YUGOSLAV PUBLIC OPINION'S PERCEPTION OF
THE WORLD: CAPTIVES OF MAJOR ILLUSIONS
by
Vatroslav Vekaric
The way in which the public opinion in FR Yugoslavia understood epochal
shifts in the international system during the last decade seems to be characterized
by a profound lack of comprehension of both the essence and character of
these changes. The value patterns stemming from the authoritarian arsenal
and the Cold War era have remained strongly rooted within the population,
and certain shifts in the perception of the world mostly reflect negative
connotations: the distance and mistrust toward the international community
are increasing, together with isolationist and xenophobic attitudes, and
tolerance for others and openness to the world is weakening. Widely present
are values built upon realities before 1989, of a world divided into blocs,
and they are supplemented with strong believes in the crucial role of hidden
combinations made by the “world’s powerful ones” against small peoples
and states, in vicious aims of the majority of the international actors
when it comes to FR Yugoslavia’s interest and, generally speaking, there
is a growing mistrust in everything that is coming from the world.
In other words, the gap between what was really going on in the
international community concerning the basic processes and rules of conduct
of the international actors, on the one hand, and the image that the population
has with regard to these developments on the other, is a profound one and
it is provoking concern. Namely, if it is true that important indications
of the level and quality of the established civic consciousness are represented
by an openness to the world, an at least elementary understanding of modern
developments in it and an inclination towards links with the foreign world,
particularly with the newly emerged European environment, then it could
be said that – at least with regard to this aspect of the civic consciousness
of the Yugoslav population – things are far from good looking.
Such an evaluation is very much based upon preliminary results
of the research concerning the level of civic consciousness of FR Yugoslavia’s
population that was conducted recently by the Belgrade agency Argument.
Let us have a look at some of the characteristic points:
-
· Almost two thirds of the population (64,0%) think that the international
community has no right to participate in solving FR Yugoslavia’s internal
problems;
-
· Among those who do accept, under certain conditions, the participation
of the world in the solution of local internal problems – hence, something
that is very much happening in the region from 1991 – the majority (19,2%)
holds the view that the world’s right to intervene is limited to suggestions
and proposing solutions;
-
· Only 10,5% of the population thinks that the international community
has the right to punish if obligations undertaken by signing documents
are not fulfilled;
-
· More than a half (53,9%) of the population is convinced that the
introduction of sanctions toward a country is a violation of international
law, particularly of human and civic rights of the country in question;
-
· Only one third of the population (37,4%) shows explicit distance
with regard to the standpoint “that
-
foreigners are not to be trusted, even if they are our friends”;
-
· Only 5,1% of the population thinks that the most important problems
that FR Yugoslavia is facing nowadays pertain to the reintegration of FR
Yugoslavia into the international community, the lifting of the so-called
outer wall of sanctions, incomplete recognition of FRY, broken business
ties with foreign countries and closed doors to the world;
-
· The biggest responsibility for problems that FR Yugoslavia is
facing is attributed to the government in general (40,2%) or individuals
within the government (17,5%), but also to pressures by the international
community (24,2%);
-
· Among those interviewed whose financial position deteriorated
in the last period – and, of course, they constitute a majority – one fifth
(22,5%) thinks that the most responsible ones are the “international powers
because of their measures against FR Yugoslavia”, by which they are pointed
out as the second in line of responsibility (after the government in general)
for the economic destruction of the population;
-
· Only one third (36.3%) is very concerned because the country is
isolated from Europe;
-
· Only 1,1% of those interviewed indicates “foreign policy, abolishment
of visas, the country’s status in the UN, the admission to the European
Union, the relationship with financial institutions, cooperation with the
world and a strengthening of FR Yugoslavia’s reputation in the world” as
a priority political topic.
-
· More than a half of the population evaluates the attitude of the
most important international organizations towards FR Yugoslavia as a negative
one.
-
· Three fourths (74,7%) of those interviewed think that the US attitude
toward the peoples of FR Yugoslavia is a negative one, and two thirds evaluate
the attitude of Russia and China towards the peoples of Yugoslavia as a
positive one (64,7% and 62,1%, respectively)
-
· Visible are also important differences with regard to regions:
whilst, for example, almost one fourth of those interviewed in Montenegro
(23,1%) think that “all forms of cooperation should be developed with everyone
in the world”, the percentage of those in Vojvodina with the same opinion
is an unexpected 10,5%!
It is hard to escape the feeling that the Yugoslav public opinion
is significantly captured by a few major misunderstandings not only regarding
the depth and character of the changes in the international community,
but also regarding the significance and scope of modern concepts upon which
the mutual relations of actors in the international system are founded.
