strange silence of the people in charge probably derived from complicating factors. First, there was the danger, which turned out to be exaggerated, that the arrest might lead to confrontations or violence between supporters and opponents of Milošević.7 Second, any declaration that Milošević was being arrested would inevitably lead to the question of what he was being arrested for, a question people in power preferred to avoid as it raised subsidiary questions of whether international oversight should be accepted and whether people in Serbia or elsewhere had the most legitimate claim to being Milošević’s victims. Third, the U.S.-imposed deadline for financial assistance was controversial. Every official statement declared that arresting Milošević right on the deadline day was a coincidence, but these declarations were not generally regarded as persuasive. So government representatives had good reason to avoid the question of whether they were more interested in establishing the rule of law or acting out of a more practical financial logic that looked like blackmail.
People outside the government showed none of the reticence of their political representatives. I followed just one popular channel for public comment: the postings in the “comments on the news” section of the web site of Belgrade’s B92 radio. This section invites people to send responses to news items, which are then published on a separate page. What follows is a categorization of several of those comments (in my translation) as a broad picture of the responses people shared about the arrest.8
The Process of Arrest as a Reflection of the Nature of the New Regime
The arrest itself was a process full of confrontations and confusions lasting from 7:00 P.M. on Friday, 30 March, until Milošević was finally taken into custody around 4:35 A.M. on Sunday, 1 April. During those thirty-four hours, there were small clashes between the police and Milošević’s personal military guard and private security, there were contradictory statements from media and government spokespeople, and there were some brief gestures of heroism on the part of Milošević’s supporters and relatives.9 Although the arrest was eventually carried off without major violence, it looked like an organizational and tactical fiasco.
The first comments responded to the inability of the police to make the arrest swiftly, and interpreted this as a sign that the new government was either incompetent or continued to fear Milošević:
(Aleksandar, 31 March): Milošević is not God above all people and law that he can resist arrest. (Beogradjanin u Washington DC-u, 31 March): [he came to power in] 1986, and now 15 years later he is still laughing in all our faces.10
(Mirjana Grkavac Maksimović, 31 March): Is our police really so incompetent that it needs so much time to arrest one person? How can Milošević reject an arrest warrant? Who is in charge here?
Other writers focused on what appeared to be the insubordination of Milošević’s military guard. Prime Minister Djindjić had stated in January that the military unit at Milošević’s residence was “guarding the house, not the person,”11 but the guards refused entry to the police on the grounds that they were not invited visitors. The police had to remove the military guard from the gate by force. Some writers interpreted this as a sign of that the army remained loyal to Milošević, especially since it continued to be commanded by his last appointee:
(Mile, 31 March): So it’s all clear. President Koštunica, who is so proud of his “legalism,” uses General Pavković—once Milošević’s favorite—to interfere with the police doing their legal duty. And all that from populist motives, so the federation will fall apart and in the next election he can win votes for his own, until recently minority DSS party, which has been known only for giving statements to the press.
A (tragi?)comical element emerged at the moment of the actual arrest, when Milošević’s daughter Marija fired a gun (a gift from General Pavković, engraved with his signature and portrait) in the direction of the car that was taking Milošević away. One couple (Mira and Predrag, 1 April) composed a comical poem about the shooting. Another writer (Milan Palinić, 1 April) quoted a canonical movie joke: “Did you hit the air, Marija?”12 Perhaps the sadistic pleasure these writers took in Marija Milosević’s desperate gesture could be understood as a sign of relief at the arrest?
The Question of What Milošević Was to Be Charged With
One of the questions raised by the arrest was whether Milošević ought to be arrested at all, and if so what for. Some people continued to support him, declaring that he defended national goals and could not be considered a criminal:13
(Nenad, 31 March): I don’t regard him as guilty, he defended the homeland from a satanizing that was prepared in advance. He is a hero, not a traitor.
However, most people seemed to agree that he ought to be arrested and charged with something. The government’s indictment charged him with embezzlement, theft, and abuse of power—attempting to assure that he be arrested and tried in Serbia for violations of domestic law.14 Several commenters expressed outrage at the absence of war crimes from the indictment:
(Maja, 31 March): For abuse of power? Shouldn’t he be tried for genocide against the Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian people, or maybe for the destruction of SFRJ, or for the decline of the Serbian people? I think that Milošević did many things that were worse than ABUSE OF POWER!!!
(Branislav Zekić Zeka, 31 March): The fact that He has been arrested is very good news. But that he will be charged for embezzlement, building without a permit, and unpaid electric, sewer and heating bills…. Garbage! That is throwing crumbs to us, because every honest citizen of Serbia has at least a few, more or less bloody, reasons to bring charges against our former president. I hope that he will be tried in Belgrade for all of the crimes he committed against his own people, for all the killings he ordered, for treason and theft and especially for all the things he is charged with by the Hague Tribunal.
It is difficult to distinguish to what degree such comments represented legal interpretations and to what degree they could be considered as expressions of hatred or revenge toward Milošević personally. One of the principal arguments that Koštunica offered in favor of moving slowly against the previous holders of power was the need to avoid what he called “revolutionary justice.”15
Belgrade or The Hague?
Closely tied to the question of what Milošević was to be charged with was the question of where he should be tried, or more specifically whether he should be extradited to ICTY. People who rejected this possibility raised issues ranging from the fear that an international trial of a former president would amount to an imposition of collective guilt to doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the Tribunal:
(Vuk Vujović, 31 March): Now, anybody who thinks about it even a little bit knows that he will be tried in The Hague as a former president, which automatically and immediately means that if he is found guilty, everything that the Serbian people did during the period when Milošević was president will be declared a crime. That means every commander or soldier who was on the battlefield will be a war criminal, every dead soldier will be a war criminal, and every mother who cried for her child will be a war criminal.
(siniša, 31 March): Our country is in the condition it is in and one more betrayal or surrender of our citizen to The Hague, even if it is the former president, brings a bad image to all members of the Serbian nation. Our citizens should only be tried in our country for their actions. Any other decision is shameful and stamps us with recognition as a genocidal horde which only understands force and blackmail. I wonder who would defend our exhausted country if it ever really needed it. Many patriots have already been arrested and sent to The Hague for no reason, hiding out and believing that if they need to show their innocence, they would be able to do it in their own
