LOCAL PRESS

Nikolic: New government to speed up Serbia’s EU integrations (Radio Serbia, by Suzana Mitic)

Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic said in Vienna that, with the formation of a new Serbian government, obligations towards EU membership will be fulfilled faster, while the rest depends on the EU, the economic and the enlargement crisis. After talks with Austrian President Heinz Fischer, he said that the new government would be formed on the basis of a sweeping victory of a political option supporting EU membership. He said that the new parliament would not include any MP group against the EU course. The new government will be dedicated to the battle against crime and to judicial reforms, he stressed. At a joint press conference with Austrian President Heinz Fischer, Nikolic said that Austria had always supported Serbia’s EU integrations and was given assurances that it will remain so in future as well. Assessing the bilateral relations as very good, Fischer confirmed that Austria intended to continue its support to Serbia’s EU course and greeted Belgrade’s resolve to abide by the Brussels agreement. He said one should look into the future and say clearly that war is not an instrument for resolving conflicts. He said that the First World War, the centennial of which is being marked this year, represented a mega catastrophe and that he was not one of those who look upon those events with prejudice and attribute guilt to others, but stressed that one must learn from one’s past mistakes, look into the future and build a joint European future. Nikolic said that talks about history should be left to historians and that the issue was not burdening the bilateral relations. Our many years of cooperation with Austria indicate that we must remember the First World War as a warning only and not as an obstacle to our future cooperation, said Nikolic. Serbia is planning to invite the Austrian President as a guest to a celebration marking the centennial of that war, which would represent a definite sign that there is no such war in our heads, said Nikolic. Austrian partners are the best and most numerous investors in Serbia, whose investments exceed three billion euros and Austria itself is the host to many Serbs, said Nikolic. Austrian investors have recognized Serbia as a good investment destination and the Serbian leadership will do its best to create even better business conditions in order that the present investors expand their business and in order that others arrive in Serbia as well. We do not expect any gift from the EU, we do not expect to be given anything for free, to be assigned any fund to spend from, but we expect it to help us introduce good regulations in our state and help people in Serbia find jobs through profitable and economically justifiable investments, emphasized President Nikolic.

Office for Kosovo: There was no referendum in Kosovo and Metohija (Tanjug)

The Office for Kosovo and Metohija has recalled in a statement that a referendum on independence was not conducted on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, and that neither the Albanians nor the Serbs, nor any other ethnic community in Kosovo and Metohija, took part in it. The Office points out that the unilateral independence of Kosovo and Metohija was declared on 17 February 2008 at the session of the so-called Kosovo Assembly “not preceded by any referendum of the residents of Kosovo and Metohija either on part or entire territory of Kosovo and Metohija.” “The Office, without intentions to join the discussion of the great powers on the nature of international law, wishes to eliminate the confusion created on the occasion of the statements on Kosovo and Metohija in the context of Crimea. The statement could be heard at the EU-US summit in Brussels. “Kosovo left Serbia after it organized a referendum that was not outside the framework of international law, but with careful cooperation with the UN and Kosovo neighbors,” this, in our assessment, is an unintentional mistake without any doubt or a result of a wrong translation,” reads the statement. It is also noted that the UN, OSCE or “any other international organization didn’t take part in the declaration of independence, either with advise or confirmation.”

Serbs protest in ten municipalities in Kosovo and Metohija (RTS)

The leader of the Serbian (Srpska) Citizen Initiative Vladeta Kostic called on all Serb MPs in the Kosovo Assembly, as well as the MPs representing other minorities, to walk out of the Assembly because of the announced amendments to the election law. At the protest of the Gracanica municipal employees, Kostic said that the protest has been staged on behalf of all those who are against the bill of amendments to the Law on general elections, which the Assembly and the government of Kosovo are trying to impose. “This election law signifies the administrative cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo. With this election law, the government and the parliament of Kosovo are showing that they do not want Serbs in Kosovo or in the Kosovo institutions,” said Kostic. Pristina does not want to see Serbs in Kosovo institutions, says Gracanica Mayor Branimir Stojanovic, adding he sees a solution to this issue in reserving deputy seats for Serbs. Stojanovic stressed Pristina wanted to prevent Serbs from turning out for elections.

Mrkic: Without hostile steps towards Moscow (Novosti)

Outgoing Serbian Foreign Minister Ivan Mrkic tells Novosti that almost everyone in the EU, some less and some more, understand the specific position of Serbia, our history, including recent, our internal state-of-affairs, and economic necessities, but also priority goals: “Membership in the EU is one of Serbia’s foreign policy priorities and Serbia will certainly respect and fulfill the obligations it undertook. This is not a choice between East and West, nor will Serbia choose according to that pattern. Serbia will not take hostile steps toward Russia, and that every citizen of Serbia understands that. The new government will soon adopt and publish its views on all the major issues.”

Miscevic: Brussels not imposing its stand (RTS)
Serbia’s chief EU negotiator Tanja Miscevic has told Radio and Television of Serbia (RTS) that the EU member states create the foreign and security policy by consensus, making decisions that are not binding in the same way as those in other spheres, such as agriculture, where the EU acts in a unified manner. Brussels may call on the member states to accept a joint position on a foreign policy issue, but cannot impose it, Miscevic said, recalling that Germany’s views on economic sanctions against Russia differ from those of the rest of the EU. “Serbia has the obligation to coordinate its foreign policy with the EU positions, but not with some very special kind of obligation, because preparations for membership leave enough room for the country candidate to resolve some issues on its own,” she said. She said that Brussels has shown understanding for Belgrade’s specific political and economic ties with Moscow, but that this must not be an excuse for Serbia to give up “on something that has become a good practice of coordination with the EU foreign policy positions.” “This is a specific situation and should be viewed as such, Miscevic said.

REGIONAL PRESS

Radmanovic: B&H not to vote on resolution in Ukraine (Srna)

The B&H permanent representative to the UN at a session of the UN General Assembly will not vote for a resolution titled “territorial integrity of the Ukraine,” since the B&H Presidency has no position on this issue, said the Republika Srpska member of the B&H Presidency Nebojsa Radmanovic. He reiterated that the B&H Presidency failed to reach a consensus on the resolution, making it impossible for it to take a position and hence for the B&H representative to the UN to vote. Radmanovic informed B&H Foreign Minister Zlatko Lagumdzija and the B&H representative to the UN Mirsada Colakovic of this circumstance. He also informed them that the B&H Presidency did not reach a consensus to support the statement of the EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the introduction of restrictive measures concerning acts which threaten the territorial integrity, the sovereignty and independence of the Ukraine. Radmanovic told reporters in Sarajevo that at yesterday’s session of the B&H Presidency he proposed that B&H be restrained on this issue, which was not accepted. He said that it is clear that there is no agreement in B&H on the situation in the Ukraine, though he feels that this should not influence the internal situation in B&H.

Lagumdzija receives Vukicevic (Fena)

B&H Foreign Minister Zlatko Lagumdzija expects that the first joint session of the B&H Council of Ministers and the new Serbian government will be held shortly after the formation of the government in Belgrade. Lagumdzija, who is also deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers, extended congratulations in talks with Serbian Ambassador to B&H Stanimir Vukicevic for the recent successful electoral process in Serbia. Lagumdzija and Vukicevic talked about visits of foreign ministers of EU member states who have been in Sarajevo on Thursday and Friday to discuss a new EU approach to B&H. Lagumdzija underlined the need for a new approach, which will be based on the realization of B&H political goals along the path to the EU – the implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sejdic-Finci case, which refers to the abolition of discrimination against national minorities in the electoral process, and establishment of an efficient mechanism for coordination with the EU. In the new EU approach to B&H, it is equally important to enable the implementation of fundamental economic and social reforms, the rule of law and systemic fight against corruption and organized crime, Lagumdzija noted. He qualified as justified the demands of citizens who are voicing their discontent by protesting in the streets, the B&H Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated. Lagumdzija pointed to the importance of finding and identifying the remains of all victims of war crimes and the need for closer cooperation between the relevant prosecutors’ offices of B&H and Serbia, in an effort to identify all victims of crimes, but also perpetrators that have to be prosecuted and punished.

U.S. committed to Dayton (Srna)

The charge d’affaires of the U.S. Embassy in B&H Nicholas Hill said at a meeting with the Republika Srpska (RS) parliament Igor Radojicic in Banja Luka, that his country is committed to the Dayton Peace Agreement. Hill was interested in seeing a continuation of the arrangement with the IMF and talks with financial institutions, says a press release from the Office of the Speaker of the RS parliament. Radojicic said that reforms are necessary in order to improve the business environment in the RS. Radojicic and Hill also exchanged opinions on visits by high-ranking European officials and announcements of new European policies towards B&H, says the press release. They also discussed further economic and political reforms after general elections in B&H, scheduled for October.

Nimetz: No progress in name dispute (Vecer)

UN mediator in the FRYOM-Greece name issue talks Matthew Nimetz wants to revive the old ideas for name dispute’s solution, writes Vecer. After the meeting with the negotiators from the two countries in New York, Nimetz said that there were no progress and concrete results yet.
Vecer comments that instead of using the term “proposals” the UN mediator now preferred to use “ideas” and also said that the old ones should be reconsidered.

INTERNATIONAL PRESS

More work needed to normalize relations in Kosovo (New Europe, by Corinne Kennedy, 28 March 2014)

Panel of experts say there has been improvement since last year’s peace agreement, but it’s hard to tell if it has directly benefitted citizens

Coming up on one year since the historic peace agreement between Kosovo and Serbia was signed, experts on the Balkans say more work needs to be done to normalize relations between the two. Some political progress has been made, they said, but other divisions remain as pronounced as ever.

A panel discussion, held Thursday by the European Policy Centre, brought together advisors, policy makers and journalists from inside and outside the EU to discuss what progress has been made in Kosovo since the peace agreement was signed in April 2013.

“The dialog has led to a number of agreements, but has it led to normalization of relations on the ground?” Dusan Gajic, Europe Correspondent for RTS Serbian Public Broadcaster and editor at SEETV, asked.

Answering his own question, he played two clips from SEETV, which provides coverage of Europe for smaller broadcasters in the Balkans. The videos clearly showed that, while the political dialog might be improving, day-to-day relations still have not been fully normalized.

Aferdita Sylaj, Executive Director of Community Building Mitrovica, said many communities are still divided between north and south and that she changes her license plate depending on what part of Kosovo, or even what part of Mitrovica, she is in. The changing of license plates, also seen in the SEETV pieces, is an illegal, yet common practice for those looking to avoid confrontation.

Despite feeling the need to change her license plate when she travels, Sylaj said she was hopeful that progress can be made.

“It is too early to say if it has changed the lives of people on the ground,” she said, referencing the peace agreement. “But it is possible to change.”

Sylaj said there has been some tangible success in Mitrovica, which has historically been one of the most divided cities in Kosovo. Programs using music, especially rock music, have been able to cross boundaries and bring people together.

She put forward the post-WWII reconciliation between France and Germany as a model for Kosovo and Serbia to follow as they move forward with more discussions.

Alessandro Rotta, Advisor on Political Affairs to the EU Special Representative in Kosovo, said there is still a lack of trust between people, but that it isn’t surprising given the historical context. Despite this, he said there needs to be an effort to keep working towards normalization of relations, as “normalization is in the interest of Kosovo.”

He described the process of implementing the peace agreements as “painful…but working and ongoing.”

Exposed: Obama states Kosovo left Serbia only after referendum, but there was NO referendum at all (RT, 27 March 2014)

Barack Obama’s speech on Ukrainian crisis seems to have left the public confused as he claimed that Kosovo broke away from Serbia “after a referendum”. But attentive listeners quickly pointed Obama’s gaps in history – there was no referendum in Kosovo.

President Obama was speaking Wednesday at The Center for Fine Arts in the heart of Brussels, Belgium, and was telling the youth crowd mostly about Russian-Ukrainian conflict over the strategic Crimean Peninsula.