These misunderstandings not only influence value commitments of the population,
but they are also a consequence of insufficient knowledge of elementary
facts concerning changes that are going on in the contemporary world. Let
us indicate just some of the rooted wrong images that were indicated by
this research.
The first and maybe deepest misunderstanding upon which the majority
of the others is based, is the prevailing conviction (it is indicated by
the answers to different questions in the opinion poll) that the changes
in the international system after 1989 – that are called “the new world
order” – are basically bad and unfavorable and negative per se. They are
understood as especially dangerous for smaller countries and peoples and,
hence, for the fate of individuals. It seems that it is lost from sight
that the disintegration of the bloc structure reduced to a minimum the
probability of a nuclear conflict, that the Soviet Union, one of the most
repressive machinery in contemporary history, retreated from the world
scene and was replaced by Russia, an actor with a respectful military power,
oriented toward democratic changes and modernization of economy, basically
oriented towards a cooperative relationship with the West.
It is not sufficiently kept in mind that the most important international
actors, and particularly those in Europe maybe more than ever in this century,
have converging attitudes with regard to basic values and the future of
the continent, values that will bring to the forefront a strengthening
of democracy, of market economy and a scrupulous treatment of human rights.
The mental pattern that is primarily characterized by suspicion with regard
to current processes creates also the most different irrational concepts
pertaining to “conspiracies” of this or that state, people or group against
this or that people, to strategic intentions of the strongest powers to
inflict evil upon them; at the same time, this mental pattern does not
want to see that these are unprecedented historical changes that have,
understandably, caused many new problems but have also, maybe even definitely,
disqualified a renewal of totalitarian projects. The public was inadequately
informed about the far-reaching implications of the process of globalization
in the world under the influence of technological development, especially
that one in the field of communication and information, which forces every
country (and particularly those with worse starting positions, like FR
Yugoslavia) to be pragmatic and rational in choosing options, to lean upon
modern scientific achievements and an authentic acceptance of democratic
values.
With the intention to hide consequences of an unsustainable policy
and wrong evaluations, the international community is accused of various
injustices, particularly when it comes to developments in this region.
In no way do the official Yugoslav media show the broadly accepted fact:
that within the process of change the international community – at least
concerning the Yugoslav case – has generally behaved rationally. Some of
its mistakes and bad orientations (but not responsibility for local developments,
because it rests almost exclusively with local actors) were extremely caused
by an unexpected level of irrationality regarding actions of domestic political
forces and their predisposition to underestimate the current global trends,
regardless of the price, and break elementary norms of international behavior.
The above mentioned basic misunderstanding generated also many
others, those that pertain to more concrete aspects of the functioning
of the international community and the obligations of its actors. One of
the most outstanding ones is the unfounded overestimation of the principle
of “non-interference into internal affairs of states”. The results of the
research specifically point out this misunderstanding. As a comment to
the results of the opinion poll it could be simply said that the public
in which two thirds of the population deny the right of the international
community to participate in the solution of internal problems simply has
no knowledge of the essential evolution which this principle had undergone
in the international law and international politics. Almost all states
in the world that are gathered in the UN have voluntarily renounced part
of their sovereignty in many fields, particularly in the field of human
rights, arms control and environmental protection. This is particularly
so with regard to OSCE members (an international organization which includes
almost all the most important countries of the northern part of the globe,
apart from Japan and China), and even more so when it comes to European
countries. The classical concept of sovereignty, which in the conditions
of bipolar confrontation implied the right of governments not to be responsible
to anyone for actions against its own population, has changed in its very
foundations.
Nowadays, there is in force the principle – not only as a political
principle but also as a concrete international legal obligation - that
states and regimes must abide by existing standards, as for instance in
the field of security, preservation of peace and human rights, to undertake
transparent measures with the aim to achieve these goals, and to expect
that inappropriate steps in this field will be internationally controlled
and, in the case of their violation, punished. This has nothing to do with
hegemony of this or that power, but with the level of democratic development
reached by the international community, particularly by Europe and the
USA, which have reached further away with regard to the codification of
these principles, from Helsinki 1975, Paris and Copenhagen 1990, till Lisbon
1997. The classical concept of sovereignty is reluctantly renounced only
by the least democratic states, but this can also be of little help when
they become a scene of crisis which does not have only local consequences,
or even represents an assault to values respected by the majority of civilized
mankind.
