Six years since Đinđić murder

It's interesting how the albanians on here long for Djindjic. It is also interesting that the party that mourns him the most is Cedo Jovanovic's LDP - the same party that wants to recognize Kosovo and sever ties with Republika Srpska.

Once again, draw your own conclusions people, but I think it is clear who Djindjic was working for, and it was not for the national interests of Serbia.

Why is Djindjic buried on the Avenue of Heros and Draza Mihajlovic not? Because that is probably what Washington instructed the government to do.

As it seems opinions about Milošević are split, so too are opinions regarding Đinđić.

Đinđić was simply working for the very people who were intent on destroying and dividing Serbia. Milošević on the other hand was a thorn in their side.

The plan of the dictators has always been the same but there were less obstacles once Đinđić came into office. It seems some were not very happy about that.

"The Serbian dark nationalists killed him and arrived in power again."

That's a good one ben. And what do you call the uck government, could they be the enlightened ones? How many of their own albanians did they murder?

This man, Mr. Đinđić, was the power dynamo for new Serbia. And he knew that his possible assassination by black forces would not stop the progress he, his political friends and supporters kick-started. Although at times at painfully slow pace, Serbia walks forward.

What is left for black forces is trading their pins on street corners, waving membership cards of dying parties, painting dead ideologies on walls and arrogantly twisting truth whenever they wish. But deep down black forces can feel their end nearing. And they will not go out with a bang -they end with a whimper.

Future generations will consider Đinđić as father of new Serbia. Proud Serbia. And now with true reasons, not as an arrogant and false slogan.

I met Đinđić only once (his son and my son went to same school) but that occasion confirmed me in his sincerity.

Rest in piece, Mr. Đinđić. You are not forgotten.

People speak about milosevic cheating at elections - but the west does this all the time in their own countries. The other more problematic thing is the election that put milosevic out. Tens of millions of dollars from the west went to the opposition in order for this to happen. That very thing, this fund from foreigners is very undemocratic - it is something banned in the US, and simply is against democracy. Furthermore, the elections in serbia did not go to the second round as they should have in 2000, so who is undemocratic, huh? Yeah, the DOS guys said they won, but the official results gave them only 46% er so. They said that they had "their own numbers" which were changing radically during the election, which automatically makes them suspicious. What is most troubling is that the DOS estimates excluded votes from kosovo and metohija.

Last but not least, milosevic could have easily been taken out in the early 1990s. Now one might ask why or how did this not happen. Well, the ethnic albanians decided to boycott the democratic process. This decision allowed milosevic to stay in power. Some 15% of serbia's population today is not serbian, and that is the reason why the DS is in power today. Democracy is a great thing, and as we see, had the albanians bothered to participate in it, milosevic would not have been in power. It's not serbia's fault that he was the most popular serbian politician.

"However, Dindic was not Serbia’s first democratically-elected prime minister. He was surely the first democratic PM in Serbia but not the first democratically elected.

Milosevic was always democratically elected.
(ben, 12 March 2009 10:33)"

Ben, In order for elections to be considered democratic they need to be:
1)free
2)fair
Do you really beleive the elections during the Milosevic era lived up to these criteria? Here's more on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/1006263/

To stick to the subject, I can only agree with every word that Olli says. Zoran Đinđić was a true “Srpski Junak”.

Sumadinac

Djindjic's forces Marched on Belgrade, and when they got there they stormed Parliament and declared themselves as the new government.

Many people will remember the scenes outside Parliament when Djindjic seized power. The smoke coming from the Parliament building was from burning ballot papers. This was the first act of the “democratic” DOS regime.

Its not Djindjic that I miss per sae in Serbia.
What I miss is a politician with drive and some kind of vision of the future. I have come to realise that this is every bit as important to policies put forward. My previous belief was the policies are everything, which is why I frequently disagreed with Djindjic. What I failed to understand is how important in the Serbian political system it is to have somebody who is willing to get things done and to risk unpopularity. Most Serbian politicians are content making populist statements and then behind the scenes do something immoral. They swing from fear of the Serbian people, to contempt for those same people.

Today my regret is that Djindjic did not live, although I'm sure I would have been against the absolute power the government and Djindjic would have following an attempt on his life and the fact that the opposition would have been wiped out at the ballot box.

