SERBIA: FRESH CONTROVERSY OVER DRAFT VOJVODINA STATUTE

UNCLAS BELGRADE 000138 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL SR SUBJECT: SERBIA: FRESH CONTROVERSY OVER DRAFT VOJVODINA STATUTE REF: A) 08 BELGRADE 1026, B) BELGRADE 125 Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) The draft Vojvodina Statute, the governing legislation of the autonomous province, remains the subject of controversy and political manipulation. The Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians have accused President Tadic's Democratic Party (DS) of stalling due to internal divisions, bringing the Statute back to the public eye and the target of nationalist rhetoric. Serbia's rabid Radical Party, joined by the Democratic Party of Serbia of former PM Kostunica, have seized on the Statute to whip up hysteria over visions of Vojvodina secessionism. DS and other coalition officials continue to defend the statute, and it is likely to pass the National Parliament in a form very similar to the draft passed by the Vojvodina Parliament in October 2008, despite a fanfare of Serbian political rhetoric. Vojvodina's citizens, who were guaranteed a Statute under the new Serbian Constitution, Serbs and Hungarians alike, are increasingly annoyed by their treatment at the hands of the "Serbs to the South." End Summary Vojvodina Hungarians Want Statute Passed -------------- ¶2. (U) The draft Vojvodina Statute passed by the Vojvodina Provincial Assembly October 14, 2008 (Ref A) returned to the headlines January 20 after Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians (SVM) official Balint Pasztor criticized the government for not passing it or the Law on Vojvodina Authority, which is required before the Statute can go into effect, on to the Parliament. He said President Tadic had promised the Statute would go to Parliament by early February at the latest but there was no sign that it or the Law on Vojvodina Authority would move to Parliament soon. Opposition and Church Decry State within a State -------------- --- ¶3. (U) The opposition took the opportunity to renew its allegations that the government was creating a "state within a state" with the Statute. Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) leader Vojislav Kostunica said in an interview with Vecernje Novosti February 5 that the draft was unconstitutional and a vestige of the 1974 Constitution, which had led to the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. (Note: the 1974 Constitution established Vojvodina and Kosovo as autonomous provinces.) Kostunica said in light of the government's creation of the Statute, tacit recognition of Kosovo independence, and mishandling of the economic crisis, Serbia should have new elections. Leader of the opposition Serbian Progressive Party Tomislav Nikolic said the draft Statute would have to be changed drastically or the ruling coalition would meet with "resistance" from citizens. ¶4. (U) The Serbian Orthodox Church addressed a letter to President Tadic, Prime Minister Cvetkovic, and Parliamentary Speaker Slavic Djukic-Dejanovic criticizing the statute, stating "Serbia's sovereignty was first severely jeopardized, we hope temporarily, by the violent seizure and occupation of Kosovo, and then by an attempt to turn Vojvodina into a new state within Serbia." (Comment: Embassy has been unable to obtain comment from Vojvodina's most prominent Serbian Orthodox bishop and many church observers believe the letter was the work of Metropolitan Amfilohije, a bitter opponent of autonomy. End Comment.) Socialists Add to the Criticism? -------------- ¶5. (U) Complicating matters, ruling coalition partner Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) leader and Deputy Prime Minister Ivica Dacic stated February 7 that the SPS had no objection to Vojvodina autonomy but would not support a state within a state. Media speculated the Statute would not have enough votes to pass as drafted if the SPS withdrew its support. SPS official Branko Ruzic clarified on February 10 that SPS had only meant the Law on Vojvodina Authority needed to be passed first. DS Vojvodina Board President Dusan Elezovic told Danas on February 12 that SPS had never rejected the Statute. He said Dacic's statement was only that SPS would not support the creation of a state within a state, not that the draft Statute represented that. Elezovic said he had spoken with the entire leadership of SPS, all of whom had given him assurances that the party had not changed its position and would support the statute. Coalition and Vojvodina Officials Defend Statute -------------- --- ¶6. (U) Coalition officials, including President Tadic, continue to defend the draft Statute as written, despite press speculation that it would be amended. Tadic said Vojvodina had a right to autonomy and reiterated that the Statute strengthened executive powers but did not grant the province legislative or judicial powers, in an interview with news agency FoNet on February 1. Vojvodina Executive Council President Bojan Pajtic told media the Statute did not represent Vojvodina versus Serbia, because Vojvodina was part of Serbia. G17 Plus deputy leader Ivana Markovic-Dulic said those who opposed the Statute were those who opposed European integration. In an interview with Danas on February 11, League of Vojvodina Social Democrats (LSV) leader Nenad Canak said the Statute already represented a compromise and LSV would not vote for a Statute that included substantive changes. Rift between Central DS and Vojvodina DS? -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The competing and conflicting public comments have given the impression of rifts within DS over the Statute. SVM's Pasztor alleged as much in his January 20 comments, claiming that there was a disagreement between the DS in Vojvodina and central party officials in Belgrade. Pajtic, also a Vice President of DS, refuted the idea the delay was due to internal conflicts, ascribing it instead to "procrastination" by some ministers. When we asked Deputy Speaker Gordana Comic (DS) why there was so much wrangling in the press about the Statute even among the coalition, she said "if there is something that can be done easily in Serbia, we will do it the complicated way." Next Steps -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The government now needs to complete and send to Parliament a Law on Vojvodina Authority, which defines the powers the government grants the province. LSV International Relations Director Sanja Siflis told us the law provides a framework for the Statute; as such, a new Statute would need to be drafted any time this law changed. Technically, she said, the law should have been drafted first, but because the Constitution set a deadline for the Vojvodina Parliament to pass a draft Statute but not for the National Parliament to adopt the Law on Vojvodina Authority or the Statute, the Statute had come first. Pajtic announced January 24 that the Law on Vojvodina Authority was nearly complete; once it was harmonized with the Statute, the government would adopt both and send them to Parliament. Comic told us she was not sure when that would happen, but that she had been told "soon." This tracks with what we heard from the Prime Minister on February 9 (Ref B). Comment -------------- ¶9. (SBU) The rhetoric from the opponents of the Statute has not changed since the draft was introduced in September. The Statute remains a magnet for nationalists, particularly those struggling to find relevance in the domestic political landscape. By publicly voicing their frustration at the government's slow action, DS's smaller coalition partners in Vojvodina gave the nationalists additional fodder. While there may be some truth to the accusations that the Statute was in part held up by disagreements between the DS Vojvodina and the central party, Parliament's lack of progress on moving any legislation is just as likely a factor. DS as a party approved the Statute before it went to the Vojvodina Parliament, so it is likely to go the National Parliament in very similar form to the draft. Once it does, it will probably pass. SPS's "clarification" of its position indicates it will not go against the DS on this issue. Serbian politicians have an unfortunate penchant for creating political crises out of nothing, inflaming public opinion and giving themselves credit for solving problems which never should have existed. This is a good example. Serbian politicians show an equally unfortunate tendency to alienate those whose support they most need. Luckily Vojvodina has nowhere else to go, but its citizens are sure to feel scarred by this messy experience. End Comment. MUNTER