In my opinion, European Security system hardly exists at present. It is true that Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is in place, there exist various EU – NATO military arrangements, and there are some other specific and partial arrangements of NATO and Russia, and of the U.S.A. and Russia. Clearly, none of these is truly European or offering equal guaranties of security to all European countries. Beginning from 1999, Europe, especially its Eastern and South Eastern parts, has been covered by a network of foreign military bases with unprecedented pace. Europe of today has more foreign military bases then at the height of the Cold War Era! Is this in proportion with the nature and rise of security risks? It has only provoked more distrust and tensions.

OSCE, put aside the name, has proved futile if not counterproductive in some important situations. In a number of instances, it has been subject to manipulations favoring partial interest of certain countries. It has played negative role during Yugoslavia crisis and disintegration. It has not observed the principles enshrined in the Final Helsinki Document on sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the internationally recognized state borders. At the same time it has also abandoned the working principle of consensus introducing a new ‘principle’ – a “consensus minus one”, thus excluding the SFRY, one of the founding members of the OSCE. Its Mission in Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, (late 1998 - March 1999), the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), acted rather as an extension of the U.S.A. and NATO in preparing the grounds for the 1999 NATO military aggression, than as a civil diplomatic mission, defined by the Agreement of October 1998 concluded between Yugoslavia and OSCE. In any case, OSCE was created in a completely different European and World setup then the ones existing today.

What we need today is to study anew and reconstruct the European Security System on the bases of the lessons learnt, in order to make it viable and responsive to circumstances and needs of today and the future.

The basic approach should be that European Security is a matter of rights and duties of each and all European countries rather than rights and duties of one, or of a group of countries. It certainly should not be a monopoly of any regional organization, be it NATO or any other.

The New European Security System has to provide equal guaranties of security to all European countries. To achieve this, such process from the very beginning should allow participation of all European countries. Diplomatic consultations will take time and efforts but it will be worthwhile. The process should be finalized at the European Summit Conference adopting a new European Security Treaty.

Autonomy or a “Sui Generis” State: Devil Out of the Bottle

Živadin Jovanović, President of the Belgrade Forum

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and its individual members have repeatedly warned that the concept and essence of Draft Statute of Vojvodina and of Draft Law on Transfer of Competences, unless substantially changed, would lead to creation of a state within a state, and to weakening and disintegration of Serbia as a sovereign European state. This time, we wish to bring to the reader’s attention few aspects that are less known to the public.

The first question to be asked is why should a province need borders and why should it need a procedure for changing them!? The international and the national laws recognize territory, population, borders and monopoly of power as exclusive prerogatives of a state. Borders delineate the territory on which is exerted one’s sovereign power by means of the facility having monopoly of coercion. Does a province have monopoly of coercion? The logic denies it, in theory and in practice. Confederal units of Canada do not dispose with monopoly of coercion. Nor can be valid an individual confederal unit’s referendum on independence because the matter must be decided unanimously by all confederal units. Therefore, a province cannot have its borders but administrative lines only. Why the Draft Statute authors opted for a contrary formulation?

Provision of Section 3, Paragraph 2 sets that the territory of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina cannot be changed without consent of its citizens, stated in referendum. It sounds like protection of territorial autonomy from a possible interference from the center, meaning from Belgrade. In other words, this provides for the Province’s right to change its territory/borders, although by means of referendum “of its citizens”. Now, what borders would that be, those with hypothetical, already announced other provinces in Serbia (Belgrade, Šumadija, East and West Serbia), or maybe those with Croatia, Hungary or Rumania?!

Secondly, replacing the word “capital” with expression “capital, administrative center” in Section 10, Paragraph 1, under the original title “THE CAPITAL” not only illustrates a partocratic exhibitionism, voluntarism and naked trafficking, but also is a form of insulting the public intelligence. Can anyone explain how the capacity of Novi Sad as “the capital” makes or breaks chances for “better life” of the “citizens of the Province”? That is, anyone but certain Novi Sad-based party leaders who have hard time concealing joy and anticipation of red carpets waiting for them in their not-so-distant capacity of statesmen of a nascent state.

Clearly, the ‘compromise’ serves to allow the Novi Sad partocraty use the term ‘capital’, always and only, to reflect how they see themselves and own importance, whereas Belgrade will but numbly refer to the ‘administrative center’ as the evidence of its (misconstrued) consistency.

Thirdly, Section 29, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of Draft Statute provides for the Development Bank of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina as a constitutive element of autonomy. Obviously, if Serbia does not have its own development bank, this under no circumstances must mean Vojvodina should not have its own. However, the real question is what reasons made the drafters of the Statute to provide for it in this fundamental legal act. Apparently, this is not just a bank in the free capital market, but an important instrument of power of the new governing structure of the APV.

Fourthly, few months ago President of Serbia Boris Tadić announced amendments to the Constitution of Serbia, justifying this initiative, inter alia, by the need for creating the legal bases for accelerated regionalization. An argument was that asymmetric setup of competences by regions was not in Serbia’s best interest. He suggested that the prerogatives and competences Vojvodina had already had should not be only its privilege but rather that the other regions should also have at least similar rights. Following this statement, it was only logical to expect firstly the establishment of precise common bases/criteria for regionalization, and only afterwards to endorse statutes or laws on transfer of competences for all regions, Vojvodina included. If so, why haste with Statute and Law on Transfer of Competences for Vojvodina only? The Vojvodina leadership does not deny that Vojvodina is a region, but a European one, set within a European context, whereas in Serbian context it declines being a Serbian region and instead it asks for a special, ‘sui generis’ status. At least one member of the ruling coalition sees this that as status of a republic.

Who hurried whom? Did someone from the European Union urge that Vojvodina’s Statute and Law be adopted before and outside any criteria for regionalization in general? Maybe the President of the Republic in the meanwhile had a change of heart on undesirability of ‘asymmetrical solutions’? Do Statute and Law on Transfer of Competences for Vojvodina set standards to also apply for other regions i.e., the autonomous provinces, pursuant to Section 82 of the Constitution? Can other regions/provinces also rely on transfer of some 200 new competences by the Republic, including own citizens, borders, capitals/administrative centers, development banks, governments, offices in Brussels, etc.

This Statute and Law on Transfer of Competences give Vojvodina three out of four fundamental state prerogatives: territory, borders, and population (‘its citizens’). Come to the fourth, the monopoly of power (coercion), the 200 transferred competences make a firm foundation to build on. To rephrase a visibly pleased leader of the ruling coalition, this was the maximum possible result at this moment. Once this scope of competences is consolidated, others will follow up to the monopoly of power. By then, it will not matter at all who supported what today.

The devil is out of the bottle. Someone made a dangerous move when decided to play on the regional strongmen’s appetites.

Živadin Jovanović, President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals