[ad_1]
“Do you know how to serve coffee to the former president of Yugoslavia?” I ask a twenty-five-year-old waiter in a cafe in Belgrade. I am sitting with Borisav Jovic, President of the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1990 to 1991.
Bora Jović removes his mask, but the young man does not recognize the ninety-two-year-old who is holding up well. The waiter was born four years after Jovic’s rotating presidency. She looks at him confused.
“I feel like a museum specimen,” Jovic tells me as we talk about his new book, The Great Deception (published by the Official Gazette). A big promotion was planned, but because of the crown, Jović, as a member of the old political school, decided to say in an interview for “Politika” what he would talk about with the visitors. After an hour, he gets up and leaves the coffee alone. They refused to fire him.
The message of his book is that the Serbian people naively and fraudulently lost the status that their ancestors acquired through great sacrifices, as well as that they did not understand the great fraud in time, so they supported it wholeheartedly.
Our old state was created by the will of three peoples and was disintegrated by the will of six republics that did not even exist when the state was created. Unprecedented political violence was committed against the right of the people, the right of the people to self-determination was annulled, and the hitherto unknown right of secession of the republics was established.
The state in which all Serbs first lived under the same state roof was not under his administration. It was run by those who wanted it to not exist. The book reveals a procedure that was planned in advance and flawlessly carried out, thanks to the clear anti-Serbian policy followed by our longtime ruler Tito for 40 years, with a firm hand and fierce propaganda, with the help of interested foreign forces and, sadly , with great blindness and support from Serbian politics. leadership.
It is interesting to me that you highlight the great unnoticed naivety of the Serbian politicians who participated in the processes you are interpreting. How do you explain that naivety, even though you use harsher words?
We can argue that it would not be acceptable to common sense for a libertarian nation like the Serb and its political leadership, even the communist one, to accept and support under any conditions the policy that led to the end result that we experienced without being severely deceived and misled. It is of historical importance for us that the nation be aware of how it happened to it, see the process and its main decision points, where and when it was deceived, how we fell into a situation to stop thinking with our head about our destiny and desperately slide towards collapse.
You claim that the events of the 1990s were only the end result of a long-planned and precisely determined policy towards Yugoslavia and the Serbian people.
Attempts to present the events of the 1990s separate from their prehistory are a great deception to the public because they aim to conceal historical truth and historical responsibility and to impose blame on the Serbian people for crimes committed by others in addition to the enormous losses it suffered in those events. There is irrefutable evidence that the decisions on the dissolution of Yugoslavia and on the deprivation of the right to vote of the Serbian people were taken by the highest organs of the CPY and were implemented by the same party at the time it was in power. But we also know that all these decisions were made at a time when the Serbian CP did not exist, and that precisely because of the intention of making such decisions, their formation was not allowed. In the second Avnoj session, all decisions were made not only without legitimate Serbian representatives, but also without a quorum, and they turned history and our destinies upside down. Scam to scam.
His key thesis is that all the decisions of the CPY on the dissolution of Yugoslavia were taken before the existence of the CP of Serbia.
All the communist parties were founded from 1919 until the end of the Second World War, and they made all the decisions to disintegrate Yugoslavia and deprive the Serbian people of their rights. Tito did not allow the Serbian Communist Party to be established until after the war. It was logical for the PC of Serbia to distance itself from the decisions of the PCY related to the Serbian question when establishing it. But that was not possible with Tito.
Here we come to Tito. He points out that his main task was to seize power to execute the decisions of the IV Congress of the CPY in Dresden in 1928 on the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the deprivation of the right to vote of our people.
The fact that the Serbs did not have their own communist party and that they were members of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia made it logical to put their general secretary Josip Broz at the forefront of the armed struggle against the occupiers. That logic did not fall from the sky, it was an integral part of a conscious policy not to allow the Serbian people to have their own institutions, not even the CP, to impose a leadership on the Serbian people that will work against their interests. Tito took power illegally, and such a government, which was presented as democratically elected by the representatives of all nations, and taken de facto thanks to the available military force, served Broz to rule Yugoslavia for 40 years. The inauguration and the skillful retention of power in his hands allowed him to implement the decisions of the Dresden Congress.
Is Aleksandar Ranković the first Serbian communist heavyweight player to understand Tito’s intentions and is that why he was fired?
Aleksandar Ranković was removed from office because he opposed the disintegration of Yugoslavia by transferring state functions to the republics. Everything else was Tito’s machinations, not least that he was spying on Tito, but also Serbian officials to replace them along with Tito. On this issue, Serbian officials have shown the greatest political weakness and national shame, which they cannot erase from history.
So, are you sure that the scenario of the disintegration of Yugoslavia would be the same even without the arrival of Slobodan Milosevic at the head of Serbia?
Those who try to blame Slobodan Milosevic, and therefore indirectly Serbia, saying that it is now fashionable, think that someone is blind and does not see the facts. And they show that the disintegration policy of Yugoslavia was determined not only before Milosevic appeared on the Serbian political scene, but also before his birth. If someone rushed out of Yugoslavia, faster than they normally thought, due to the appearance of Milosevic and his views on defending the interests of the Serbian people, that in no way can change the historical facts about who and when it decided to divide Yugoslavia, no one has implemented those decisions.
I’m still wondering if he’s trying to pardon his role in the events that he talks about in this book. You were a high communist leader in the time of Tito, Milosevic’s closest associate. So you didn’t talk like that.
If you read the book, you can see my fierce criticism of the highest Yugoslav officials, including Edvard Kardelj, in both the political and economic systems, as a result of which I was transferred abroad to disable my influence. Cooperation with Milosevic focused on issues of interest to Serbia. Among other things, I personally worked to change the Constitution of Serbia, which made it possible to stop the persecution of the Serbian people of Kosovo and Metohija, but also on other issues of interest to Serbia, until Milosevic chose closer associates and his wife intervened. politics. It is unfounded to attribute responsibility for the dissolution of Yugoslavia to Milosevic. Milosevic appeared only when the country was falling apart to try to protect the interests of Serbia as much as he could, which greatly upset those who had gotten into the habit of working as if Serbia did not exist.
My book is absolutely argued to the extent that the Serbian people cannot be attributed responsibility and blame, and that historical falsehoods can no longer be written in school books and encyclopedias. As if Serbian politicians don’t make mistakes in the future like some of their predecessors.
[ad_2]
