1
1. Introduction
This project examines the connection between a difficult financial situation in Serbia that reached
climax in the Slobodan Milosevic era and the unreformed security service in the country. During the
last decade of the 20th century, in the period of hyperinflation, sanctions and wars, collaborators of
Slobodan Milosevic’s regime displaced (couple of) billions of American dollars from the country. No
one has never really established the exact figure, but, the sum of money is estimated to vary from five
to eleven million American dollars. It is known that part of that money was used to provide functioning
of the country in the time of the sanctions and for military campaigns, but a larger portion, in fact,
ended up on a lot of private accounts. It is still believed that Serbia possesses several billion American
dollars on certain accounts in, probably, tax havens all around the world.
One may wonder why the new government in 2000 did not start security sector reform (hereinafter
referred to as SSR). Why did they start the privatization of socially- owned companies in Serbia from
the time of ex-Yugoslavia?
When Milosevic lost elections, the coalitions that took power in the country promised to return stolen
money. That promise has never been fulfilled. The persons that became rich and powerful during the
Milosevic time became even richer after him. It was particularly noticeable during Vojislav
Kostunica’s government, when a lot of them privatized most Serbian and ex-Yugoslavia companies and
it seems that they are ruling the country even today.1 It is believable that the governments after
Milosevic could reverse the situation, find out where the stolen money has disappeared, and try to get it
back. Morten Torkildsen, investigator with the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia wrote in his report, among other things, that “large sums of cash
were transferred from the Federal Customs Administration to Yugoslav banks … and to foreign banks,
including banks in Cyprus and Greece”. 2 Apparently, that was possible because the government and
secret services supported the whole operation.
2. Methodology
The methodology part consists of attempt to explain how and why this topic was chosen as well as
sources that were used in writing it. The quality of the sources, and how they were used in the research,
will be discussed. The importance and relevance of the information as well as the obstacles and
limitations during the research process will be stressed.
1
2
More about this on http://www.b92.net/eng/insajder/index.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=13&nav_id=74606
http://hague.bard.edu/reports/Torkildsen_financing.pdf
2
2.1. Choosing the Topic
Every day more and more scientists discuss the connection between security sector reform and
development studies. Dylan Hendrickson wrote about the linkages between poverty and security as a
development objective. 3 Herbert Wulf wrote “Security sector reform in developing and transitional
countries”.4 Serbia is still a country with fragile economy and numerous ongoing reforms but with little
hope that the situation can improve soon. Taking into account the author’s belief that Serbia is a
developing country, the quest for a feasible solution of the problem is legitimate.
2.2. Research Methods and Research Approaches
Due to a limitation of time, and plenty of areas that SSR includes, it is not possible to cover every
aspect of the problem. It is written “Serbia has been a land of mystery and rumor in the years since the
bloody Yugoslav wars ended and communism gave way to free markets”. 5
The fact is that officially 25% of the people are not employed, and those who have jobs mostly have no
idea who, the real owner of the company where they work, is. A lot of them, actually, work in the offshore companies founded, as it is suspected, with the money stolen during 1990s. Concerning the broad
aspect of the problem, the possibility to explain the behavior of the post – Milosevic governments from
the aspects of security sector reform recently approaches to SSR will be stressed.
2.3. Data Collection
The limitations regarding time and the fact that this is an internship project, which means that there is
not enough time to work and elaborate a good project, there were no quantitative or qualitative research
with data from the field. However, it is important to emphasize that the place of internship was very
important for the research because of the information that could be gathered there. Those are secondary
data from reliable sources and very often from investigative journalists. It is likely that this topic was
more interesting to investigative journalists than to the officials of a couple of, so-called, democratic
governments that have ruled Serbia so far. It is fair to say that the civil society organizations have also
been devoted to the investigation of what happened with billions of dollars from the state pension fund,
Serbian citizens’ savings from banks – to name just a few – that vanished mostly at the beginning of
the 1990s causing in 1993, among other things, the worst inflation in Europe since the catastrophic
inflation in Germany before the Second World War. Furthermore, there have been attempts to find out
why SSR has never been done. It is important to add that the author of the project, as a journalist and
native Serbian, was a witness of the “Balkan drama” from the very beginning until 2010.
