SVILANOVIC: I counted on that, but I believed that there was an obligation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of FR Yugoslavia to address the citizens of both countries, in this case above all citizens of the Republic of Croatia, with clear views regarding the clashes that were very tragic and brought about the deaths of many individuals. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of FR Yugoslavia cannot visit Croatia and talk about everything else, as if that conflict hadn't taken place at all. Thus, I clearly expressed my regret because of the suffering of those individuals.
You expressed regret, instead of apologizing. What is the difference?
An apology is a big gesture which may come in time, but only a head of a state or someone elected directly by the voters has the legitimacy to make that act. In time, that may happen. Judging by the reactions in the Croat press that I've seen, they clearly understood that there was a certain difference between what I said and what the expectations in Croatia are. But, on the other hand, I believe that the situation in which we were before my visit to Zagreb and the situation today are also quite different.
Who should apologize to whom?
That is a complicated issue. But, if we focus on the events in the last decade, then the starting point should be that that conflict took place in Croatia. However, all our relations with neighbors, especially with Croats, go back way back in the past, and are much more complex than what happened in the last ten years. Then, that opens many topics...
Why did you mention Jasenovac [WWII concentration camp in Croatia] in this context?
We could start a big debate about whether Vukovar is a location of war crimes, and we would probably agree about that. We can also say that Jasenovac is a place where systematic killing took place, some say genocide, and those two things should not be compared. However, we could take a totally different approach to the topic and say: when we express regret about one event, it is not good to tie that to some other events that happened in a different time period. I decided to limit myself to an emotion and I said that I wanted to share that emotion with the Croatian public, and that emotion is the regret regarding crimes that were committed and in which citizens of the Republic of Croatia, both Croats and Serbs, as well as Yugoslavian citizens, died. That should be said.
I mentioned Vukovar as a town that is in the most recent history of Croatia a symbol to which tremendous emotions of most Croats are connected. I also mentioned Jasenovac, not attempting to strike a balance, or to say that the two are the same, or similar, because that is definitely not true, but because Jasenovac is for Serbs in Croatia, as well as Serbs in Serbia, also a symbol from a different time. I do not intend to compare the two in any way, but most people are not that rational in a difficult situation.
Not everyone considers whether something is similar or not. The memory of Jasenovac was manipulated a lot and that was the powder keg for the horrendous conflict that followed. That is precisely why I mentioned that. Naturally, I am aware how much fear was induced in the Serbs with that campaign of reminders to Jasenovac and that was something that brought additional murderous energy, which contributed that crimes be worse than they would otherwise be.
What can we expect from your visit to Zagreb in practice?
We still cannot talk about good neighborly relations, but we have already done a lot. I had opportunities to meet the minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia on several occasions all over the world. We have already made some progress together, the governments of Croatia and FR Yugoslavia. The Vukovar collection is now where it should be - in Vukovar. I think that the next step in that sense should be the return of the documentation from six municipalities that was brought to Yugoslavia and in the meantime copied on microfilm. That is one of the very clear demands of Serb refugees. There is a lot more that needs to be done.
In the preparation for this visit to Zagreb I had a fruitful meeting with the members of the Croat ethnic minority in Yugoslavia. After that I met with the representatives of the refugees. They provided a detailed description of their situation here and their expectations from our government and from the Croatian government. They also wanted to send through me a clear message that their main problems regarding return are the realization of a whole series of rights in Croatia. Then I talked with bishop Tanasije Rakita and the chief of the cabinet of his holiness Patriarch Pavle. I had a separate meeting with the director of the Museum of the Serb Orthodox Church, Mr Mileusnic, because I wanted to have as much information as possible regarding the treasures of the Serb Orthodox Church, damaged and destroyed churches of the SOC [in Croatia], treasures that were taken from them, so that I could discuss with the representatives of the Croatian authorities how those treasures could be returned to the churches, which should in the meantime be rebuilt or fixed up. In Zagreb I had talks with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister, President of the state, as well as vice-president of the parliament. I had separate meetings with representatives of non-governmental organizations from Croatia that did a lot over the last ten years to protect and promote the rights of all citizens of Croatia, including the rights of Serbs in Croatia. At the meeting I talked with representatives of the Croatian Helsinki Committee, Civic Association for Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms, group Gong, and representatives of some organizations from Istria. Then, the meeting was attended by the people who did something during all these years and thereby defended the dignity of both the Croat people and Croatia, just as the non-governmental organizations in Belgrade did a lot in the circumstances we had here.
I had separate meetings with representatives of the Serb Orthodox Church in Croatia, with Mitropolitan of Zagreb-Ljubljana Jovan, with bishop Lukijan and a few more priests. I also met with a large group of representatives of Serbs from Croatia.
Did you address war crimes in those meetings?
Of course, we discussed war crimes and the need that people who are responsible for those crimes, those who organized, incited and carried out those crimes must be held responsible. On that occasion, naturally, we addressed the issue of the number of war crimes indictments [against Serbs] issued in Croatia. 1580 Serbs have been charged with war crimes, and more than 300 of these indictments have been distributed via Interpol. I agreed with my Croatian colleague that it is necessary that all those who committed war crimes be tried by national courts and of course in the Hague, but I also used the opportunity to mention that it does appear that these numbers are excessive and that the circumstances in which these trials are conducted were specific and that in my opinion it would be correct to reexamine and revise all of the issued indictments and verdicts so that those who really committed war crimes could be held responsible while those who were sentenced in such a charged atmosphere, although innocent, could be freed of this heavy burden.
We also discussed the work of the Committee for Missing Persons, as well as problems of the refugees and their attempts to return home. The Prime Minister gave me a detailed response regarding their attitude with respect to the problem of tenancy rights. In that respect there is obviously wide disagreement between Yugoslavia and Croatia. We shall continue that dialogue.