He lashed out at Russia for “violation of international law, its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Obama recalled the conflict around Kosovo and NATO’s involvement, making a counter-argument to Russia officials’ statements, in which they cited Kosovo independence from Serbia in 2008 as the precedent.

He said: “And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.”

In fact, “none of that even came close to happening” in Kosovo either.

What DID happen in Kosovo

Following a three-month NATO bombing of former Yugoslavia in June, 1999, Kosovo was placed under administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and a NATO-led peacekeeping force, KFOR, were authorized to enter the province. s as they take part in celebrations

Two years after UNMIK and KFOR arrived there, in May, 14, 2001, the UN approved a “constitutional framework for a provisional Self-Government in Kosovo.”

It called for a 120-seat Parliament, which would elect a president and a prime minister.

In November that year Kosovo held its first parliamentary elections that the UN hailed as a huge “success”.

The year of 2005 also became no less significant for Kosovo as the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed Martti Ahtisaari to lead the Kosovo status process, thus, giving the province “a green light” to fight for its independence.

After numerous talks with both Serbia and Kosovo officials, in 2007 Ahtisaari came up with the plan that included “ten guiding principles,” which outlined the broad governing authority and structure of the Kosovo government.

The so-called “Ahtisaari plan” represented a compromise between both sides. It gave broad provisions for Kosovo autonomy, including the ability to enter into international agreements and become a member of international organizations. lani)

Backed by the Contact Group (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia) and by Kosovo, the plan still lacked Serbian agreement. Russia eventually rejected the plan along with Serbia and, as a result, negotiations reached a deadlock.

However, despite the stalemate within the Contact Group, Kosovo’s authorities still decided to declare independence in February, 2008.

On February 17, 2008, the Kosovo assembly adopted a declaration of independence “in full accordance with the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari.” On the same day, the US and four European states recognized Kosovo as an independent country.

‘You can’t just make up facts’

“I honestly don’t know what President Obama is talking about,” Serbian historian Nebojsa Malic told RT. “There was never such a referendum. It never took place. It did not exist. I am completely baffled.”

Meanwhile, on Twitter Obama’s faux-pas also did not pass unnoticed.

People accused the US President of “lying about the referendum”.

Some have pointed out that the US media chose just to “ignore” Obama’s mistake.

Speaking to RT, Nebojsa Malic suggested that it could be the case that Obama’s speechwriter just “mistook the non-existent referendum in Kosovo with the referendum in Montenegro that took place in 2006.”

“If that is the referendum they were referring to, first of all, it is just baffling that they can’t tell apart Kosovo and Montenegro. Secondly, that is not exactly a paragon of democracy in international laws either,” Malic said, stressing that that referendum was held under “very murky circumstances when people were being bought openly.”

“I am really not sure what sort of point they were trying to make, but you can’t just make up your own facts to boost your own argument. That is ridiculous,” he concluded.

Were there absolutely no independence referendums in Kosovo? Well, there was one in 1991 – its results were recognized by just one UN member, Albania.

What’s Good for Kosovo Is Good for Crimea (The Moscow Times, by Mike Walker, 28 March 2014)

Few situations in recent history have been more controversial than Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia and the subsequent 2010 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague that Kosovo’s actions were not in direct violation of international law.

Serbia and it allies, especially Russia, saw Kosovo’s secession as a direct affront to the territorial integrity of an established and recognized nation-state. They were surprised that the U.S. and other leading nations would rush to recognize Kosovo’s independence. Even now, it is still a hot issue in the Balkans.

With Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its subsequent annexation by Russia, a similar situation has arisen. It is not surprising that many people are comparing Crimea to Kosovo. Although many of the comparisons are valid, Western analysts — who are often pro-Ukrainian — have overlooked the fact that, if anything, Crimea’s legal and historical status makes it more apt for removal from its parent state than Kosovo.

In 1954, in celebration of centuries of “Russian-Ukrainian cooperation and friendship,” Soviet Leader Nikita Khruschev issued a decree providing the transfer of Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as a “gift.”

I can think of very few historical cases where an entire vast territory was given from one state to another akin to a crystal vase in recognition of friendship. The king of Norway, Christian I, in 1468 gave the Orkney Islands to the king of Scotland as part of Christian’s marriage to that king’s daughter, but otherwise few precedents exist — especially in modern times.

The Crimean affair was, however, highly symbolic. The official decree from Khruschev even stated it was symbolic. After all, Crimea was still a subject of the Soviet Union regardless of which specific republic it fell under. The transfer had little effect on the way it was governed, and nothing changed in how it was viewed in international relations.

Yet, despite the decree’s odd claim of being symbolic of the longstanding bonds and connections between Crimea and Ukrainians, most native Crimeans are either Crimean Tatars or Russian-speakers more aligned with Russian culture. Only a minority of the peninsula’s citizens are in fact ethnic Ukrainians who speak Ukrainian instead of Russian.

Although these facts of ethnicity, language and culture have been widely reported in the Western media as the key factor underlying Crimea’s desire to leave Ukraine, the historical reason for Crimea having been part of Ukraine in the first place has been largely overlooked.

While Crimea entered Ukraine in 1954 as a region, its status was changed to that of an “autonomous republic” in 1991 by Kiev in recognition of its differences from the other regions of Ukraine. This is a crucial point because it indicates that even Ukraine acknowledged Crimea’s unique situation.

In 1994, Crimea’s leadership expressed its desire to leave Ukraine and establish itself as an independent state, but Kiev swiftly restricted the powers of the Crimean parliament and stripped it of the privileges of self-rule. Ten years later, we are again faced with the question of Crimean independence.

The Euromaidan movement was widely opposed in Crimea and gave further impetus to its traditional separatist aspirations. The region’s citizens believed that the political strife in Kiev would only spell economic disaster for the Black Sea peninsula as relations soured between the new government in Kiev and Russia.

The decision to integrate Crimea into the Russia as a republic mirrors Ukraine’s 1991 decision to grant Crimea greater autonomy. This decision reveals a very high acuity of understanding of the independent status of Crimea as distinct from the larger state it is aligned with, be it Ukraine or Russia.

In judging the legitimacy of Crimea’s decision to break away from Ukraine, it is important to recall that the International Court of Justice examined the following issues when considering its status of Kosovo as an independent nation:

• The presence of distinct majority ethnic, religious, and/or linguistic differences from its former parent state.

• The historical situation of the state and the recent changes of polity to related states.

• The native ability to self-govern — the presence of highly developed mechanisms of democratic government supported by the will of the people.

• The desire of the majority of citizens to see their native territory formulate a separate state of its own.

With Crimea, the 1954 transfer to Ukraine was predicated on the fact that both Russia and Ukraine were under the administration of the Soviet Union — a condition that leaders of the time probably never envisioned changing. Crimea’s security, its economic role and ability to access key means of trade and transport, its access to all aspects of a developed society were guaranteed not by Russia, nor Ukraine, but by the Soviet Union.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, that highest authority over Crimea by default became Ukraine, a nation now in transition.

While the March 16 referendum could have been carried out in a better manner, Crimea’s desire to foster its annexation into Russia should surprise no one. In light of the general response to Kosovo it should not enrage anyone who supported Kosovo’s independence.

Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason Law School argued in the Washington Post on Monday that Crimea does not meet the same ethical tests as Kosovo because, unlike in Kosovo, Crimeans have not been outwardly threatened with physical harm. He also argues that Russia was greatly opposed to Kosovo’s independence, so how can it possibly support Crimea now? Somin missed a couple of other key points.

First, while the situation in Crimea is not as dire as in post-war Kosovo, the possibility of economic peril under the new Ukrainian government is very real. People should not have to face the threat of ethnic cleansing, as they did in Kosovo, to seek a better life for themselves.

