Reporter: The vice-president of the Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) assessed that the PDP has no intention of entering into local government and that such a policy is irresponsible toward voters who voted for you in the local elections.
Ivanic: Whether a policy is irresponsible or not is something that the voters will always decide, not the representatives of parties. It is especially inappropriate to comment on the policies of another party in this manner. We have not said that we will avoid entering into local government; we only established principles on the basis of which we would enter into local government. We have not received an acceptable proposal with the exception of one message during an interview. We believe that a proposal for some form of serious cooperation presupposes the definition of what is wanted in a particular municipality, and whether what is planned corresponds with our projections for that municipality. We do not want to enter into officials' coalitions, as was the case with Unity, where the basic motive is the division of official positions. We will enter into coalitions where there is agreement on the program of development for municipalities and people who can guarantee that that program can be realized.
Reporter: In the event that there is no understanding in the SDS and the SNSD for such a position by your party, is it possible that pressure from the field will be applied on a part of the PDP membership to compromise those principles?
Ivanic: It is surprising but our membership, and our municipal boards, who will have the greatest responsibility for policy-making in each municipality, show a great dose of patience and an extremely small degree of ambition to get into an official position at any price. People are far more oriented toward some future events. We don't want to repeat the mistake of those parties who served as ornaments of the larger parties. We would lose our identity in this way.
Reporter: I have the impression that you are extremely suspicious toward the ruling coalition. Why?
Ivanic: Based on the information which we are receiving from the municipalities, the problem faced by our people is that a number of those who belong to the ruling coalition do not enjoy any authority in their local settings. Our people do not want to lose their own legitimacy by associating with them because they believe that there have been many instances of misuse of authority and positions.
Reporter: Does that mean that you do not have such a huge dose of caution with respect to Unity at the RS level?
Ivanic: Between the Unity Coalition and the PDP there exist certain essential differences. The very formation of the PDP shows that we have differences in relation to the Unity Coalition.
Reporter: What are those differences?
Ivanic: The differences, first and foremost, are reflected in the ideas about which Unity is talking - the ideas of democracy, freedom, openness toward the world, economic reform. In our opinion, they talk very nicely about democracy but in practice they apply exclusively party principles. Unlike the very good results of 1998, when Unity truly was an agent of change and created an appropriate atmosphere, in 1999 everything was turned upside down, reduced exclusively to the political survival of a select group of people, without economic reforms and development. There have been no significant advances in privatization, the number of unemployed people has increased. Privileged people and members of the ruling parties are able to obtain favorable contracts with the Government. Municipalities which voted for a certain political option are given preference, others are absolutely forgotten. What is appropriate with respect to Unity's policies is its openness toward the international community. The PDP has great respect for that part of communications.
Reporter: The election results of your party demonstrate that voters have recognized the critical distance of the PDP toward the Unity Coalition. Were the achieved election results also influenced by the absence of the same distance toward the current regime in Serbia?
Ivanic: I have said many times that changes are needed in Yugoslavia, including a return to international institutions. After everything that has happened, the situation in Yugoslavia cannot be what it currently is. My deep conviction is that we, the people from RS, cannot change the situation in Yugoslavia by our positions, and I see no great interest in such positions, except in gaining legitimacy before the international community. I think that the position that changes are necessary in Yugoslavia is an adequate position which legitimizes a certain party and if it were up to me exclusively, I would articulate my position far, far more drastically. But it isn't up to me. One part of the international community has a typical formalistic approach inasmuch it is sufficient to say a few nasty words about the regime in Serbia - and it unquestionable that that regime deserves significant criticism - to receive complete support, regardless of what principles you are applying, what value judgments you are advocating and what concretely you are doing in your own country. I am aware that the topic of Yugoslavia is more significant than BH for one part of the international community. However, I think that some elementary principles of appropriateness should exist. Just as I will never accept that this party or I personally serve as a tool for Milosevic, or any other, future government in Serbia, neither do I wish to impose that role upon others.
Reporter: Nevertheless, you are frequently accused of being an affiliate of the party of Ms. Markovic? [Mrs. Slobodan Milosevic]
Ivanic: In this campaign there were many dirty things. The great majority of that came from the ruling coalition which was obviously unable to dispute our political activities by logical argument and thus resorted to spreading rumors. Therefore, the PDP received money from the Yugoslav United Left, automobiles from Belgrade, or was a part of some great conspiracy, where Mladen Ivanic is more radical than Seselj, which Mr. Slavko Mitrovic in fact said in his pre-election interview with Glas Srpski. All these things are stupidities, very low and primitive forms of political battle which have not yielded results. I think that our people are well educated and too serious for anyone to be able to achieve results based on political gossip. I think that those who spread those rumors were punished the most. They did not even receive enough votes to enter into the municipal governments.