3
http://www.securityanddevelopment.org/pdf/work1.pdf
http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/dialogue2_wulf.pdf
5
http://www.icij.org/offshore/offshore-firms-funneled-away-millions-serbian-companies-shed-workers-and-lurchedtoward
4
3
2.4. Sources
NGO’s brochures were a valuable source of information. Concerning troubles in collecting, internet
sources were valuable. Since the discussion about SSR dates from the beginning of the 1990s,
approximately at the same time when the Berlin wall collapsed, it is practically a “new science” that is
still being developed. The contribution of Timothy Edmunds from Bristol University was very
valuable.
2.5. What is security sector reform?
Scientists agree that concept of SSR has recently emerge – mainly at the beginning of the 1990s and the
fall of Berlin wall. Timothy Edmunds, answering the question what SSR is, writes that “Its origins stem
from two main areas”6 - from the development community and from the field of relations between
military and civilian services that appeared mostly in the central and specifically – Eastern Europe.
Edmunds claims that the world recognized importance of civilian control over military structures, “the
importance of militarized formations other than the regular armed forces in (civilmilitary)”7 and the
fact that security today is not just question of, as Edmunds would say “military praetorianism” but
integral part of the political and economic reforms. Edmunds claims - “a normative working definition
of SSR is that it concerns “the provision of security within the state in an effective and efficient
manner, and in the framework of democratic civilian control”. 8 “…security sector reform is important
because of the role it can play in breaking this vicious circle of conflict, insecurity and
underdevelopment”. 9 Besides the certainty about existence of the first and the second generation of
SSR10 , theorists claim that SSR is not just a reform in military and police sectors. SSR also covers
democratization, good governance, economic development, human security and human rights…” Since
the end of the Cold War, we have witnessed a substantive widening and deepening of the concept of
security. On one hand non-military security issues such as political, economic, societal and
environmental aspects are now broadly accepted as component parts of a meaningful security
agenda”.11
6
“Security sector reform: Concepts and implementation” Timothy Edmunds
www.dcaf.ch/content/download/36494/528205/file/01_Edmunds.pdf
7
ibid
8
ibid
9
“Security sector reform in transforming societies- Croatia and Serbia-Montenegro”, Timothy Edmunds, Manchester
University Press, 2007
10
More on Edmunds op.cit.
11
Conceptualising Security Sector Reform and Reconstruction by Heiner Hänggi
www.dcaf.ch/content/download/36137/.../bm_ssr_yearbook2004_1.pdf
4
2.6. Historical context and specific condition in Serbia
It seems that the real reform of the security sector in the Balkan countries has never occurred. In the
book “Security sector reform in the Western Balkans” 12 Marina Caparini claims that states in the
Balkans region are different from other ex-socialist countries in Europe. In her opinion, this fact
considerably affects any topic relating to SSR. Ethnic cleansing and armed conflict that marked the last
decade of the 20 century, distinguish the Balkan countries from the rest of ex-socialist countries. It
should be noted that “Non-state armed formations, including paramilitary organizations formed along
party or ethnic lines, private military companies, criminal groups and guerrilla movements may exist
alongside state security structures weakened by corruption. The problems of refugee return,
resettlement and reintegration of displaced persons and return of property remain unresolved in key
areas. Individuals and communities continue to be scarred by the psychological traumas inflicted by
war and extreme nationalism”.13 Another problem is that Serbia, in the matter of SSR, can be observed
both as a post-conflict country and as a post-totalitarian country.
Edmunds claims that the SSR in Serbia is in the ongoing phase despite many obstacles. Yet, it seems
that little has been done and that the hopes of ordinary people that their lives could be better, have been
betrayed.
2.7. Structure
The project is divided into several parts: introduction, methodology, historical context and specific
conditions in Serbia, brief explanation what SSR is, theory, analysis and conclusion. It is likely to
believe that the answer to the research question cannot be given without exploring the specific
conditions in Serbia in the past and now. The introduction part provides necessary information that lead
to research question and project goal. Together with theory that has been used, they lead to the analyses
and conclusion.
