About cooperation with the Hague Tribunal 

... The local public must clearly, unequivocally and visibly be informed about the fact that it is exactly such continued inefficient acting, and especially undecided acting and avoiding to cooperate with the Hague Tribunal that represents a direct violation of national security.

The politicians in power vested with highest level of responsibility must no longer avoid this historical responsibility, and it is unethical to expect that this be stated only by the most courageous individuals among them. (24th July 2004)

* * *

The Government of Serbia must in this case act in compliance with its historical responsibility – there must be no further delay in cooperation with the Hague, and the misconception is especially dangerous that by indecisive acting and delaying this issue could be left to some future government to deal with, as the previous government has left it to this present one to deal with. (21st October 2004)


About the Reform Fund for the Army of S&M 

... The FBD Forum warns the public and the relevant authorities of the State Union S&M of the need to urgently, before it is too late, provide full transparency in terms of functioning of the Fund...


Otherwise, lack of transparency in the functioning of the Fund, in terms of lack of identified procedures that would regulate and control its functioning would only additionally complicate the issue of accountability and position of major actors of the fund, on the one hand; and would, on the other hand, give grounds to the opponent of reforms who identify reform and manipulation – which would be a threat to the desired reform and democratization processes. (8th August 2004)

* * *

The FBD Forum believes that in the present legal vacuum (favorable for all types of abuse and corruption), in which the Fund is places and in which it operates – which is confirmed both by those active in it and by the most responsible officials of the state union – an Inquiry Board of the State Union assembly is the most democratic and the only possible solution and a way out of the present situation in which the Fund is operating – vested with the authority of the Council of Ministers of the State Union S&M. (12th December 2004)


Regarding (conflicting) statements
on the future of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro


... The Forum for security and Democracy calls upon the politicians to refrain from making uncoordinated, ad hoc (and irresponsible) statements regarding the crucial social and state-political issues (...)

The FBD Forum, at the same time, especially warns that behind the seemingly identical support for disintegration, there may be hidden fully diverging political motives (including also private interests), and diverging strategic objectives.

Throughout former SFR Yugoslavia, we have had in the past ample opportunity to witness the consequences of such devastating joint results of options that could not be mitigated.(...)

The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has its subjectivity and legitimacy – irrespective of how much individuals both in Serbia and in Montenegro may dislike this, and its end would be a final victory of radical separatists and radical nationalists in the region. (20th August 2004)


Regarding (conflicting) statements
on the future of the about local elections in Kosovo and Metohia

.... The major risk, accompanying the results of recent local elections in Serbia, identified by the FBD Forum at present moment, refer to the circumstances that may lead to a disastrous defeat: the re-affirmation of the policy and ideology of Slobodan Milošević and his past political allies and obsolete supporters.

There is much concern as to how much (longer) does Serbia have the power to counter this deadly danger? The concern is even greater as to whether its politicians will have the capacity and knowledge, five years after breaking away from the tragic and regrettable past of the Milošević era, to face these issues and risks in such a manner that will not lead to an even further worsening of the situation which is not good as it is. (6th October 2004)

* * *

FBD believes that all democratic forces in Serbia, and especially the authorities, must demonstrate maximum caution in their reactions to the election of the Kosovo Prime-Minister and thereby avoid the danger of the role that is assigned to them which is that – after the appointment of the Kosovo government – in responding to the election of Ramuš Haradinaj, they use the methods and reactions from the time of Slobodan Milošević. (9th December 2004)

About the tragic deaths of soldiers in Topčider

... The reactions so far by relevant military and state authorities in this case are a serious cause for loss of credibility of the Army and the state, and not only those who are ex officio responsible for the case. It also has direct unfavorable consequences on the Army morale, and even more on the readiness of future recruits to serve their military term.

... The least that our Minister, Mr. Prvoslav Davinić, could have done after this tragedy – was to resign from the function that he is discharging. (13th October 2004)

* * * 

... FBD publicly expresses its surprise about the recent statement by Minister of Defense, Prvoslav Davinić, that he sees no correlation between his function and the tragedy in Topčider. Minister Davinić is responsible by this statement itself, even before the results of the investigation.

Advocating military reform and Euro-Atlantic integrations, at the same time overseeing this kind of responsibility, is impossible (14th October 2004) 

* * *

... FBD emphasizes that the independent (state) commission is responsible only to the Supreme Defense Council and President Marović, at whose initiative it was appointed. In this context, the intermediaries can not be either the Minister of Defense, nor the Army, nor the relevant authorities. (23rd October 2004) 

* * *

With respect to the statement by the Military Court in Belgrade, which in the case of the death of two guard members in Topčider this afternoon proclaimed itself as the only relevant body to verify any statements to be issued to the public, stating also that not even the President of the Independent Commission may issue statements without the authorization of the said court, FBD believes that the local public must urgently be given answers to issues which go much beyond this specific case and open up the questions that are of fundamental and crucial importance for the security of the democratic order of our country.(...)

