Aktuelne aktivnosti

Specijalistička obuka „Etika za javne službenike”

Centar za bezbednosne studije, uz evropsku podršku, uspešno je realizovao poslednji ciklus specijalističke obuke „Etika za javne službenike”, 30. maja. Obuka je trajala četiri meseca, a stru . . . Opširnije...
Stručna grupa za etiku











Find us on Facebook


The 26 July 2010 session of the Serbian Parliament to respond to the new situation vis-à-vis Kosovo that was created by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice this month produced the expected meandering discussions of history, but was marked by a decisive qualitative departure from the generally low level of debate, by an excellent speech given by Ivica Dačić, the Serbian Interior Minister.

Dačić pointed it out that Serbia needs to be pro-active in its regional policy, especially that which concerns ethnic relations and territorial issues within the country, and that, rather than wasting its energy on accusing the previous governments for the loss of Kosovo, it should concentrate on the future crises that are looming large in the political mirror of contemporary Serbia. The Interior Minister specifically mentioned the future security challenges in Sandžak, with its strong independist Bosniak leadership that received dominant public support in the latest local election in the region’s “capital” of Novi Pazar. Dačić bravely pointed it out that „calling Sandžak by the name of Raška is not going to change anything“, thus surgicaly targetting the customary intellectual autism of large parts of the Serbian intelligentsia, who believe that current security and political challenges can be addressed by closing the eyes to the present and reminiscing on the past. In short, Dačić’s discussion was the only progressive, methodologically sound and, frankly, the only intelligent discussion to be heard during the debate.

The view espoused by the leader of the Socialist Party that “it was easy for (the rest of the government) to be right when Slobodan Milošević was in power, because he bore all the responsibility”, again, is correct. While undoubtedly the policies of Milošević were catastrophic for the people of the former Yugoslavia, it now becomes apparent that these policies had deep roots in the public opinion. Hence, a question natural arises of how it was possible for Milošević to gain 80 or 90% support for these policies in successive elections and referenda held at the time. Namely, it appears that his policies are continued today through the political establishment’s putting Serbia on a mild collision course with the most powerful countries of the world, yet maintaining a political rhetoric and diplomatic methodology that are bound to fail both in international legal testing and in practical policy implementation. The policy pursued by the government and supported by the Parliament is at sharp odds with the facts on the ground, but it is also at odds with the realities of modern diplomacy in Europe. The only person in the current establishment who had the courage to address the issues with their real names was Ivica Dačić. This, perhaps, suggests the profile of a new political leadership at the very top of the Serbian political system that is likely to crystallise itself in the coming years.

Aleksandar Fatić

Director of the Centre for Security Studies, Belgrade