2.8. Theory
2.8.1 Human security theory
The project goal is to explain that the new government, after Milosevic, was more concerned about the
human security factor – providing inhabitants with economic resources necessary for maintaining
normal living conditions and hence SSR was not the priority. It can be explained with the help of
human security theory because “Human security is the latest in a long line of neologisms—including
common security, global security, cooperative security, and comprehensive security—that encourage
12
13
http://www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Publication/36ffc950-1e60-4bae-a223-d8e055d40316/BatiBalkanlar-ENG.pdf
ibid p. 9
5
policymakers and scholars to think about international security as something more than the military
defense of state interests and territory”.14
Although there are numerous definitions of human security, most formulations emphasize the welfare
of ordinary people. 15 Nowadays, the promoters of human security are the governments of Norway and
Canada “which have taken the lead in establishing a “human security network” of states and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that endorse the concept”. 16
Academic community coined the term “human security” in the middle of the 1990s in Human
development report – annual publication of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
Talking about human security means taking into consideration various kinds of danger that humans can
be faced with: hunger, diseases, repression, but also a broader aspect of safety – anything at home,
work or in the community that can disturb normal life. It is obvious that the previous regime of
Slobodan Milosevic and his allies neglected the basic human rights based on the UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.17
2.9. Limitations and criticism
There were limitations in creating this project – mostly in the research process. Although the researcher
was able to observe directly what was going on in Serbia after Milosevic’s election defeat, the position
of ordinary people today remains unknown. It is quite disputable whether the new government, after
election in 2012, was capable of changing situation concerning the fact that almost 90 % of the ruling
coalition was closely connected to Milosevic during 1990s. Because of the lack of time and space, it
was not possible to conduct any research about that. Obviously, secondary data are not enough to get
the whole picture and, possibly, get to the heart of the problem. Still, it was the only option.
The researcher is aware that it is possible to criticize the theory and method chosen in the project. For
example, Robert Egnell, researcher at the Swedish Defense Research Agency, writes SSR using
theories of the state and state formation theory. He argues that SSR could not be so favorable for the
creation of a stable and democratic state and that creation of a functioning state is the first step (SSR is
the other) in creating a democratic society.
As it is previously mentioned, SSR is closely connected to development studies, which means that
some development theories could also be used.
Nevertheless, concerning the level of knowledge of the researcher about the topic and scientific and
other literature, the author believes that the human security theory explains, probably in the best way,
14
Human Security - Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? Roland Paris
http://www.mitpressjournals.org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228801753191141
15
Paris, ibid
16
Paris , ibid
17
See especially articles 1, 19, 23, 25, and 28 on http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
6
the connection among the unreformed security sector in Serbia, premature privatization and bad
economy situation in Serbia.
3. SSR
SSR has a purpose in the post-conflict and post-authoritarian societies. This is the point where almost
all theorists agree (Edmunds, Hanggi, Caparini…) Hanggi writes that SSR becomes widely accepted by
development and security experts and democracy spokespersons. Edmunds states that SSR is a process.
In his opinion, SSR is particularly important in post-authoritarian and post-conflict societies because
there are no established processes for democratic control of security sector actors, “despite the fact that
there may have been very strong civilian – though not democratic – control during the authoritarian
period”18. Marina Caparini, who wrote about SSR in the Western Balkans countries, claims that SSR
must be approached jointly with post-conflict stabilization. That is why it is important to stress that
there is not just one SSR but at least three versions: SSR for the post-conflict countries, for developing
countries and post-authoritarian countries although, in a lot of cases (e.g. Serbia) it is a combination of
two or more versions of SSR. Edmunds claims that Serbia faced a number of challenges in 2000 in the
matter of political control of its security sector. It is well-known that a certain number of police
officers, soldiers and members of secret services were involved in serious war crimes, corruption and
even organized crime. The process of SSR that started in 2000 was hard, painful and dangerous.
Concerning the fact that a large number of people from the old Milosevic circle are ruling Serbia today,
there are a lot of claims in Serbia that actually the process of SSR has never started. It is fair to say that
Edmund’s statement that the Democratic opposition of Serbia (DOS), which won the elections in 2000,
succeeded in some areas, at least for a certain period of time, is true: the police and the army were
placed under civilian control, some parts of secret services were eliminated and legislation was
adopted. However, there were bitter fights between two sides in DOS19 eternally marked the SSR in
Serbia. Many claim that 2003 was the year when any attempt of the SSR was definitely halted in
Serbia. Caparini reminds of the continued presence of international peacekeeping forces in most parts
of the region and claims that it “has interrupted the local authorities’ monopoly of security
responsibilities for years. The goals of SSR, as normally conceived, can only be reached by completing
the localisation of security functions as part of the general transfer of authority from international
actors to national and regional governments” 20 She worried, while writing this article in 2004, that
plans for normalization of the Balkan situation could be interrupted. The fear of that possibility still
18
“Security sector reform: Concepts and implementation Timothy Edmunds
www.dcaf.ch/content/download/36494/528205/file/01_Edmunds.pdf
19
Vojislav Kostunica as elected president in that period of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – Serbia and Montenegro appeared as an aspirant to the role of leader of military and secret services and Zoran Djindjic, as the prime minister who
aspired to have control over police units. Djindjic, who was assassinated in 2003 by some parts of security sector actors
20
Marina Caparini “Security Sector Reform and Post-Conflict Stabilisation: The Case of the Western Balkans”
mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/96915/.../22dd15fa.../7.pdf
7
exists despite the facts that Croatia is a member of the European Union and that the relations between
Kosovo and Serbia are much better than before.
4. Historical context and specific condition in Serbia
It is well known that Serbia carries a heavy burden of war and crime legacy from the last decade of the
20th century. Still, very often the first impression about Serbia is war crimes, “Greater Serbia”,
Srebrenica, Ratko Mladic… A lot of people still cannot forget bloody wars that marked the decade.
“Those who made their first million under Slobodan Milosevic, after democratic changes became
owners of thousands of square meters, primarily in Belgrade, and hectares of land in Serbia. Although
they live and work in Serbia, majority of them practically have a status of foreign investor, because
they mostly buy everything hidden behind their various offshore companies. That way the origin of
their wealth remains unknown”. 21
Thanks to the system, similarly to the nowadays “too big to fail banks” in USA, Serbian businessmen’s
companies employ large numbers of people and the country depends on them. Journalists state that
those people possess huge amounts of money which gives them the power and positions in the society:
“to blackmail politicians, form governments that suit them, appoint their own people in relevant
institutions, simultaneously financing both the position and opposition, thus closing the circle”.22
The laws adopted after 2000 allow them to do whatever they want due to the fact that privatization of
domestic companies became simple purchase of real estates and not restoration of economy and ruined
factories. All that happened without adopting the law on denationalization or restitution.
A high level of corruption exists at every level. According to the TV B92 and “Insider”, businessmen
in Serbia became owners of the property not because they had the best offer “but because
representatives of relevant institutions take a percentage for a rigged tender or issuing of a permit”. 23
They are people hiding behind various offshore companies. 24 It is fair to say that hopes that some of
the money stolen at the Milosevic time could be returned to Serbia were betrayed, if one does not speak
about money that tycoons used to buy factories and other property.
Transition is the most popular word in the Serbian society. Transition from a post-authoritarian or a
post- conflict country towards democratization, rule of law, good governance, economic development
and respect of human rights, even after 13 years, is still an ongoing process. A lot of people in the
world still consider Serbia as a l’enfant terrible - as a country that cannot provide better conditions for
life and work or education.
