THE YUGOSLAV PROBLEM

LETTERS TO

THE EDITOR

SIR,—King Peter's refusal to sign the Tito-Subasich Agreement (and its Moscow amendment), without certain changes, has once more brought to the fore the problem of Yugos'avia. The issues are often so com- plicated and intermingled with personal considerations that a Britisher must hesitate before referring to them. On the other hand, the conse- quences of what happens in Yugoslavia may be of such importance to future European peace that they cannot be ignored.

King Peter made two demands regarding the agreement which anyone who has endeavoured to follow events in that country without bias must find essential to democratic rule there tomorrow. The one was a change in the composition of the Regency and the application of the democratic

principle to the choice of the new Government, by the inclusion of representatives of the former political parties. Such a request, despite

the almost unanimous outbursts of the British daily Press, seemed reason- able, especially if the goal is a fusion between the real forces in Yugo- slavia, not merely control by the National Liberation Movement of Tito.

The agreement would be acceptable as it stands if the Tito movement represented Yugoslavia or even the greater part of it. But it does not. Despite totalitarian methods, the Serbs are not united behind it. (It was the Russians, not Tito, who liberated Belgrade.) And as for Croatia, the Partisans have very little influence there. Tito's movement owes most of its strength to the arms and moral support it has had from Britain and U.S.S.R.

It is said that the present agreement is only provisional. How little of the provisional there is about the new Yugoslavia which Tito is building up can be judged by anyone who can obtain, and read, copies

of the Politika, the Belgrade paper which is Tito's organ. From this it is clear that the National Liberation Movement intends to rule, and

rule alone, in Yugoslavia. The Communist Party is the only party

allowed to retain its political individuality. Members of former political parties can join as individuals, but must be willing "publicly to condemn

both their (former) parties and their leaders who betrayed the people."

And who betrayed the people? Who are condemned by the Tito Press? Machek, the Croat Peasant Party leader, is described at a traitor, and so is Dragoijub Jovanovich, Left Agrarian Serb, and others who have never been accused hitherto, even by their worst enemies, of collabora- tionism.

Reading reports of the meeting of the Serb Skupstina in Belgrade (end-November-beginning December, 1944), as given in Politika, one

finds that the claims of the National Liberation Movement to control everything are " justified " on the grounds that its members long ago obeyed the order to " do or die " and because political party rule would " split Yugoslavia." In reality. nothing is splitting Yugoslavia more today than this totalitarian attitude of the Partisans. Is it not a remark- able thing that even today there are still thousands of Serbs and more Croats who have not taken up arms for liberation? As far back as November 29th, 1943, the National Liberation Movement decided at Jajce upon " the establishment of a democratic federal Yugoslavia and

that the return of King Peter of Yugoslavia was forbidden." This decision was acceptsd by the Belgrade Skupstina when it assumed constitutional authority over Serbia in November last.

There are many quotations which might be given to show what a strange interpretation is being given to the term " democratic " in Yugoslavia today. But it is enough to refer to one fact, the question of news from Yugoslavia. In these days there is not a single British or American newspaper correspondent in Belgrade. Some were there a few months ago, but they (or their newspapers or agencies) found that they could not write about Yugoslavia's internal affairs except .under "official guidance," and so they left. In such conditions, only reports of Free Yugtislavia Radio or Tanjug Agency appear in the Press here. How, then, can the British public form its judgement on what is happen- ing in Yugoslavia? Perhaps it is not intended to do so. But if civil war breaks out later on in Yugoslavia, let us not dismiss it with talk of " tiresome Serbs," as we did with the Czechs in 5938.-1 am, &c.,

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT.