The founders of the European Movement in Serbia – small in number, but resolute and articulate – opposed the European option to the politics of conquest, war and madness practiced by the regime

LABELS: "We have been labeled, explicitly or implicitly, as 'mondialists', 'quasi-patriots' and 'Euro-lackeys' ", Mirko Tepavac, president of EMinS, 1994-96.

Živorad Kovačević

Ten years ago this day, a group of independent intellectuals held the inaugural meeting of the European Movement in Serbia. A short time earlier the European Movement in Yugoslavia had been founded, but the accelerated break-up of the country made this bold and noble initiative impossible to realize. The founders of the European Movement in Serbia - small in number, but resolute and articulate - opposed the European option to the politics of conquest, war and madness practiced by the regime, to the increasingly dominant atmosphere of nationalistic aggression, isolationism, xenophobia and hatred of everyone around us which Milošević's propaganda machine was quite successfully engineering.

Talking about Europe and Europeanism as our only correct strategic option went totally against the tide at a time when a European and worldwide conspiracy against the innocent and long-suffering Serbian people was being trumpeted on all sides, when the very word "European" sounded ugly and treasonous. "This movement", declared its first president, Vojin Dimitrijević, at the inaugural meeting, "cannot be irresolute in its values. For people who wish to practice tolerance it is difficult to be 'fanatically tolerant' - it must be recognized that a European orientation, in the spiritual sense, comprises certain categorical refusals".

This refusal to bow down before mounting nationalism and pro-war euphoria likewise represented the new organization's basic message and defining orientation during its first years of activity. The magazine "Europe" (published in both Serbian and English), which succeeded in bringing together important figures in both Serbian and European cultural and public life, was also meant to contribute to this end but, unfortunately, it ceased publication after a year and a half due to a lack of financial support.

A significant event in this first period was the European Movement in Serbia's admission into the International European Movement in December 1993, together with European initiatives in Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Greece, Romania and Poland. This was an absolutely unique instance of emergence from the total international isolation into which Serbia had been forced by its rulers. As the secretary general of the movement at that time, Dušan Janjić, said, the message was clear: "Serbia is part of Europe!" It is especially worth noting that two prominent Serbian Europeans also took part in the inaugural meeting: Vane Ivanović and Desimir Tošić, the latter of whom subsequently became president of the European Movement.

At that time, the European Movement's initiatives were focused first and foremost on establishing ties with those promoting similar ideas and activities in ruined and war-torn ex-Yugoslavia: building bridges to non-government organizations with a similar mission, dialogue with intellectuals in Kosovo and Albania, cooperation with non-government organizations from abroad, and so on. The basic message was that another Serbia existed and was active, no matter how weak it was or how quiet its voice. The theme of regional cooperation was already on the agenda at that time, as a way of achieving reconciliation and becoming part of Europe.

EXPANSION: "During 1995 EMinS focused on an area left untouched by the political parties – local development and the growth of enterprise", Dr Jelica Minić, EMinS secretary general, 1994-2001.

ACT LOCALLY... : It soon became clear that the European Movement could not limit itself to anti-war activities alone, and that there existed a danger of confining the movement to a small number of determined, engaged intellectuals, primarily those from Belgrade. Popularizing the organization, involving a wider range of people from other social classes and environments, including a larger number of young people, and strengthening and extending the Movement's influence - all this pointed to the need for diversifying its activities and becoming, to some degree, more pragmatic, while maintaining its basic anti-nationalistic and anti-xenophobic stance. This reorientation was initiated by the Movement's new president and secretary general, elected in 1994: Mirko Tepavac and Jelica Minić.

Speaking at the Movement's general assembly, Tepavac said: "Not for one instant have we experienced a crisis of political conscience, even though we have been labeled, explicitly or implicitly, as 'mondialists', 'quasi-patriots' and 'Euro-lackeys'... Our motto – 'For a democratic Serbia and a united Europe ' - will, I believe, remain our political inspiration, our moral obligation and guiding light, for a long time to come". At the same time, however, he pointed out that "we need not hide the fact that we have started appreciably widening our circle of followers and members from outside Belgrade, and this, if anything, is what we could most justifiably be reproached for".

Jelica Minić, who was to serve as secretary general all the way up to the democratic changes in 2000, at which time she left to assume an important function, brought with her a spirit of activism and innovation and an infectious enthusiasm. In her words, "during the course of 1995 a search for new themes, activities, structures, and target groups began. The European Movement focused on an area left untouched by the political parties. Analysis of their political programs showed that not a single one of them paid sufficient attention to local development and the growth of enterprise or, if so, only in a fragmented way".

And so she began directing her inexhaustible energy towards these areas, and soon achieved results. By means of these activities, a strong, broad base comprising many Serbian cities was formed, from which one of the most significant changes in the Movement's functioning was to originate - the formation of local councils that were autonomous in their activities, but which operated within the statuary framework of the European Movement, its accepted scheme of ideas and common thematic conception. In this respect the European Movement differs from all other non-government organizations in Serbia and, with its thirty local councils, has the most highly diversified and mass-based organizational structure.

...THINK GLOBALLY: Another significant and innovative contribution to the European Movement's method of operating was the establishment of the Forum for International Relations (created under the aegis of the Civic Alliance), which became part of the European Movement immediately after it was founded. The Forum brought together professors and other experts from the fields of international law and international political-economic relations, as well as prominent foreign policy analysts and former diplomats, among them three former ministers of foreign affairs.

At Forum meetings, held without exception every Wednesday at 6 pm, the most democratic and expert discussions concerning Serbia's international position took place, representing the most deadly criticism of Milošević's so-called foreign policy. The Forum organized public discussions (publishing their proceedings in "Foreign Policy Papers"), members of the Forum regularly appeared in both the domestic independent media and the foreign press, and the Forum spoke out following various events or moves by the regime.

Three Forum documents in particular won the attention of democratic forces in society: first, the "Alternative Platform for Yugoslav Foreign Policy"; second, "Yugoslavia at the End of the Century: Which Road to Europe and the World"; and, third, the book entitled "Yugoslavia and the World", in which thirty specialized analysts, members of the Forum, expressed their views on all important questions relating to this country's foreign relations with major international players (UN, EU, OSCE, IMF, etc.) and individual countries - the great powers, European nations, neighboring countries, and so on.

Based on this book, the Forum offered a platform for the country's new foreign policy immediately following the events of October 5, 2000. Unfortunately, some of the Forum's most able minds are no longer with us: Kosta Obradović, Novak Pribićević, Dragoslav Avramović, Ranko Petković, Nikola Burzan, Dušan Štrbac, Ivan Veselinović, Ilija Đukić. Moreover, no less than twenty Forum members became ambassadors or assumed other important functions at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in embassies or in other state institutions following the democratic changes. Thus the danger arose that the Forum, in such a stunted (and rather "geriatric") form, would lose its freshness, incisiveness and significance.

Fortunately, thanks to the initiative and dedication of its current president, Dušan Simić, and with the support of all of us, the Forum has been revitalized and expanded to include a greater number of predominantly young, highly competent members, thus allowing it to play an important and necessary role under these new circumstances as well. The Forum has already organized two highly-visible international conferences (on the Hague Tribunal and the Partnership for Peace), and also has ambitious plans for the near future.

INCUBATOR: The European Movement has organized many other highly active forums: the Political Forum, the Economic Forum (especially worth mentioning in this regard is the very successful Young People's Economic Forum), the Entrepreneurs' Forum and the increasingly active Ethnic Forum, representing the European Movement in an important new area.

One of the major turning points in the Movement's ten-year history (particularly after it established its own office) was its orientation towards helping to form and nurture new non-government organizations. In line with this "incubator function" we have provided shelter for many initiatives that have since become significant organizations in their own right, such as G17, the Group for Women's Rights, the Victimology Society, Generation 21, the Quality of Life Association, and Transparency International Serbia. Some of these have maintained their ties with the Movement via collective member status.

SOCIAL MISSION: Besides an abundance of practical activities stemming from its numerous organizational units, the Movement has never neglected its social mission. We have never accepted, nor do we now accept, any attempt to put an equal sign between the terms "non-government" and "non-political". While we have never aspired to play the unique role of a political party, we have also never desired to remain politically neutral. Thus, under the previous regime, we were, objectively speaking, an "anti-government" non-government organization. Through, among other things, the public statements made by the Movement's members, its role in condemning the regime's dangerous policies, and its international policy activities, the European Movement, as an organization, clearly and loudly made its opposition known.

This was particularly evident during the mass popular and student protests against electoral fraud following the 1996-97 local elections. At that time we came out in an organized fashion, holding our own protest meeting as part of the general demonstrations, while Forum members appeared at the University to address the students. The Alternative Foreign Policy Platform was offered to opposition parties, and was well-received on all sides, although parties were hesitant to adopt it as their own. The opposition's victory in a majority of towns in Serbia allowed the Movement to begin intensive cooperation with the new local authorities and to offer them expert assistance. Such cooperation gave birth to many of the Movement's local councils.

A second form of political activity by the European Movement, which provided a great boost to its further expansion, especially among young people, was the well-organized and highly inventive pre-election and voter-recruitment campaign in the year 2000. Serbia was flooded with attractive, clever posters, flyers and billboards devised by the Movement's young members.

INTERESTS: "Our choices are limited in number, in fact there may be but a single one: cooperation with the international community in protecting the real interests of the Serbian people", Desimir Tošić, president of EMinS, 1996-1999.

CORRECTIVE FACTOR: We greeted the democratic changes of the year 2000 (in which we took an active part ourselves) with great enthusiasm and high hopes. Even though our hitherto political allies were now in power, with members of the Movement and its forums serving many important functions as well, our position was clear from the start: we had no intention of becoming a pro-government non-government organization. While we were happy to cooperate with government bodies, we insisted on an equal partner status, jealously guarding our independence and preserving our constructive, critical distance from the authorities.

We believed such a stance was all the more important in a situation where the necessary role of a democratic corrective to the ruling government (which enjoyed a more than comfortable majority in the National Assembly) simply could not be played by the opposition, which was and remains - in both its composition and its conduct - the relict of a time with which a complete break was required. This void can and must be filled by non-government organizations, powerful unions and independent, highly professional media. We therefore stated that our relationship to the authorities would be constructive and cooperative, but that we would maintain our intellectual autonomy and critical spirit.

And we were right. At an anniversary meeting held last summer we declared: "One year ago the Serbian Assembly exuded relief and enthusiasm at the changes that had been made. The end of the Milošević regime remains the most important fact, but this enthusiasm has, it seems, evaporated, since we are now in the middle of a serious political crisis which is slowing, even endangering, our way to Europe, which began so encouragingly with the end of the political and economic isolation in which our country had found itself for many years. The conflicts within DOS are escalating, and are already determining, burdening and monopolizing our political life, pushing aside crucial topics such as reform and Europe-oriented transformation of society. One tragicomic affair follows another, each representing another step in the further escalation, and all serving to feed conflict. It is now more important to smear and weaken one's opponent for the sake of some sort of pre-election calculations, than to preserve, strengthen and advance the position that we gained in the world on October 5th. We are not happy to say this, but it seems as if those we gave our trust to in the elections have become not the guarantors of stability, but rather the primary sources of our country's instability and the weakening of its international position and reputation".

GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS: This crisis has only worsened in the meantime, and the Foreign Minister says that our international position is worse than it was a year ago. This is certainly reason enough for us to stop and reflect. Moreover, the hopes that arose from the agreement between DSS and the rest of the DOS coalition have faded following recent statements made by the main protagonists. The very fact that a majority of voters have had second thoughts about whether to participate at all in the presidential elections testifies to the depth of the crisis and the danger of a considerable slowdown in our successfully initiated reforms.

Two pieces of good news are again awakening certain hopes, although these could easily be crushed by more bad news. I am thinking of the possibility that, after nine months of haggling following the Belgrade Agreement, the Constitutional Charter will finally be approved nonetheless, and thus, after an unjustifiable delay, we will again have a clear agenda: admission into the Council of Europe and the Partnership for Peace, creation of a feasibility study, and concluding a Stabilization and Association Agreement with the European Union. The second piece of good news is that, after an interruption of five months, the Serbian Assembly has begun working again, with important reform legislation in the area of tax policy on its agenda.

No one is bothered by differences and debates, for this is normal in a pluralistic, democratic society; but the blocking of the process of building democratic institutions based on the European model, the process of transition, is indeed a matter for concern. If we add to this the sluggishness, or even the obstructions, evident in our fulfillment of international obligations - above all, our cooperation with the Hague Tribunal - or the lack of responsibility that led to the illegal arms sales affair, then there are more than enough reasons for concern. As my predecessor, Desimir Tošić, once said: "Our choices are limited in number, in fact there may be but a single one: cooperation with the international community in protecting the real interests of the Serbian people..."

Our road to Europe is clearly signposted, and represents this country's approved strategic priority. While Europe will certainly offer us all manner of support and assistance, it is up to us alone to make use of this historic opportunity to become an equal partner in an exciting project for creating a truly multi-polar world, to contribute, in Hubert Védrine's words, to the "civilizing" of globalization. The European Movement in Serbia will do everything to see that its diverse, wide-ranging activities and its public pressure and criticism contribute to making our way to Europe as smooth as possible.

(The author is the president of the European Movement in Serbia.
This text was read as the inaugural address at a ceremonial assembly
on the occasion of EMinS' tenth anniversary, held on November 24, 2002.)