Its not healthy to dwell upon these morbid subjects and risk idolising a politician, so at this point I will just say RIP.

IMO, Olli is right. Where Ben is incorrect - Milosevic did cheat the elections, he wasn't democratically elected.

Great posting, Olli.

As much as Djindjic was a reformer, he never was elected by the Serbian people. I'm sorry, you can't be playing TENNIS with a Foreign Minister (Robin Cook) of a country dropping bombs on the homeland that you "cared so much about." Of course Djindjic was loved the intelegensia, but I toatally understand why the average Serb hated him and is the reason why he is only remembered in Beograd.

I was just reading some of Djindjic's notes, they are interesting and I encourage everybody to read them if they get a chance:

'February 11th 2003

Worst case scenario:

Iraq crisis lasts
World economic recession
IMF creates problems, encourages others to withdraw
Hague gets stricter (new charges on Kosovo)
European Union freezes negotiations
Kosovo isn't solved, tension continues
Relations with Montenegro become blocked.'

In this situation Djindjic (as was always his way, which I admire him for) always provided solutions in a given scenario one was:

'Find alternative sources of income (faster privatisation eg part of NIS).'

There is more but it would take up space. Its a little spooky the way his worst case scenario has turned out to be prophetic.

I'll leave with one of his quotes:

'Successful nations are those that have a positive relationship with reality. Only a swift, active, optimistic nation fufils its goals'

I strongly believe that the death of Dindic was a great loss for Serbia and region. The Serbian dark nationalists killed him and arrived in power again.

However, Dindic was not Serbia’s first democratically-elected prime minister. He was surely the first democratic PM in Serbia but not the first democratically elected.

Milosevic was always democratically elected.

All the anti-US commentators - you really have not got the message have you?

The anti-US paranoia was a tool of Milosevic (and communists before him I guess although I wasn't around then).

I don't think the US does or ever did give a damn about Serbia - it's just another little country somewhere in the world.

Neither is the US anti-Serbia. However, it is and was anti-communist (with good reason) and was antagonised by the anti-humanitarian, anti-American attitude of the nasty nationalism that Milosevic utilised to his own political advantage. Don't blame the US for that - blame the pathetically poor, selfish, parochial politics that wrecked the Balkans in the 1990s.

I think Kosovo should remain part of Serbia -but I also think that if Đinđić had given Kosovo away when he was alive he would still have been a hero to Serbia.

Ben:
1. Milosevic was never a prime minister.
2. Except for the elections held in late 1990, no election won by Milosevic can in anyway be considered democratic

Is it true that Djindjic was willing to sit down and talk with Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci?

Why is Djindjic buried on the Avenue of Heros and Draza Mihajlovic not? Because that is probably what Washington instructed the government to do.
(Dragan, 12 March 2009 14:16)

Because Draza Mihailovic was buried in an unmarked grave and the secret was taken with the recent death of Milos Minic, Tito's prosecutor during the Communist show trials in 1946.

sceptic?

You have built an edifice in which you will continue to believe. It will serve you well and keep you comfortable in your convictions. The coin you flip has one side - the other is invisible and will remain that way.

While there is some truth in much that you say, the conclusion you reach is coloured by an internal view of Serbian politics. Although the US have made lots of ridiculous policy mistakes I do not think that they are readily generalisable to support your case. The view from outside is not as you see it. Having lived underneath the flight path of US planes that were defending against incursions during the cold war, I have an appreciation that freedom was not one of the strong points of communist governments. The US defended - and left when there was no further need.

The US will 'allow' you democracy - more than was ever possible under Tito - perhaps you do not want it?

Milosevic used anti-US propoganda to keep himself in power. He could have taken a totally different policy line, but played to the internal gallery. He had little comprehension of the affect he had about the way the world perceived Serbia.

Note please, that in all this I am very much on Serbia's side - I am aware of the bias in reporting and perception, and I am against allowing the UDI in Kosovo. I reject the current US policy on Kosovo.

However, I also reject your view. I am against using the anti-US view as an excuse for not facing up to the wickedness that were done in the name of Serbia. I also reject using the anti-anything view as a way of denying Serbia its place in the world. The days of insular politics are (hopefully) over and the is (hopefully) a more open future away from the awfulness of the past.