21
http://www.b92.net/eng/insajder/index.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=13&nav_id=74606
ibid
23
ibid
24
More about money laundering in Serbia see report “Money Laundering Typologies in the Republic of Serbia” by OSCE on
http://www.osce.org/serbia/107388
22
8
5. Human security theory
Human security theory derived from the liberalism and it “question the dominant state-centric approach
to security”. 25
The state –centric approach considers a state as the central object of security, the central body that
should be secured and the relation between states is the focus of the research. It is not hard to recognize
realism in this approach. The liberal approach to security focuses much more on individuals, people
that live in the state and “it gives most attention to those people suffering insecurity inside state”. 26
Human security as a term first appeared in the UN “Human Development Report” of 1994. It states:
“Human security can be said to have two main aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats
as hunger, disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions
in the patterns of daily life-whether in homes, in jobs or in com munities”.27 It means that in the world
where the number of conflicts between states declines and the conflicts within states increase, military
means of providing security is not on the top of the agenda. Human security means “approach to
economy, food, health, environment, personal, community and political security.”28 Collins claims that
focus on human security appeared during 1990s in order to move the attention of the world (after the
end of the Cold War) towards the issues such as human development and how to direct resources, once
used to provide military power, towards poverty reduction.
According to Collins, there are two main schools of human security: the narrow school “argues that the
threat of political violence to people, by the state or any other political actor, is the proper focus for the
concept of human security”. 29 The broad school considers that human security means more than just
threat of violence. According to this school, human security is not only freedom “from fear, but also
freedom from want”30 according to the UNDP report of 1994.
Alan Collins stresses that state-centric security cannot be dismissed completely and that this is
explained in the fact that there are deficiencies in the human-centric approach. He emphasizes that the
human-centric approach does not pay enough attention to the state-to-state conflict that still exists and
that critics of the state as a protector of human security is not clear. But, he still believes that there is
intellectual strength in the whole human security concept. In order to prove that he mentions R2P –
principle of responsibility to protect and its objectives: prevent, react, rebuild.31
In the conclusion Collins states that human security concept showed that realism and its state-centric
argument is necessary but not sufficient and that the human security approach will continue to more
define relationship between the people and the state and, as he says, the role of sovereignty as a center
of understanding security. He also claims that in developing countries “the main perpetrators of human
25
Alan Collins “Contemporary security studies” Oxford university press 2010; p. 122
Collins, ibid
27
UN “Human Development Report 1994.” http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1994_en_chap2.pdf
28
Collins, op. cit.
29
Alan Collins “Contemporary Security Studies” Oxford university press 2010; p. 124
30
Collins, ibid
31
More on http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/
26
9
insecurity will continue to resist changes that will enhance security because the short-term gains from
holding political and economic power are too seductive”. 32
In the last 20 years, there have been a lot of debates about what should be included into a proper
definition of human security. Some theorists reject the human security approach, some adopt both
human and state centric approaches and some misused both concepts.
6. Analyses
6.1. Analyses – SSR
After 2000, Serbia has had a chance to “make an initial step away from the authoritarian order of the
state, its quasi-market economy system and patriarchal political culture” 33 towards transition to a
liberal democratic society. Miroslav Hadzic, Professor of Security Studies at the Belgrade Faculty of
Political Science and a co-founder of Belgrade Center for Security Policy claims that it is necessary to
analyze how and why some of these changes occurred in Serbia. In his opinion, it is important to
establish why some changes occurred and some did not. He also claims that it is necessary to keep in
mind the fact that the democratic reforms in Serbia happened after Milosevic (long after the fall of
Berlin wall) and, in fact, when Serbia finally became a state after a long time (in 2006 when the State
Union of Serbia and Montenegro collapsed). “…it can be said that only after gaining independence and
adopting a new constitution (in 2006) did Serbia acquire all of the necessary preconditions to create her
own security sector and to manage its reform” 34. Hadzic believes that the first six years after Milosevic
was the period of pre-reform of security sector because all parts of SSR were only reorganized but not
reformed. He also claims that the democratic system in Serbia is not fully developed “leaving open the
possibility of an internal political reversal”. 35 On the other hand, Edmunds’s “first generation security
sector reform” in the case of Serbia implies an urgent need to establish civilian control over the security
sector; “the need to introduce a new institutional and legislative framework for democratic civil
security sector relations; and the need to address the rampant partification of the Milosevic´ period”36.
The problem of laws that have been adopted but not implemented should also be mentioned.