Reporter: A final speculation. Milosevic applied pressure on the president of the Socialist Party (SP) of RS Mr. Radisic to nominate you as the president of the BH council of ministers?
Ivanic: I am not a candidate for president of the council of ministers. I think that this is not in the best interests of the PDP, we are not established enough yet for that. I think that my appointment to that function would isolate me from the organization of the party itself, and it could probably be interpreted as further alignment with only one side. Considering that we as a party do not have this goal, I must be honest and say that I will remain out of the various combinations with regard to the president of the council of ministers.
Reporter: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Radisic?
Ivanic: I did, and I said that I thought that if it is in the interest of RS to constitute this body, then the prerequisite is that there must not be party influences on the selection of people who would go to Sarajevo. It seems to me that the party ambitions which exist here are too great, and that the wish is to portray the council of ministers as a place by way of which certain groups, I am referring to the SDS and the SPRS, want to show their strength. If they have that strength, then they should be able to do this themselves without anyone else pulling things along.
Reporter: Do you think it is possible to simultaneously take care of the national interests and protect good relations with the international community?
Ivanic: I think that it is, and that this is not debatable, but all depending on the condition that the elements of the Dayton agreements are truly accepted, that the functioning of common institutions is secured, and that what is called Bosnia-Hercegovina (BH) is not blocked at any price.
Reporter: Is it possible to insist on the national interest and lead BH in implementing changes?
Ivanic: It is. The solution which is given in the Dayton agreement is a solution according to which there is no victor in BH. BH can survive only if it is objectively prepared for a compromise. The Bosniak people are currently in danger of repeating the mistake committed in the past by the Serb people at the level of Yugoslavia. The Serbs were talking to everyone about Yugoslavia. You have a complete repeat of everything in connection with Yugoslavia, only the roles have been changed. This is slowly but surely entering the consciousness of a great part of the international community. I think that we have a problem with some of the people from the international community who are too personally bound to BH, and who because of their functions are pushing forward their own personal agendas.
Reporter: With what politicians from the other two peoples would you like and would you be able to work together?
Ivanic: With every politician who secures legitimacy from his people, and who is not against Dayton principles. There is a large number of these people. I think that some of the names mentioned by Mr. Lyon in his interview with "Reporter" are certainly on that list.
Reporter: Along with prime minister Dodik?
Ivanic: A great number of the names which were mentioned, as I said, are on that list.
Reporter: Where has the integration process with BH stopped? Could it have gone any further?
Ivanic: Within all parties of the Serb people, separatism as an idea has definitely been dropped from the agenda. It is evident that the Unity Coalition, which to some extent symbolized this process, deserves great credit for this development. I think that all politicians in BH are aware of the fact that BH has survived and I think that that question is no longer being raised, and that that is a big step forward, at least as far as the Serb people is concerned. I think that a similar process will be present among the Croatian people as well. The Bosniaks hold the key within BH. Unfortunately, I think that they still believe that it is possible to organize BH like any other country. That means a state which is not based on entities, and according to the concept of "one man - one vote". I truly believe that they need to transcend this personal illusion. As soon as this illusion is transcended, they need to accept the fact that BH has survived, that it can function, but also a framework should be offered to all peoples so that they can feel secure. I think that in that case BH has a future. As long as the currently prevailing feeling remains, great problems will remain, the international community will have to be an intense arbitrator, and that, for BH as a whole, is not good.
Reporter: You frequently talk about the significance of the European Union in this region. Why do you skip over the influence of the American factor?
Ivanic: I don't think I skip over it. The U.S. has played a tremendous role in reducing tension in the region of BH. Without the U.S., there would probably not be peace here. The Dayton agreement is a result of the U.S., and in contacts with American officials one can hear that the future of BH is in integration with the European Union, because this region is a part of Europe, and it is only in that context that I emphasize the position of the European Union. The U.S. has its political role which is more than significant, it is probably the leading and decisive role in this region, but in the economic sense, I think that the European Union is the future of this region.