DON BRANKO SBUTEGA: As I have already stated, I did not experience it as an assassination whose goal was to eliminate Mr. Jaksic, who in that attack was supposed to be a relevant factor of who knows what. Rather, I view it as an attack on Mr. Jaksic as an ideal person for the achievement of some other goals that this assassination undoubtedly has, judging both by the way in which it was carried out and the choice of the target.
Which goals are you referring to?
First, Mr. Jaksic was shot at by three professional murderers, in front of his home, because he surprised them at the moment they were getting ready to approach the house. That moment was ideal for the assassination. There was a lot of noise in the streets because of the New Year's celebrations and thousands of people were passing by, which means that it was easy to approach the house and fulfill their intentions. Obviously, their intention was to kill the whole family. He was in the house, with his family, and by chance went out at that moment. Obviously, the assassins had not come to steal anything, as they were armed murderers, masked, and with professional guns. Secondly, the forces I suspect of backing up this assassination view lawyer Jaksic as an ideal person for the creation of the atmosphere they wanted to create with this assassination.
Why Jaksic?
That means that lawyer Jaksic was the target because of the nature of his job, because of the fact that he is the son of Mate Jaksic whose diary was used as the basis for the movie "Occupation in 26 images" [movie directed by Croatian director Lordan Zafranovic, about WWII Ustashe rule in Dubrovnik; deemed anti-Croatian by some for its graphic depiction of Ustashe persecution and crimes against Serbs, Jews, and antifascist Croats]. Mate Jaksic is viewed by the big part of the right and, I would say, even that part of the right that used to hide behind Croatian patriotism, as a traitor. They hated him. His son, Srdj, studied in Belgrade, he married a woman from Belgrade [a Serb]. She, although she has been living in Dubrovnik for 20 years, definitely does not feel at ease, especially after the drama that the city went through during the war, with three small children. Furthermore, Srdj defended Dejan Subotic and successfully won his acquittal as a professional, for the sake of profession, rather than for the sake of some ethnic conspiracies. Therefore, lawyer Srdh Jaksic is the man who was extremely unpopular among a part of the population of Dubrovnik and the surrounding area, even though he personally was not a member of any political party and was personally a victim of the wartime destruction as his home was partially destroyed. Therefore, he does not have a political biography and has not been politically active, but is seen as an obstacle by some who believe that "justice" has not been done in Dubrovnik.
The "justice" that would imply the elimination of all the Serbs, the construction of a Berlin Wall between Dubrovnik and his eastern hinterland [populated almost exclusively by the Serbs]. The assassination of Srdj Jaksic should carry that message - we shall not give Dubrovnik. Although it is clear that no one is offering Dubrovnik to anyone. Dubrovnik can today only be seen as a city of contacts, as a city with the distinguished past that should become a city with the distinguished future. However, it has serious traumas in its recent past, first the wartime destruction, war crime, and then the traditional looting. Namely, the traditional looters want that Dubrovnik ba at this moment discussed as a terror city.
Does that meant that this assassination is only the first one in a series of similar actions?
I think that that simply must not be allowed. I believe that the Croatian state at this moment must stop all those who want to turn it into an arena for terrorist clashes, as such Croatia would today imply a step backwards. Croatia is a country that has decided in the elections to go forward. At this moment the authorities are responsible to start that movement forward. Unfortunately, it turned out that the tactics of development is worthless, if it is allowed that Croatia be destroyed. And Croatia is above all destroyed in this manner. You see, what I saw in the reactions of certain media in Croatia is truly shameful. They are trying to portray a victim as a victim who deserves to be attacked. Even in Dubrovnik, unfortunately I did not hear from several individuals whose opinion I respect that they were against the assassination. I heard "we regret, but everyone knows who lawyer Jaksic is". And once you ask them who lawyer Jaksic is, they say: "Do you know that his father wrote the diary on which the movie 'Occupation in 26 images' was based?" I said that I knew but that I did not see what sort of conclusion I was supposed to draw from that. That means that the collective is directed by a classic manipulation. All of this should be manipulated and as the same time the state should receive a clear message. I think that this is very serious, that this is a message from Dubrovnik, which is in a way an icon of Croatia. This is a message from Gundulic's dream that some want to turn into a Gundulic's nightmare.
In the circles that definitely do not want that Croatia start a democratization process. The process of democratization will most definitely be unfavorable for some, and such individuals prefer to strike back.
Would you say that forces close to the former authorities are behind such actions? After all, who can back the goals that are supposed to be achieved with the assassination of Jaksic?
As a Catholic priest, I refrain from condemnation. I believe that an investigation should determine that, and its success will depend on the interest of the current authorities to really resolve this case. There are sufficient possibilities to determine the identity of the attackers and to protect Jaksic's family from hysteria. Unfortunately, the recent events indicate that even at the state level, in the Police, there is very little interest to conclude this business professionally. In any case this action was carried out by those whose identity would without any doubt be determined by any honest and professional investigation.
Would you care to comment on the reactions of the Croatian public to the assassination of Jaksic? Do you think that the reaction was appropriate?
I think that it was not. As far as the state institutions, such as investigative organs, the Police, but also the media, are concerned, the appropriate reaction was missing. The media are even expressing a certain glee. For example Republika plastered a headline stating that a lawyer representing criminal Subotic was shot. First of all, Subotic is not a criminal as the Croatian state has established that he is innocent. I hope that the Croatian state will have an opportunity to address the guilt of those who committed crimes against Dubrovnik, but similarly, and above all it has to process crimes committed in Dubrovnik itself. We cannot hope to catch someone in the Amazon jungle if we are unable to catch criminals in our own garden.
Were you surprised by the lack of stronger reactions? After all, it's been a whole year since the fall of the HDZ's autocratic regime, which should have been enough for the start of "internal normalization" in Croatia.
I explain that by the fact that people are somewhat disappointed by the actions of the authorities so far. The authorities have so far been rather indifferent with respect to some similar actions. I believe that since the murder of Milan Levar there is a certain atmosphere of fear, to which the authorities did not respond appropriately, by disassembling the sources and creators of fear.
Why are the new Croatian authorities not doing that?
There are only two explanations. Either they cannot or do not want to do so. However, only the authorities can give you a true answer.
I must admit that I do not know much about the stand taken by the Church in this case. It is questionable whether the Church circles recognize fatal effects of this event or not. The Church in principle reacts when it recognizes the fatal effect of some act, but it dies not necessary have the capacity to recognize the nature of such acts or, sometimes, those capacities work with delay.
What is your view of the transformation of Dubrovnik into a metropolis of Croatian backwardness? Why has Dubrovnik, the cultural capital of Croatia at one time, become synonymous with scandals, murders, intimidation?
That is above all the result of the war. Dubrovnik experienced a horrible trauma. It is an angry city that has experienced horrors, a rape of innocents. However, the relationship between a victim and an executioner is very complex. Therefore, Dubrovnik has been destroyed physically. However, after the liberation this destruction continued at other levels. Dubrovnik has become the spot of biggest scandals, some very murky stories on the state level. For almost a decade Dubrovnik has been in huge isolation. The political situation in its neighborhood is reflected on the city and as we know, it hasn't been exactly ideal and is still in turmoil.
Therefore, Dubrovnik is the city that hasn't thrown off its fear, nor has it thrown off its resentment, although Montenegrin authorities have taken steps to lighten that burden. I am referring to Milo Djukanovic's apology. That apology was not exactly an irrelevant moral act. Of course, it cannot make up for any destroyed house, but at least it should introduce some sort of ethical contentment, some feeling of moral security. Dubrovnik is the city that has lost in these events a large portion of its population. I see that as one of the worst wartime destructions of Dubrovnik. Therefore, some residents have left for good, found some new paths through life. The city has been emptied of its essence and inhabited by some other people, for whom Dubrovnik is not a place of dreaming Gundulic's dreams but of creation of their own small-scale horrors.
I think that another big injustice has been done to Dubrovnik. I have several times quoted Slobodan Prosperov Novak. Dubrovnik is not the city in which Croatia ends. It is the city in which Croatia begins. In that context, I believe that those who wanted to initiate something with their attack on Srdj Jaksic have a good political and civilizational instinct. It is not the same to do something in Dubrovnik and in Ogulin. Not because I neglect the importance of human life or actions, but because I interpret them on their symbolical level. Dubrovnik will be fully vindicated if it again becomes what it used to be within Croatia, and that is its cultural, spiritual, and civilizational heart.
What is the current situation in Boka Kotorska [in Montenegro]?
We are here waiting. People are partly lethargic. Boka experienced the death of its civilization a long time before Dubrovnik. In that sense there is no suffering. Instead we are witnessing a sort of melancholy. At this moment the dominant impressions are those of melancholy and expectation, the expectation of the moment at which we shall depart the framework referred to as Yugoslavia.
On the other hand, you have recently had problems with the forces of nature?
It seems that I have been reminded by God, because of my sinfulness or laziness, and a lightning hit the belfry of the church of St. Eustahije and inflicted damage of about $500,000. That strike gravely damaged this monument of Croatian cultural heritage, which includes a huge painted ceiling, a work of Jozo Kljakovic and a huge mosaic, a work of Edo Murtic, which means that some 500 meters square of Croatian cultural heritage has been damaged.