The second generation of SSR “relate to issues of effectiveness in policy planning and implementation;
to the willingness and ability of the parliament to exercise its powers of oversight; and finally to the
wider engagement of civil-society in defense and security matters”. 37Apparently, little or no effort has
32
Collins, op.cit. 133
Context Analyses of the Security sector reform in Serbia 1989-2009, Belgrade Center for Security Policy, www.ccmrbg.org
34
Miroslav Hadzic, Measuring the Extent of Security Sector Reform in Serbia - Framing the Problem, Western Balkan
security observer, http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/87236/ichaptersection_singledocument/ba6ca70c-f4fe4787-815e-19589f7f8803/en/07_Measuring+the+Extent.pdf
35
Hadzic, ibid
36
Timothy Edmunds, “Security Sector Reform in Transforming Societies”, Manchester University Press 2007, p 89
37
Edmunds, ibid p 101
33
10
been made to step away from the Milosevic period. After a short period of enthusiasm among the
inhabitants who suffered the most during the Milosevic time, followed by the assassination of Prime
Minister Djindjic, until today, people in Serbia have mostly been dissatisfied and hopeless. The feeling
of betrayal is common among the population.
6.2. Analyses - Historical context and specific condition in Serbia
Apparently, there are three groups of political analysts in Serbia: the first one believes that Serbia is
the, so-called, “failed state”, the second one claims that Serbia is an unfinished state and the third one
argues that Serbia has never been a real state (definition of the state implies modern democratic states
definition). Serbia is a failed state in almost all four characteristics that Fund for Peace38 promoted as
typical for a “failed state”: losing of Kosovo is declared as a loss of control over a territory; there is
some kind of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, but the fact that the number of
unemployed persons are increases and that the problem of poverty is bigger every day is, for some
people, the evidence of the inability to provide public services. Serbia interacts with other states, but
the vagueness about the best partner (Russia or the European Union and the USA) confuses the
inhabitants of Serbia and makes their future uncertain.
Serbia is an unfinished state – concluded Professor Miodrag Zec (he is a Professor of Economy in
Faculty of Philosophy - Belgrade University). He claims that Serbia has a problem with the territorial
organization of the state, the political and economic models that can provide sustainable development
and establish a new system of values in the society. According to his opinion, “If the Serbian society
does not build a new value system based on a new political and social philosophy it will experience a
thorough devastation with unforeseeable harmful consequences”.39 The most popular, and most
frequently used word in Serbia is – transition. Serbia has been a transition society since 2000 and it
seems like that the process is still underway. Civilian politicians have been too preoccupied with
consolidating their own positions (this is still the case) political instability and institutional inefficiency
are common problem and “power and authority within the government centered around multiple
individual personalities and parties rather than a unified leadership or agenda. This further encouraged
clientalism throughout the political system as different members of the coalition attempted to shore up
their own positions by surrounding themselves with trustworthy supporters”.40 Miroslav Hadzic states
that “not only did the authoritarian framework in Serbia adopt new (ethno religious) legitimacy at this
time, it also began to take on totalitarian (Caesarean) characteristics”41. Another possible nonsense,
typical for Serbia in the past (and it’s present, too) is a claim that Serbia did not participate in the wars
38
http://global.fundforpeace.org/index.php
Miodrag Zec, The Economic Model of Socialist Yugoslavia: The Saga of Self - Destruction
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0038-0318/2012/0038-03181204695Z.pdf - only abstract in English
40
Edmunds, op.cit. p. 104
41
Miroslav Hadzic, Measuring the Extent of Security Sector Reform in Serbia - Framing the Problem, Western Balkan
security observer, http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/87236/ichaptersection_singledocument/ba6ca70c-f4fe4787-815e-19589f7f8803/en/07_Measuring+the+Extent.pdf
39
11
in ex-Yugoslavia. No matter whether this statement is true or not, it is the fact that the population of
Serbia suffered and, as Hadzic would say, its political elite suffered too. This defeat left “ruinous
consequences”42 to all Serbs. Hadzic claims that this is the reason why political life in Serbia is based
on paradox - almost no one speaks about the defeat, but everybody suffers its consequences. Stories
about global anti-Serbian conspiracy and fascination with myths are, apparently, logical aftermath and
all that is a big obstacle to modernization and democratization of the society.