Srpski Junak? - What A Joke.

Some of these posters will sell snow to the Eskimos and not just their souls and ancestral lands.

I wanted earlier, and am finally sending my respects to the remaining family of zoran djindjic. i can only imagine what they have been thru, and i am quite sure that full justice in this case is far, far from complete, and remains elusive.

i had a great deal of respect for djindjic altho i realized that he was no saint (who is?) and disagreed with some of his policies. but it was obvious that he was between a rock and a very hard place. he may not have shared all of cedi's ideas, but i can never believe, for a second, that he would have pursued the policies of the present regime. the same party?? it is hard to believe.

we were in belgrade about 3 months before the assassination. i was interviewing sonja biserko (interview #1) and i asked about djindjic. "he's not speaking to us currently," (she and natasa kandic)refering to some or another mini-feud at the time. then she mentioned that there was a short article buried in one of the belgrade papers, making some kind of veiled? threat to his family... i don't remember the exact context and really paid almost no attention to it at the time.

then some 3 months later i was at school (s f state) working on the computer, and i looked at the web news, and in large headlines: serbia's prime minister assassinated. i suddenly got that special sick kind of feeling you get in yr stomach at such times, and immediately thought back to that earlier conversation.

since then i've read several writers that have compared djindjic to kennedy (John)and compared their roles in their respective countries. perhaps the analogy is a bit forced, but there is some real comparison to the sense of hope and optimism that both men (and their families) brought to their respective nations. we, so many of us feel that here in the US again, and it is a beautiful feeling, even and esp.ly in the midst of such bad times.

Bob Wrote:

"Neither is the US anti-Serbia. However, it is and was anti-communist (with good reason) .... more blah blah blah"

Be careful who you call communist Bob - looks like USA capitalism is finally seeing 'red'! ;)

Dorcol?

.... what's wrong with calling Tito and Milosevic communists? I think that they were; do you think otherwise?

.... I don't quite see your objection.