Similar are the roots of another widespread misunderstanding
– clearly visible from the research – that internal law has priority over
international law; it is presumed that internal legislature is free to
do what it wants, that laws can be changed according to current needs and
that international obligations can be respected when they are suitable
and only “if they are not colliding with internal law”. This is best illustrated
by the example of the argumentation given for refusing to extradite to
the Hague Tribunal those Yugoslav citizens accused for severe violations
of international law. Not only the broadest circles of the public, but
also many “experts” do not know that such an approach is a wrong and illegal
one, because the evolution of international law and the states’ practice
and international legal and arbitration bodies have undoubtedly asserted
the standpoint that international law, and obligations from it, have a
bigger legal power than internal laws and the legal system of each country,
and that therefore noncompliance with international obligations creates
also international responsibility of states.
The research indicated also many other wrong images held by the
Yugoslav public opinion with regard to the role and relations towards FR
Yugoslavia of the most important international actors and the persistence
of stereotypes concerning “historical” friendships and enmities with certain
states and peoples.
Tolerance for minorities and neighboring peoples generally is
on a rather low level. What is, for instance, the basis for the belief
of three fourth of the population (76,8%) that Greece has a particularly
friendly attitude towards FR Yugoslavia, although her attitudes towards
FR Yugoslavia (as in the case of imposing sanctions and the control of
their fulfillment) did not substantially differ from that held by other
countries, not to mention the fact that Greece continued with the visa
regime for Yugoslav citizens which was, on the other hand, abandoned for
some of the other states in the territory of the former Yugoslavia?
Why do as many as three fourth of those interviewed (74,7%) think
that the USA have a negative attitude towards the peoples of FR Yugoslavia,
and that only less than a third (31%) thinks that Italy has a negative
attitude towards Yugoslavia, when it is generally known that the policies
of the USA and Italy mainly converge in all substantial aspects, including
events in Yugoslavia? How can it be explained that, at the same time, more
than a half of those interviewed (53%) sees the attitude of the Council
of Europe towards the peoples of FR Yugoslavia as a negative one, although
it is this body (which encompasses all European countries except FRY, Azerbeijan
and Belarus) that in its activities was oriented exclusively to the support
to democratic processes in the country?
Of course, to enter polemics with the public opinion remains
a rather quixotic adventure unless we try to identify - at least in general
terms – the causes for this situation.
If we leave aside the major conditions, such as collective frustration
of the population after the lost war in which Serbia "did not participate”,
the general economic and spiritual impoverishment and in connection with
this turbulence in ethical and ideological patterns, the most important
immediate causes of previously indicated standpoints of the Yugoslav public
opinion could be traced in the official propaganda and the media of the
regime. Systematically, yet poorly in the professional sense, similar to
Soviet propaganda in the Brezhnev era, they offer to the public a "black-white"
and mistiming interpretation of what is really going on in the contemporary
world. In this picture the prevailing tones belong to nostalgia for bloc
times in which the “powerful mother Russia” was capable of countering the
“sly and unscrupulous West”, so a contradictory support is given to anti-reform
forces in this country. Overestimated are contradictions in contemporary
Europe and in the West, rejected or underestimated are democratic achievements
of many countries in transition in Central and Eastern Europe headed by
this very same Russia, and dramatized are the real problems that emerge
in this process. In these media there is often stimulation of different
nationalistic stereotypes concerning the others, particularly some Western
peoples and states and spreading out mistrust toward international actors
which are not favored by the regime. However, it will not be possible to
get a picture of the most important thing – that FR Yugoslavia is the country
with the worst international position in Europe, expelled from major international
organizations and financial institutions, a country with an incomplete
recognition whose citizens do not need entry visas for only few countries,
and must pay exit taxes when going abroad (something that is not done in
any European country), the country which is not seriously counted in any
of the major processes and projects in the European continent of today:
from participation in the Partnership for Peace and establishing links
with NATO, up to integration with the European Union.
What is said represents a preliminary evaluation of the part
of results of the research concerning the level of development and sources
of articulation of the civic consciousness; this research was conducted
on a sample of 1,007 persons in 26 municipalities in FR Yugoslavia. Although
a comprehensive analysis of established frequencies and final conclusions
are yet to be made, it is hard to evade the impression that, when it comes
to relations with foreign countries, the aspect showing articulation of
civic consciousness of the population of FR Yugoslavia is more rigid and
impregnated with authoritarian-mythomaniac layers than aspects pertaining
to civic and political rights and the understanding of democracy and the
state.
Unfortunately, such a situation makes very uncertain the perspectives
for development of civic self-consciousness in FR Yugoslavia, and a continuation
of the present indoctrination by the media is only slowing down the population’s
realistic facing with the realities of the contemporary world. However,
to face them is the precondition for all necessary democratic changes –
changes that this very same population is demanding.
Belgrade, August 1997
Last revised: August 1997
|