Does the statement made by the Military Court in Belgrade gives rise to concerns that ’those who control the situation and events’’ are outside the supreme authorities in the country?

Finally, FBD gives full support to the professional and personal integrity of the President of the Independent State Commission, Mr. Boža Prelević, and expresses its readiness to offer to him its full moral and professional assistance. (27th October 2004)

* * * 

FBD thinks that the findings of the state commission established by the Supreme defense Council, can not in its significance be either identified with or adjusted with the findings of those due to whose work the Supreme defense Council established the Independent Commission in the first place.

It is even less admissible to make t a condition to the Independent Commission to harmonize its findings with he findings of the Army – the responsibility is mostly up to those who are objectively in a position to act as mediators between the Army and the Independent Commission.

Such efforts and such an approach are fundamentally an inadmissible pressure both upon the Supreme Defense Council and upon the President of the Independent State Commission.

The reputation of the Army will not suffer if it accepts the findings of the Independent Commission, on the contrary, it is its duty, if its findings are different, to investigate how it got in the situation in which it has found itself.

The worst outcome both for the Army and for democratic processes in the country would be if President Marović would purposefully be brought in a situation in which a third party would be making all decisions. (16th November 2004) 

* * * 

FBD believes that the total damage caused by events relevant to the tragedy in Topčider to the reputation of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro is huge and that it may be repaired only through an intensive process of communication between the Army and the democratic civil society.

Such communication must be two-directional and based on mutual confidence.

Only so will the Army under the present social conditions be able to increase its reputation and to regain the role that is usual for armies in developed democracies – and avoid being perceived as a conservative guardian of an obsolete or even a negative legacy.

Such cooperation is of special significance for the widest members of the Army, as well as to soldiers, young commissioned and non-commissioned officers (...) – who, under the present situation, have no role and no say, although it is them who should be the major driving forces of the reform processes. (7th December 2004) 


About other issues relevant to security


... With respect to the statement made yesterday by Nenad Čanak about the number of mass graves in Serbia (...) Putting aside the ethical responsibility of all those who knew something about this issue and did not do anything about it, FBD believes that it is already now possible to say that this is a problem of unpredictable consequences both on the national and international domain.

The past negative experience of the public, regarding lack of prompt and responsible actions within the investigation and regarding lack of access to information, not only regarding this case, are a major reminder and warning requiring urgent response by supreme state authorities and officials. (29th October 2004) 

* * * 

FBD supports also the interest of the media and of the public in respect to the issue of destroying documentation in possession of the State Security of Serbia. This, regretfully, comes as late wisdom (...) about only one segment of such events, as it should be investigate whether there have been such activities also in the Army – under the auspices of the then Head of GS general Pavković; and also as to whether, for instance, after 5th October 2000 there has been forgery of original documents with the support of the security and counter-intelligence services, especially in terms of cooperation with the National council for Cooperation with the Hague.

As long as this job is not done, and as long as it is not clarified, there will be grounds for practices which have no place in developed democracies – like in the instance in which the relevant authorities did not investigate where (or with whose help and guard) was hiding the first suspect Milorad Ulemek in the process of assassination of Prime-Minister of Serbia. (22nd November 2004)


About reversed-transition


... The optimism of the 5th October 2000 was accompanied by the hope that the past ’’political recipe for power’’ was vested only in Milošević – the practice whereby defeat was declared a victory, night was declared a day.

It is, regretfully, becoming evident that this was not so. 

How is it possible, for instance that the scandal and the shame concerning the privatization of ’’Knjaz Miloš’’ (due to which, in ’’the European society that we aspire to’’, all those involved who intend to engage in politics in the long-term, could only resign, because this would be the only way not to jeopardize the Government), there are statements made to the contrary, or, in another case, the ruling of the international court in favor of ICN is declared as good for the state. 

What do these instances constitute if not reversed-transition:

presenting as continuation of initiated democratic reforms even such activities that are not at all reform-oriented;
if the state interests are the care of those who threaten them most;
if the state is protected by those from whom it should in fact be protected;
if the army is reformed by those who would prefer that there is no army, in cooperation with those who would like not to change anything;
if the police reform is seen as being obedient to those who assign posts and if credit is given to those who were replaced after 5th October (...);
if the previous government was fiercely criticized for scandals amounting to hundreds of thousands of Euros, whereas now, with expert charm, millions are overlooked;

if the independence of commissions is demonstrated by exerting pressure upon them to change their findings (even including their ’confidential repentance’’ to police inspectors);

if questions regarding facts are answered by arguments ad hominem...!?! (28th November 2004)

* * *

... FBD believes that it is high time and calls upon assembly deputies at the republic and state union level to urgently adopt laws that would prohibit highest officials to perform any political party activities, especially management of political parties.

This should refer to all officials: presidents, prime-ministers, ministers and their deputies and assistants, presidents vice-presidents of assemblies. 

FBD believes that there is no need to explain the grounds and the need for such a law, and also believes that it would make a significant contribution to the overall democratization of the political life. (1st December 2004)