I will try to write some things on both Milosevic, Dzindic.
Well, my point is that the root of the disintegration of Yugoslavia was not Milosevic policies (despite his huge mistakes, especially in relations between nationalities) and I really wonder how another leader would have dealt with the secessionist republics (Croatia, Slovenia). Probably they would have left without war and the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina would have become second class citizens or refugees earlier (but with less casualties).
About elections: It is true that Milosevic tried to violate the elctions in 2 cases he lost (1996, 2000) and that resembles leaders of LAtin America. But, apart from the fact that cheating occurs also in mature democracies (eg. how Bush won the 2000 presidential elections) and the ruling elit usually controls the media in most countries. It makes sure the dominant competing parties adopt policies serving its interests. For example big multinationals in USA finance both big parties and senators are financed by lobbyists and in return vote for laws serving them.
About media: I wrote about the influence of billionaires because I doubt there are independent media. (In fact the so called independent media were usually financed either by wealthy sponsors or by foreign organizations). During the balkan wars even respected media like BBC, guardian were biased. I will give you some examples. I remember describing the war in Bosnia Herzegovina like the following: “The Serb aggression is advancing and is close to the achievement of the goal of Greater Serbia….Ethnically cleansed Bosnians testify horror stories…The Serbs claim they were butchered….They also mentioned some Serbs who fought along with government forces in Sarajevo, willingly or not, to create the impression that even local Serbs were supporting the government)”. So, what you can see from this way of one sided description: half truths and sophisticated propaganda, lies. The reader would think that Serbia has attacked Bosnia and Bosnians defend their homeland, while in fact there was a civil war among Croats, Muslims [no Bosnian nation was recorded till 1991 census], Serbs. While the stories (true or not) of Muslim civilians were presented as indisputable fact, the stories of Serb victims were presented as claims, many times with the comment “they can not be independently verified”. All this was accompanied with photos and appropriate headlines. So, this propaganda style would make the reader in Europe, USA think “well, we must do something to help the poor victims and punish these bastards, the Serbs”. I could go no referring examples of how respected USA media lied prior invasion in Iraq and so on. I believe that probably due to the level of political democracy and education of the Serb citizens, the state propaganda was just more primitive form the opposite propaganda (I think that while state media were mouthpiece of the government, NGOs, alternative media were mouthpiece of opposition or foreign powers).
As far as I know Djindic was an extremely opportunist politician (like Milo Dzukanovic). In 1994-5 he praised the Bosnian Serb leader Karazic and tried to exploit tactically the drift between the leaders of Serbia and Serbs of Bosnia. During the NATO aggression (which was contrary to the international law), he went to Montenegro and criticized mainly the leadership of his country instead of NATO. He was unpopular and that is why in 2000 elections the opposition front had as a candidate the relatively unknown modest nationalist Kostunica (leader of a then small party) instead of him or Draskovic. I must stress that the opposition NGOs like Optor and parties received huge assistance (training, finance) from the governments (or typically independent NGOs) that attacked Yugoslavia (even foreign media admitted that). In that sense, they could be called foreign agents of imperialist powers. Besides, Dzindic made alliance with part of the secret services (the head Stanisic was hired since 1992 by CIA) and mafia, like Legia on the way to topple Milosevic.
(Later on he crashed with mafia and in 2003 it assassinated him). All the above factors combined with social discontent over sanctions, toppled the government first at the election ballot and then at well planned demonstrations in advance. (A similar operation organized by CIA in 2002 failed in Venezuela, because Cavez enjoys widespread support and was not engaged in wars with neighbours like Milosevic, so sanctions could not be legitimized).
Just to mention parenthetically, that despite their authoritarianism and big mistakes, there were only 2 leaders in Eastern Europe who dared to follow an independent policy and to object to the colonization of their countries: Milosevic, Mesiar. Both were brought down.
The extradition of Milosevic by Dzindzic in 2001, in exchange for promise of economic assistance, apart of manifestation of submission was violation of the law. I think it will not be included at the honorable pages of Serb history.
This democratic leader privatized quickly many more firms in 2 years than have been privatized the previous decade. The firms were sold cheaply to foreign capitalists and the social inequalities have increased. Subsidies to basic staff was reduced, as well as social protection to unemployed. Who has benefited from the economic reforms advocated by DS, SPO, G-17, post-Milosevic SPS? The foreign powers invested and spent to overthrow Milosevic and then came the pay back: almost all worthy firms and banks of Serbia are owned by foreign capital. Apart of the fact that the post Milosevic governments failed to prevent the break up of 3rd Yugoslavia and the independence of Montenegro, Kosovo, in my view Dzindzic turned Serbia to colony. If that is what the majority of Serb people want and praise him as a hero, no problem.
Finally, as far as the banks like Dafina, Jugoslandic are concerned, I have in mind that in cases of chaos, sanctions etc. coupled with inefficient legislation, corrupted state officials, there is a perfect condition for crocks to boost. In Serbia we had combination of remnants of real existing socialism coupled with features of wild capitalism. If I remember well, the owners robbed the banks and escaped from the country. Are you sure they were the instrument of government? In Russia something similar happened in mid nineties, but I do not think it would be fair to claim the government was accomplish.
Besides, everyone who deposits money or invests aiming at superprofits without risk is fool or naïve and somehow deserves a lesson in market economy.
PS: I think Bob simply ignores history. USA has a long record of attacking small countries (small and big) or organizing coups against legitimate elected governments which did not serve their interests (eg. Support of Contras in small Nicaragua, support of ruling military junta in El Salavador at the civil war that cost lives of over 200 thousands, mostly killed by paramilitary groups, coup against Mosadek in fifthties, aggression against Cuba in late fifties, Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq (2003), coup against Canez in Venezuela (2002), aggression against the tiny Granada in 1983, support of coups in other Latin American countries, Greece (1967), war in Vietnam, violation of territorial integrity of Laos, Cambodia, efforts to undermine governments through “velvet revolutions” etc.. So, there is no antiUSA paranoia, just objection to the imperialist policies carried by USA governments, contrary to the ideals of the founders of USA state.

being a democrat and believing in the rule of law, I accepted this man to be the new PM, but the moment he broke the own constitution by extraditing Milosevic to foreign powers, he lost every justification to stay in that position.

I strongly believe that the death of Dindic was a great loss for Serbia and region. The Serbian dark nationalists killed him and arrived in power again.

However, Dindic was not Serbia’s first democratically-elected prime minister. He was surely the first democratic PM in Serbia but not the first democratically elected.

Milosevic was always democratically elected.

This man, Mr. Đinđić, was the power dynamo for new Serbia. And he knew that his possible assassination by black forces would not stop the progress he, his political friends and supporters kick-started. Although at times at painfully slow pace, Serbia walks forward.

What is left for black forces is trading their pins on street corners, waving membership cards of dying parties, painting dead ideologies on walls and arrogantly twisting truth whenever they wish. But deep down black forces can feel their end nearing. And they will not go out with a bang -they end with a whimper.

Future generations will consider Đinđić as father of new Serbia. Proud Serbia. And now with true reasons, not as an arrogant and false slogan.

I met Đinđić only once (his son and my son went to same school) but that occasion confirmed me in his sincerity.

Rest in piece, Mr. Đinđić. You are not forgotten.

As it seems opinions about Milošević are split, so too are opinions regarding Đinđić.

Đinđić was simply working for the very people who were intent on destroying and dividing Serbia. Milošević on the other hand was a thorn in their side.

The plan of the dictators has always been the same but there were less obstacles once Đinđić came into office. It seems some were not very happy about that.

Sumadinac

Djindjic's forces Marched on Belgrade, and when they got there they stormed Parliament and declared themselves as the new government.

Many people will remember the scenes outside Parliament when Djindjic seized power. The smoke coming from the Parliament building was from burning ballot papers. This was the first act of the “democratic” DOS regime.

It's interesting how the albanians on here long for Djindjic. It is also interesting that the party that mourns him the most is Cedo Jovanovic's LDP - the same party that wants to recognize Kosovo and sever ties with Republika Srpska.

Once again, draw your own conclusions people, but I think it is clear who Djindjic was working for, and it was not for the national interests of Serbia.

Why is Djindjic buried on the Avenue of Heros and Draza Mihajlovic not? Because that is probably what Washington instructed the government to do.

All the anti-US commentators - you really have not got the message have you?

The anti-US paranoia was a tool of Milosevic (and communists before him I guess although I wasn't around then).

I don't think the US does or ever did give a damn about Serbia - it's just another little country somewhere in the world.

Neither is the US anti-Serbia. However, it is and was anti-communist (with good reason) and was antagonised by the anti-humanitarian, anti-American attitude of the nasty nationalism that Milosevic utilised to his own political advantage. Don't blame the US for that - blame the pathetically poor, selfish, parochial politics that wrecked the Balkans in the 1990s.

I think Kosovo should remain part of Serbia -but I also think that if Đinđić had given Kosovo away when he was alive he would still have been a hero to Serbia.

"However, Dindic was not Serbia’s first democratically-elected prime minister. He was surely the first democratic PM in Serbia but not the first democratically elected.

Milosevic was always democratically elected.
(ben, 12 March 2009 10:33)"

Ben, In order for elections to be considered democratic they need to be:
1)free
2)fair
Do you really beleive the elections during the Milosevic era lived up to these criteria? Here's more on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/1006263/

To stick to the subject, I can only agree with every word that Olli says. Zoran Đinđić was a true “Srpski Junak”.

As much as Djindjic was a reformer, he never was elected by the Serbian people. I'm sorry, you can't be playing TENNIS with a Foreign Minister (Robin Cook) of a country dropping bombs on the homeland that you "cared so much about." Of course Djindjic was loved the intelegensia, but I toatally understand why the average Serb hated him and is the reason why he is only remembered in Beograd.

People speak about milosevic cheating at elections - but the west does this all the time in their own countries. The other more problematic thing is the election that put milosevic out. Tens of millions of dollars from the west went to the opposition in order for this to happen. That very thing, this fund from foreigners is very undemocratic - it is something banned in the US, and simply is against democracy. Furthermore, the elections in serbia did not go to the second round as they should have in 2000, so who is undemocratic, huh? Yeah, the DOS guys said they won, but the official results gave them only 46% er so. They said that they had "their own numbers" which were changing radically during the election, which automatically makes them suspicious. What is most troubling is that the DOS estimates excluded votes from kosovo and metohija.