It is worth mentioning something that Hadzic calls “lack of political will”. It is evident that almost all
politicians, even those with good intentions, have not had enough political will to dramatically change
anything in the society after 2000.
6.3. Analyses – Human security theory
One could say that the Milosevic era was marked by realism and its state-centric approach. For years,
Serbs were brainwashed that Serbia was surrounded by enemies; that the state of the Serbian nation
was in danger; that Serbian nationalism was the way out of the Yugoslavia crisis; that “fatherland”
must be defended… Individual needs were neglected and people were unsecured within the state. The
catastrophic inflation in 1993, a huge number of Serbs killed in the wars that “Serbia did not take part”,
human suffering during the NATO bombing in 1999, sanctions of the international community against
Slobodan Milosevic’s regime that caused shortage in basic human necessities, police brutality against
opponents of the regime – prove the point. The very existence of Serbian population was jeopardized.
The inhabitants were not safe from hunger, diseases and repression, and sudden and hurtful disruptions
in the patterns of daily life: in homes, in jobs or in communities were normal – which prove the human
security definition provided by UNDP. Therefore, at least for the Serbs, it is not a surprise that the
whole concept of human security appeared during 1990s, the decade that marked the Serbian history.
But they still do not understand why the world allowed the whole society to suffer only because of one
man.
In this context, it is probably that the, so-called, broad school of human security could play an
important role. The broad school considers human security as more than just threat of violence. And
indeed, in the case of Serbia during Milosevic, but also after that period, people were not free from fear
and they did not have freedom from want. They were worried about their jobs, for the future of their
children, for their own future, for their lives… After Milosevic, in October 2000, expectations
regarding social transformation in Serbia were very high. Besides fighting with economic problems,
Serbs were faced with guilt, denial and responsibility. Heavy legacy of what was happening during
1990s.
42
Hadzic, ibid
12
7. Conclusion
It is possible that the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, after winning the elections in October 2000,
considered the well-being of the population as the priority to any other part of transition process.
Perhaps that is why privatization of socially-owned companies started before any other process. This is
worth to mentioning.
Gross domestic product in Serbia was only 1 035 $ in 2 000 and at the beginning of the last decade of
the 20th century more than 2 000. Huge inflation, unemployment, sanctions of the international
community brought the inhabitants of Serbia into a, kind of, poverty trap. Above all, it is estimated that
more than 700 000 refugees came to Serbia during the 1990s and that problem is still present. The
biggest problem of unemployment exists among the people with a low level of education (only primary
school qualifications in most cases); it is estimated than almost 30 percent of the population does not
have a job, young people are most affected. It is very hard to establish how many people work in the,
so-called, “grey zone” and a large number of people work in the off -shore companies. More than
150.000 laborer work, but do not get their salaries for longer than two years. The number of old people
rises every year and it is estimated that one third of, approximately two millions children (aged less
than 18 years), live in poverty. The social system was not made to support vulnerable parts of
population. Serbia tumbled into recession a long time ago and it seems that it “has been trying to defuse
the crises for over 20 years”.43 The government formed after October 2000 is, apparently, responsible
for “completely uncritical implementation of neoliberal economic policy, its maladjusted economic
policy, uncontrolled growth of administration and the public sector and the country’s excessive debt
accumulation”. 44
On the other hand, it was also necessary to reform the security sector. But, there was neither strategy
nor good will to reform that sector. The problem was also the attitude towards old state institutions and
members of Milosevic’s circle. Some were arrested but a lot of them avoided their responsibility for
possible breaking of the law.
It is possible that Amadeo Watkins is right – SSR in Serbia is “less about building trust among former
combatants, which represents only a small part of the overall concern (e.g. South Serbia), and more
about governance issues, such as institutional reform, legislature and accountability”. 45
All this is, normally, possible to achieve but considering challenges that population faced at that time, it
was at least wise to take care about the well-being of the people before a real transition starts. It appears
now that “new” people in Serbia believed that they could provide necessary benefits for the population
and that the path towards a modern, democratic Serbia could be easy after that.
