and when shooting stops, then we can fight for democracy and a state and say to everyone what he or she deserves. Unfortunately, the shooting stopped four years ago and the silence is bigger, harder and echoes much more painfully than it did in 1993 and 1994. That fact only strengthens the first two arguments.
How do you explain the fact that in international journalistic circles you are treated if not as the most respected Bosnian journalist, than definitely as one of the few most respected and best known, while on the other hand, in journalistic circles in Sarajevo they often say that you managed journalistic and publishing projects which usually failed. What is the origin of such diametrically different assessments?
That would not be the first nor last example of that sort here. I suppose that abroad I do not belong to anybody's clan, so they only took into account what they saw on paper. However, there are two fields where I've been active and achieved, first as a journalist, writer, novelist, and then as an editor of projects which, as people say here, usually failed. Mostly, all awards I have received abroad, and I did receive many, I received as a writer and journalist, not as an editor. The only big recognition I received as an editor was the offer of all journalists of the well-known Milan newspaper Il Giorno to be their editor-in-chief. As far as the local editorial projects are concerned, a lot of untruths are circulating around. I took charge of the first Svijet at the end of the seventies, when it was selling about 10,000 copies. The team of which I was a member raised that, at one point, to 125,000 sold copies. In that case, what does it mean to say that I ruined Svijet and ran away to Cairo? Those who are prepared to stay stuff like that should explain what they mean. It should not be forgotten that the old Svijet folded three years after my departure and had had two other editors-in-chief in the meantime. However, no one has ever said that someone else destroyed the paper, Zlatko Dizdarevic is always to blame. After that, I launched Nedjelja, first as a supplement to the daily newspaper Oslobodjenje and then as a separate publication. As far as I remember, at the time I left the paper, it was making profit. This Svijet started from naught, in conditions when it was impossible to make compromises. I always took into account that Dani and Slobodna Bosna were also published in Sarajevo, namely very political publications which cover a certain space and do it mostly successfully. It seemed lame to me to try to make a copy of one of those papers, so we made a paper that, so to say, has less tension and less charge, and the rest of the space, besides politics, we put aside for something that can conditionally be called needs of an ordinary, normal reader. Maybe I made a mistake in my initial assessment to the extent that this is not a normal time, nor are there normal readers with enough money for two or three papers, nor do normal papers have a lot of chance to succeed. Therefore, I know that my whole life I had to prove myself over and over, and frequently even justify, but that is now over. For my own happiness remains the fact that, for example, great Josif Brodski wrote a foreword for the American edition of my book. Another small satisfaction is that the book was promoted at a reception organized by the New York PEN club, and attended by 12 greatest living American writers, including three Nobel Prize winners. Personally I am at peace as far as my professional achievements are concerned. I had some big and some small professional successes, had articles published in the American Time, The New York Times; in Italian La Republica I was a columnist for three years; I wrote for many other papers and continue to do that even today. It is another thing that here, unfortunately, some of my purported colleagues would say, look at him, he is a profiteer, he published books during the war. That is the same as saying to Affan Ramic, look at the profiteer, he painted and exhibited during the war. And what was I supposed to do? Perhaps, I was supposed to drive trucks with half frozen chicken drum sticks, or sell tin cans, or do various other profiteering jobs up and down the Igman mountain. Perhaps, I should have today my own company or a "business", in order to be appreciated?
You are the first Bosnian writer who seriously considered Alija Izetbegovic and his, at this point almost ten years long, rule. How do you explain the fact that such a personality in one challenging and tempestuous time until now has not been the object of a serious non-fiction effort of a single serious Bosnian author?
I think that serious Bosnian authors during the last ten years had better things to do. Secondly, I think that people have a hard time finding courage to engage in any sort of analysis of Alija Izetbegovic and his, above all political credo, simply because so much in connection with his political activity and political history is still a mystery. This not only applies to Izetbegovic but also to everything that has happened to us in the recent past. Political activities of Alija Izetbegovic are a part of that story. Thirdly, I think a classical political opportunism is at work. Unfortunately, I think that there are very few journalists, they could be counted by the fingers of one hand, who are prepared to analyze the current political situation and recent political past from an absolutely professional viewpoint, not taking into account the likely consequences of such an engagement. And finally, a reason is a seeming controversy in connection with the political activity and personality of Alija Izetbegovic. His activities and personality have received very diverse interpretation both here and abroad, ranging from extremely positive, glorifying etc. to extremely negative and accusatory.
Someone who is not prepared to study the facts, documents, our reality, new history, can daily find arguments for both of these extreme positions. After all, I also did not deal with the whole Izetbegovic's political personality and attitudes. I simply wanted to, as much as possible, professionally, authentically, draw attention to a fact that is consistently ignored and avoided in the interpretation of his political activity and him as a politician. I wanted to demonstrate, and I am not sure if I succeeded, that he is not only a politician who spontaneously swam through tumultuous times, not understanding what exactly was going on, what he wanted to achieve in all that, what were the consequences of the decisions he was making, making in that all sorts of mistakes that were, among other, the result of some amateurism in politics, lack of understanding of the principles of government etc. On the contrary, I have always encountered numerous proofs for the claim that in Izetbegovic's case there is a consistent political and philosophical concept that he has realized, has never given up and has in the end completed. And it all started in his youth, while he was still in high school.
Do I understand you correctly? Is your conclusion that our life today, the present situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina, is really the realization of his political concept?
That is a result of his worldview, his attitude towards politics and life. I dare say that we are today victims of a consistent worldview that has turned out to be very conservative, anachronistic, highly unacceptable for modern politics and modern lifestyle. Of course, when talking about victims, I am not mixing up the war and our position of the victim in that context in all that. There is no need to repeat what is the matter there.
On what premises, basis, principles is that concept based?
On a mistaken belief that faith and nation should together be the sole axes of everything else. Than on the framework that this region is a part of the Islamic world, namely the Islamic world that lives and is realized in totally different political and geographic regions. I think that from the start Izetbegovic started from the belief that we are a part of that Islamic world and that we should consistently realize exclusively that lifestyle, that type of political organization, that type of social organization, in this region and as an absolute majority. I am not talking about religious beliefs, which are absolutely legitimate and to which he and everyone else in this country has an absolute right. I respect that very much. Simply, I am talking about a mistaken belief that something that was his life ambition, a legitimate but private ambition, his life dream, can be achieved in this region, in our reality, in a state and political concept, that it can be transformed into something unnatural for this region. I have to repeat, this is not religion as such but state, social and political standards. Therefore, I want to say that all that is written in his Islamic Declaration, which, after all, is the political, ideological and religious platform for his concept, all that he wrote and published in the early seventies, could have at the time been interpreted as his legitimate human right to think this way or that, to write this or that. I even think that that trial for the Islamic Declaration itself was superfluous. However, there are many reasons to today state that at the time there were many other reasons for that trial, besides "verbal crime", which were at the time suppressed for international and security reasons. That was then. However, if one today reads that text, and realizes that during the last ten years there was an opportunity to realize that platform using something usually referred to as the state, institutions of that state, the army, police, etc. then those same things that ten or thirty years ago could have been dismissed as civic right to own opinion gain in importance. If you wish, to make it all extremely simple, although I am aware that I may be, for what I am about to say, interpreted and attacked in different ways, I can say that the Islamic Declaration has been implemented, and none earlier than now. 30 years ago, it was only an idea, a belief, an opinion with which you could agree or disagree, but at that time it had no chance of having a significant effect on reality, either social or political. Today, it can definitely do so. 30 years ago, it was written in the Islamic Declaration that Bosnia must be a state with absolute majority of Muslims, and if it weren't so, than that would not be good, since that was the only way to rule Bosnia. Therefore, today, that is our reality. These political authorities are absolutely uninterested in those parts of Bosnia-Hercegovina where Muslims do not make up more than 50% of population. We were actually forced in Dayton to make a state that would be multi-culti etc., but neither is the Muslim political leadership interested in any square inch of this country where Muslims are not in power, nor is the Croat leadership interested in any square inch of the country where Croats are not in power, nor is the Serb leadership interested in any square inch of the country where Serbs are not in power, except here and there, for public relations sake. Therefore, that particular concept has been implemented. If you read thirty years ago that, for example, the country which is overtly concerned about laws and where laws are a backbone of the country etc. is a bad country, at that time you could have laughed at that. Today, we have a realistic political situation in which laws are a joking matter for this country and its political system. We are not capable of enacting on our own a single law, and instead of laws we are offered "justice" as the foundation on which to build our country. Thirty years ago we could read in the Declaration that those who go to the West and attend schools there, supported by their privileged parents, are extremely dangerous for this society, and you could agree or disagree with that, and laugh. However, today our reality is that people who were educated in the West cannot come back, and sons of privileged fathers are again as a rule abroad, getting educated, often supported by taxpayer's money. I only want to say that we, in the end, live in the country in which many past dreams have been realized, although at the time they were defined only a potential projects and programs.
Feral Tribune will soon publish a book that has already had two editions in France and Italy, the book in which Predrag Matejevic portrays Franjo Tudman, Vidosav Stevanovic Slobodan Milosevic and you Alija Izetbegovic. During the writing of the book, did it burden you additionally that in a certain manner, these three rulers and the roles they had in the break-up of Yugoslavia and the war and crimes committed in the last ten years were put at the same level?
I must say that never, not even for a single moment, regardless of everything I have said, it has occurred to me that the three of them as lords of peace and war were at the same level. Above all, I think it would be offensive to forget the role of Slobodan Milosevic in everything that has happened to us during the last ten years, and that all of that was the result of his plans, hatched ever since he had come to power. Finally, to be concrete, neither Belgrade nor Zagreb were besieged for 1,300-1,400 days, while Sarajevo was. Therefore, Izetbegovic is objectively a victim, and the two of them are objectively aggressors, although in that I do not even think that Tudman's responsibility for everything that has happened in the Balkans in connection with aggression is equal to that of Milosevic. Vukovar, Dubrovnik, etc. are the measure of difference between the two of them. Therefore, of course there are reasons to make a distinction between the three of them. However, what I want to say, and what seems important to me in the continuation of my answer to this question is that Izetbegovic on his own accord accepted the political concept offered by Milosevic and Tudman for this unfortunate Balkans and the former Yugoslavia. Namely, he accepted the concept of rule based exclusively on ethnicity. By doing that, he should have known that every political organization in Bosnia-Hercegovina, solely on ethnic basis, was a first step towards war. He had to be aware of that. Consequences for that must be accepted.
Is he exonerated from responsibility by the fact that he received almost unanimous support of the people for his project?
Of one ethnic group in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Yes, in a way, but a man who wants to lead a nation, and thereby wants to be smarter than that nation, or at least more aware, or wiser, or with more foresight, had to know where he was leading that nation. In other words, it is not my intention to offend any nation in the world, but nations, especially in this region, without any strong democratic tradition can be molded like dough if the molder is smart, lucid and knows how to do that. Izetbegovic may have a formal excuse; however, when he goes to sleep at night, when he turns off the light and stays on his own, if he has strength to be honest toward himself, he must realize and admit that he led the nation in the wrong direction. Why and how did he end up in the position of holding hands with Karadzic and Boban? Besides, if you today asked the people, the same people who then voted for Izetbegovic, whether by voting for him they in advance accepted to be led into a war, then an overwhelming majority of them would have voted differently. I do not say that he took them into the war, but I want to say that he accepted the concept for which it had to know that it would lead to a war. Why did he do that? To come to power.
Recently, a few of us had a discussion here in the editorial offices about the claim that Alija Izetbegovic and SDA respectively have deeply changed the political, and even ethnic character and essence of the Bosniak people after ten years of their rule. Your comment?
I do not know what you argued about. I also recently had a discussion with a good friend, a modern intellectual, with whom I agree in 90% of our opinions, but we disagreed on whether Alija Izetbegovic should in spite of everything be credited with establishing a certain new dignity of the Bosniak people and the Bosniak nation. I have been told: Tudman as well, once he is gone, will be credited even by the opposition in Croatia for establishing an independent Croatian state etc. although they will criticize him for everything else, so that similarly we should credit Izetbegovic for his contribution in the establishment of some new self-awareness of the Bosniak people.
Do you credit him with that?
I think that objectively, the Bosniak people is today below the level at which it was ten years ago, regardless of being buried under uncountable editions of some new, "our" dictionaries, some new "more objective" histories, regardless of discovering some new values... I think that, all together, the Bosniak people, and especially a Bosniak individual, when talking about values, position in the world, sacrifices made, about the bottom line, essentially lost more than has been gained during the last ten years. What remains, of course, is the great story about the war, about the aggression, about defense and everything that goes with that. After all, that truth was recognized by the world. Collective stories about sacrifice and victims, about denial of basic human rights, spiritual and cultural maiming of all sorts, about destroyed cultural heritage, are dramatic and tragic. However, on the other hand, we today have members of the same people who are humiliated, robbed, devalued, without rights, citizens who were denied realistic possibility to live with dignity, Bosniaks who are humiliated by bureaucrats or on borders, in queues in front of embassies. No collective cultural renaissance can make up for a mass individual misery and the lack of rights. I think that the humiliation suffered individually by the members of that nation as the result of current policies is much greater than the global collective "gain" of that nation which is claimed by the ruling political parties as their success and their contribution.