Second, the circumstances of Crimea’s inclusion in Ukraine is unique and makes little sense in today’s post-Soviet world. Kosovo’s position was different. Its unity with Serbia was a completely different matter. Russia opposed the disunion of a nation, not the return of a territory that was only given away in a good will gesture by the Soviet leadership. It is easy for the U.S. and Western Europe to conjure up the specter of Russia returning to Cold War views, but it is clouding their judgement.

Russia’s interest in Crimea is one of honoring Crimea’s own wishes and attempting to remedy a historical mistake. The “symbolic gift” of Crimea in 1954 was ceremonial, unnecessary and useless to the Crimean people. Now, there is not only an opportunity to correct that error but compelling reason to do so. If Kosovo was allowed to turn itself into a legitimate nation-state, then so should Crimea.

Mike Walker is a journalist focused mainly on the Balkans

Belgrade Accuses Zagreb of Demonising Serbs (BIRN, by Josip Ivanovic, 28 March 2014)

Rejecting Croatia’s claims of wartime genocide by Serbia at the International Court of Justice, Belgrade’s legal team argued Zagreb was making biased accusations because it has no real evidence.

Sasa Obradovic, the head of Serbia’s legal team at the International Court of Justice, said on Thursday that Croatia was trying to “demonise” Serbs in a bid to win its genocide case, a ploy that could prevent the improvement of relations between the neighbours who were at war between 1991 and 1995.

“I doubt that this will contribute to a reconciliation based on historical facts,“ Obradovic said.

Both countries are suing each other at the UN-backed court, alleging genocide during the conflict.

Obradovic said that during the case which started earlier this month, Croatia had “established a mantra: ‘genocide is not a numbers’ game’” instead of proving that Serbia was guilty.

Another member of Belgrade’s legal team, Andreas Zimmermann, said that some of the Croatian arguments were “nothing but a fairytale in the reality of the international law”.

Zimmermann argued that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which succeeded Socialist Yugoslavia, could not be held accountable for crimes committed before it was constituted.

He cited a previous ruling by the International Court of Justice which said that Eritrea only became obliged to obey the Genocide Convention after it became independent.

Another member of Belgrade’s team, Wayne Jordash, said that judgements made in war crimes trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia backed up Serbia’s case.

“Contrary to [Croatia’s] claims, the ICTY has not consistently rejected the proposition that the Serbian leadership from Belgrade was engaged in lawful conflict; it has consistently accepted it,” said Jordash.

“The findings are consistent with the suggestion of legitimate armed conflict designed to establish control of territory through fighting the Croat military forces that the applicant claims did not exist,” he added.

During hearings at the court earlier this month, Zagreb argued that Serbia committed genocide during the 1991-95 conflict, saying that Belgrade wanted to seize a third of Croatian land during the 1990s war and remove all Croats.

But Serbia argued that Croatia failed to put forward any evidence that this was genocide, and then presented its counter-suit to the court, also alleging genocide.

Both Zagreb and Belgrade have expressed confidence that they will win their cases, but some experts have suggested that neither will be able to prove genocide, and expressed concerns that the court proceedings will sour relations between the two neighbours.

Since it was established after World War II, the International Court of Justice has only recognised one case of genocide – the Srebrenica massacres in Bosnia in 1995.

Bosnia’s Canton Tuzla gets new govt after mass protests (BIRN, by Elvira M. Jukic, 28 March 2014)

After the governments of four of Bosnia’s cantons quit in the wake of the mass protests in February, one of them, Tuzla, finally has a new government.

Tuzla Canton is the first in Bosnia and Herzegovina to get a new government since the mass protests that started in February forced four of the Federation entity’s ten cantonal governments to resign.

Members of Tuzla Canton’s new government held their first meeting on March 27 after the cantonal assembly confirmed their posts the night before.

The new premier, Bahrija Umihanic, and the other ministers signed statements, freezing their membership of political parties, if they had any, and pledged not to run in the upcoming general elections this autumn.

“I believe we can do a lot or a little – a lot if we all work together and only a little if we work separately,” he said.

“Our intention in this term is to solve the problems of at least two companies which are ‘on their knees’,” he added, referring to the grim situation in the local economy.

The Plenum of Citizens of Tuzla Canton has yet to discuss the formation of the new government and possibly give its advice in various fields.

Plenums sprung up in many parts of Bosnia in the wake of the street protests, raising hopes among disempowered citizens of a new channel to articulate grievances and express ideas.

One participant in the plenum in Tuzla, Selma Tobulic, told Balkan Insight that she hoped the formation of the new government would serve as a good practice for citizens.

“We will see what happens,” she said. “It was an illusion obviously to expect the whole system [in Bosnia] to change in a month.”

Tobulic added that it could not be avoided that some new ministers came from the old political parties.

“This new Prime Minister, Umihanic, has said many times he is not under pressure from any political party – although it is important for citizens to realise that one does not have to be a member of a political party to be pressured by it,” she noted.

Popular plenums started organizing in Tuzla after the street protests escalated and became chaotic on February 7.

Mobs set the buildings of several institutions on fire in the city, as well as in Sarajevo, Mostar and Zenica. Hundreds were injured and dozens arrested in clashes with police.

The protests in Bosnia started in Tuzla on February 5 when workers from several companies that had closed following privatization demanded responsibility from the cantonal government.

Dissatisfaction soon spread to many other cities, sparking similar mass protests. The governments of Tuzla, Zenica-Doboj, Sarajevo and Una-Sana cantons then resigned.

Bosnia comprises one district and two entities, one of which, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, contains ten autonomous cantons.

Macedonia Ruling Party Savages Journalist and NGO (BIRN, by Sinisa Jakov Marusic, 28 March 2014)

A local prominent Non-Governmental Organization and a newspaper editor have come under a blistering attack from Macedonia’s ruling party for alleging dirty tricks in the presidential campaign.

Macedonia’s ruling VMRO-DPMNE party has slated CIVIL-Center for Freedom, a local NGO monitoring the April presidential and general elections, calling it a “so-called NGO” that “spreads lies” and works for the opposition Social Democrats.

The NGO previously told the Sloboden Pecat” daily that it had spotted a number of irregularities at the start of the presidential election campaign, including pressures on public administration and municipal employees to attend rallies of the ruling party.

The newspaper also wrote about cases spotted by Civil whereby school principals had allegedly released children early from school so they could attend ruling party meetings.

A day earlier, the party attacked Branko Geroski, the editor of Sloboden Pecat, by name for running the story. The party also launched the attack before the story was made public in the hard-copy edition of the newspaper.

“People already see Geroski as a court jester in journalism who will do or sell anything for a little bit of attention,” VMRO DPMNE wrote.

“Geroski obviously does his best to earn the hundreds of thousands of euros from SOROS [the foundation Open Society – Macedonia] and the financial affection of [opposition leader Zoran] Zaev,” it said.

“He shows in person how low, servile, shameful and miserable he can be, working for his bosses who, apart from owning his media outlet, own his personality as well,” the party added.

It is not the first time that the editor has been a target of personal attacks. He has accused the government of Nikola Gruevski of hounding him for years for his criticism of official policies.

CIVIL on Wednesday said that it was surprised by the strident tone used against it.

“VMRO DPMNE’s harsh tone and vocabulary, the labeling and inappropriate qualifications directed against our organization, are particularly surprising,” it said.

“Should we accept this as a premeditated form of pressure against us and our election monitors?  Is this an attempt at silencing us?” Civil inquired.

CIVIL is one of the main domestic monitors of elections. The NGO has been increasingly active over the past year, raising awareness of threats to human rights. It has also led a nationwide campaign for greater control of privately-held weapons.

In its fresh report published earlier this year, the NGO held Macedonian institutions mainly to blame for a plethora of rights violations last year.

On April 13, Macedonians will choose between four presidential candidates. A second round, pitting the two best-ranked candidates against each other, takes place on April 27, alongside snap general elections.

In the presidential race, three hopefuls are competing against the incumbent Gjorge Ivanov, who is seeking another five-year term in office. Ivanov’s main opponent is Stevo Pendarovski, representing the opposition Social Democrats.