43
Zoran Stojiljkovic “The course of and wrong paths taken in Serbian transition”, in “Lavirinti tranzicije, Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung and Center for Democracy of Faculty of Political Science 2012, p. 249
44
Stojiljkovic, ibid
45
Amadeo Watkins, “Security sector reform and donor assistance in Serbia 2000-2010;
http://www.initiativeforpeacebuilding.eu/pdf/Serbia_Report_Feb.pdf p.8
13
However, there are numerous unanswered questions that this project cannot answer. For some possible
scenarios of what happened after the 5th October 2000 and why – there is no theory that can be used. It
is a very difficult to connect the happenings in Serbia and ex-Yugoslavia to a particular theory because
there are a lot of very specific issues. Some other researchers could investigate if it is possible that
DOS did not start SSR because it was part of it. It is also worth studying how many Milosevic’s
collaborators became members of the new government and, maybe, contributed that Serbia is still at a
low level of social development. It is also worth checking whether the members of DOS had any
personal benefits for not implementing SSR.
14
Abbreviations
DOS – Democratic opposition of Serbia
NGO – Non-governmental organization
OSCE - Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
R2P – Responsibility to Protect
SSR – Security sector reform
UN – United Nation
UNDP – United Nation Development Program
15
Bibliography
Caparini, Marina “Security Sector Reform and Post-Conflict Stabilisation: The Case of the Western
Balkans” mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/96915/.../22dd15fa.../7.pdf
Collins, Alan “Contemporary security studies” Oxford university press 2010
Context Analyses of the Security sector reform in Serbia 1989-2009, Belgrade Center for Security
Policy, www.ccmr-bg.org
Edmunds, Timothy “Security sector reform: Concepts and implementation”
www.dcaf.ch/content/download/36494/528205/file/01_Edmunds.pdf
Edmunds, Timothy, “Security Sector Reform in Transforming Societies”, Manchester University Press
2007
Edmunds, Timothy “Security sector reform in transforming societies- Croatia and Serbia-Montenegro”,
Manchester University Press, 2007
Hadzic, Miroslav, Measuring the Extent of Security Sector Reform in Serbia - Framing the Problem,
Western Balkan security observer,
http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/87236/ichaptersection_singledocument/ba6ca70c-f4fe4787-815e-19589f7f8803/en/07_Measuring+the+Extent.pdf
Hänggi, Heiner “Conceptualising Security Sector Reform and Reconstruction”
www.dcaf.ch/content/download/36137/.../bm_ssr_yearbook2004_1.pdf
Paris, Roland “Human Security - Paradigm Shift or Hot Air”?
http://www.mitpressjournals.org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228801753191141
Stojiljkovic, Zoran “The course of and wrong paths taken in Serbian transition”, in “Lavirinti
tranzicije, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and Center for Democracy of Faculty of Political Science 2012
Watkins, Amadeo, “Security sector reform and donor assistance in Serbia 2000-2010;
http://www.initiativeforpeacebuilding.eu/pdf/Serbia_Report_Feb.pdf
16
Zec, Miodrag, The Economic Model of Socialist Yugoslavia: The Saga of Self - Destruction
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0038-0318/2012/0038-03181204695Z.pdf - only abstract in
English
17
Internet resources
http://global.fundforpeace.org/index.php
http://hague.bard.edu/reports/Torkildsen_financing.pdf
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1994_en_chap2.pdf
http://www.b92.net/eng/insajder/index.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=13&nav_id=74606
http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/dialogue2_wulf.pdf
http://www.icij.org/offshore/offshore-firms-funneled-away-millions-serbian-companies-shed-workersand-lurched-toward
http://www.osce.org/serbia/107388
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/
http://www.securityanddevelopment.org/pdf/work1.pdf
http://www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Publication/36ffc950-1e60-4bae-a223-d8e055d40316/BatiBalkanlarENG.pdf
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/