Last but not least, milosevic could have easily been taken out in the early 1990s. Now one might ask why or how did this not happen. Well, the ethnic albanians decided to boycott the democratic process. This decision allowed milosevic to stay in power. Some 15% of serbia's population today is not serbian, and that is the reason why the DS is in power today. Democracy is a great thing, and as we see, had the albanians bothered to participate in it, milosevic would not have been in power. It's not serbia's fault that he was the most popular serbian politician.

Its not Djindjic that I miss per sae in Serbia.
What I miss is a politician with drive and some kind of vision of the future. I have come to realise that this is every bit as important to policies put forward. My previous belief was the policies are everything, which is why I frequently disagreed with Djindjic. What I failed to understand is how important in the Serbian political system it is to have somebody who is willing to get things done and to risk unpopularity. Most Serbian politicians are content making populist statements and then behind the scenes do something immoral. They swing from fear of the Serbian people, to contempt for those same people.

Today my regret is that Djindjic did not live, although I'm sure I would have been against the absolute power the government and Djindjic would have following an attempt on his life and the fact that the opposition would have been wiped out at the ballot box.

Its not healthy to dwell upon these morbid subjects and risk idolising a politician, so at this point I will just say RIP.

IMO, Olli is right. Where Ben is incorrect - Milosevic did cheat the elections, he wasn't democratically elected.

Great posting, Olli.

I was just reading some of Djindjic's notes, they are interesting and I encourage everybody to read them if they get a chance:

'February 11th 2003

Worst case scenario:

Iraq crisis lasts
World economic recession
IMF creates problems, encourages others to withdraw
Hague gets stricter (new charges on Kosovo)
European Union freezes negotiations
Kosovo isn't solved, tension continues
Relations with Montenegro become blocked.'

In this situation Djindjic (as was always his way, which I admire him for) always provided solutions in a given scenario one was:

'Find alternative sources of income (faster privatisation eg part of NIS).'

There is more but it would take up space. Its a little spooky the way his worst case scenario has turned out to be prophetic.

I'll leave with one of his quotes:

'Successful nations are those that have a positive relationship with reality. Only a swift, active, optimistic nation fufils its goals'

Srpski Junak? - What A Joke.

Some of these posters will sell snow to the Eskimos and not just their souls and ancestral lands.

Is it true that Djindjic was willing to sit down and talk with Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci?

I wanted earlier, and am finally sending my respects to the remaining family of zoran djindjic. i can only imagine what they have been thru, and i am quite sure that full justice in this case is far, far from complete, and remains elusive.

i had a great deal of respect for djindjic altho i realized that he was no saint (who is?) and disagreed with some of his policies. but it was obvious that he was between a rock and a very hard place. he may not have shared all of cedi's ideas, but i can never believe, for a second, that he would have pursued the policies of the present regime. the same party?? it is hard to believe.

we were in belgrade about 3 months before the assassination. i was interviewing sonja biserko (interview #1) and i asked about djindjic. "he's not speaking to us currently," (she and natasa kandic)refering to some or another mini-feud at the time. then she mentioned that there was a short article buried in one of the belgrade papers, making some kind of veiled? threat to his family... i don't remember the exact context and really paid almost no attention to it at the time.

then some 3 months later i was at school (s f state) working on the computer, and i looked at the web news, and in large headlines: serbia's prime minister assassinated. i suddenly got that special sick kind of feeling you get in yr stomach at such times, and immediately thought back to that earlier conversation.

since then i've read several writers that have compared djindjic to kennedy (John)and compared their roles in their respective countries. perhaps the analogy is a bit forced, but there is some real comparison to the sense of hope and optimism that both men (and their families) brought to their respective nations. we, so many of us feel that here in the US again, and it is a beautiful feeling, even and esp.ly in the midst of such bad times.

Ben:
1. Milosevic was never a prime minister.
2. Except for the elections held in late 1990, no election won by Milosevic can in anyway be considered democratic

"The Serbian dark nationalists killed him and arrived in power again."

That's a good one ben. And what do you call the uck government, could they be the enlightened ones? How many of their own albanians did they murder?

being a democrat and believing in the rule of law, I accepted this man to be the new PM, but the moment he broke the own constitution by extraditing Milosevic to foreign powers, he lost every justification to stay in that position.

Why is Djindjic buried on the Avenue of Heros and Draza Mihajlovic not? Because that is probably what Washington instructed the government to do.
(Dragan, 12 March 2009 14:16)

Because Draza Mihailovic was buried in an unmarked grave and the secret was taken with the recent death of Milos Minic, Tito's prosecutor during the Communist show trials in 1946.

Dorcol?

.... what's wrong with calling Tito and Milosevic communists? I think that they were; do you think otherwise?

.... I don't quite see your objection.

I will try to write some things on both Milosevic, Dzindic.
Well, my point is that the root of the disintegration of Yugoslavia was not Milosevic policies (despite his huge mistakes, especially in relations between nationalities) and I really wonder how another leader would have dealt with the secessionist republics (Croatia, Slovenia). Probably they would have left without war and the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina would have become second class citizens or refugees earlier (but with less casualties).
About elections: It is true that Milosevic tried to violate the elctions in 2 cases he lost (1996, 2000) and that resembles leaders of LAtin America. But, apart from the fact that cheating occurs also in mature democracies (eg. how Bush won the 2000 presidential elections) and the ruling elit usually controls the media in most countries. It makes sure the dominant competing parties adopt policies serving its interests. For example big multinationals in USA finance both big parties and senators are financed by lobbyists and in return vote for laws serving them.
About media: I wrote about the influence of billionaires because I doubt there are independent media. (In fact the so called independent media were usually financed either by wealthy sponsors or by foreign organizations). During the balkan wars even respected media like BBC, guardian were biased. I will give you some examples. I remember describing the war in Bosnia Herzegovina like the following: “The Serb aggression is advancing and is close to the achievement of the goal of Greater Serbia….Ethnically cleansed Bosnians testify horror stories…The Serbs claim they were butchered….They also mentioned some Serbs who fought along with government forces in Sarajevo, willingly or not, to create the impression that even local Serbs were supporting the government)”. So, what you can see from this way of one sided description: half truths and sophisticated propaganda, lies. The reader would think that Serbia has attacked Bosnia and Bosnians defend their homeland, while in fact there was a civil war among Croats, Muslims [no Bosnian nation was recorded till 1991 census], Serbs. While the stories (true or not) of Muslim civilians were presented as indisputable fact, the stories of Serb victims were presented as claims, many times with the comment “they can not be independently verified”. All this was accompanied with photos and appropriate headlines. So, this propaganda style would make the reader in Europe, USA think “well, we must do something to help the poor victims and punish these bastards, the Serbs”. I could go no referring examples of how respected USA media lied prior invasion in Iraq and so on. I believe that probably due to the level of political democracy and education of the Serb citizens, the state propaganda was just more primitive form the opposite propaganda (I think that while state media were mouthpiece of the government, NGOs, alternative media were mouthpiece of opposition or foreign powers).
As far as I know Djindic was an extremely opportunist politician (like Milo Dzukanovic). In 1994-5 he praised the Bosnian Serb leader Karazic and tried to exploit tactically the drift between the leaders of Serbia and Serbs of Bosnia. During the NATO aggression (which was contrary to the international law), he went to Montenegro and criticized mainly the leadership of his country instead of NATO. He was unpopular and that is why in 2000 elections the opposition front had as a candidate the relatively unknown modest nationalist Kostunica (leader of a then small party) instead of him or Draskovic. I must stress that the opposition NGOs like Optor and parties received huge assistance (training, finance) from the governments (or typically independent NGOs) that attacked Yugoslavia (even foreign media admitted that). In that sense, they could be called foreign agents of imperialist powers. Besides, Dzindic made alliance with part of the secret services (the head Stanisic was hired since 1992 by CIA) and mafia, like Legia on the way to topple Milosevic.
(Later on he crashed with mafia and in 2003 it assassinated him). All the above factors combined with social discontent over sanctions, toppled the government first at the election ballot and then at well planned demonstrations in advance. (A similar operation organized by CIA in 2002 failed in Venezuela, because Cavez enjoys widespread support and was not engaged in wars with neighbours like Milosevic, so sanctions could not be legitimized).
Just to mention parenthetically, that despite their authoritarianism and big mistakes, there were only 2 leaders in Eastern Europe who dared to follow an independent policy and to object to the colonization of their countries: Milosevic, Mesiar. Both were brought down.
The extradition of Milosevic by Dzindzic in 2001, in exchange for promise of economic assistance, apart of manifestation of submission was violation of the law. I think it will not be included at the honorable pages of Serb history.
This democratic leader privatized quickly many more firms in 2 years than have been privatized the previous decade. The firms were sold cheaply to foreign capitalists and the social inequalities have increased. Subsidies to basic staff was reduced, as well as social protection to unemployed. Who has benefited from the economic reforms advocated by DS, SPO, G-17, post-Milosevic SPS? The foreign powers invested and spent to overthrow Milosevic and then came the pay back: almost all worthy firms and banks of Serbia are owned by foreign capital. Apart of the fact that the post Milosevic governments failed to prevent the break up of 3rd Yugoslavia and the independence of Montenegro, Kosovo, in my view Dzindzic turned Serbia to colony. If that is what the majority of Serb people want and praise him as a hero, no problem.
Finally, as far as the banks like Dafina, Jugoslandic are concerned, I have in mind that in cases of chaos, sanctions etc. coupled with inefficient legislation, corrupted state officials, there is a perfect condition for crocks to boost. In Serbia we had combination of remnants of real existing socialism coupled with features of wild capitalism. If I remember well, the owners robbed the banks and escaped from the country. Are you sure they were the instrument of government? In Russia something similar happened in mid nineties, but I do not think it would be fair to claim the government was accomplish.
Besides, everyone who deposits money or invests aiming at superprofits without risk is fool or naïve and somehow deserves a lesson in market economy.
PS: I think Bob simply ignores history. USA has a long record of attacking small countries (small and big) or organizing coups against legitimate elected governments which did not serve their interests (eg. Support of Contras in small Nicaragua, support of ruling military junta in El Salavador at the civil war that cost lives of over 200 thousands, mostly killed by paramilitary groups, coup against Mosadek in fifthties, aggression against Cuba in late fifties, Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq (2003), coup against Canez in Venezuela (2002), aggression against the tiny Granada in 1983, support of coups in other Latin American countries, Greece (1967), war in Vietnam, violation of territorial integrity of Laos, Cambodia, efforts to undermine governments through “velvet revolutions” etc.. So, there is no antiUSA paranoia, just objection to the imperialist policies carried by USA governments, contrary to the ideals of the founders of USA state.

Bob Wrote:

"Neither is the US anti-Serbia. However, it is and was anti-communist (with good reason) .... more blah blah blah"

Be careful who you call communist Bob - looks like USA capitalism is finally seeing 'red'! ;)

sceptic?

You have built an edifice in which you will continue to believe. It will serve you well and keep you comfortable in your convictions. The coin you flip has one side - the other is invisible and will remain that way.

While there is some truth in much that you say, the conclusion you reach is coloured by an internal view of Serbian politics. Although the US have made lots of ridiculous policy mistakes I do not think that they are readily generalisable to support your case. The view from outside is not as you see it. Having lived underneath the flight path of US planes that were defending against incursions during the cold war, I have an appreciation that freedom was not one of the strong points of communist governments. The US defended - and left when there was no further need.

The US will 'allow' you democracy - more than was ever possible under Tito - perhaps you do not want it?

Milosevic used anti-US propoganda to keep himself in power. He could have taken a totally different policy line, but played to the internal gallery. He had little comprehension of the affect he had about the way the world perceived Serbia.

Note please, that in all this I am very much on Serbia's side - I am aware of the bias in reporting and perception, and I am against allowing the UDI in Kosovo. I reject the current US policy on Kosovo.

However, I also reject your view. I am against using the anti-US view as an excuse for not facing up to the wickedness that were done in the name of Serbia. I also reject using the anti-anything view as a way of denying Serbia its place in the world. The days of insular politics are (hopefully) over and the is (hopefully) a more open future away from the awfulness of the past.