Serb Linguistic Reference “Caused Revulsion”

A witness told judges this week that the authorities of the self-proclaimed Croat republic Herceg-Bosna renamed the Serbo-Croatian language because the word Serb had negative connotations.



Miroslav Palameta, a former professor at the University of Mostar, was deputy head of the ministry of education in Herceg-Bosna from autumn 1992 until the entity ceased to exist in 1994.



He testified as a defence witness in the trial of former Herceg Bosna prime minister Jadranko Prlic and his five co-accused.



“During the war, the name of the language Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian caused revulsion among people, because part of this name was the name of the enemy in war,” he told judges this week at the Hague tribunal.



According to Palamenta, such name changes were not unusual in the Balkans and Serbs in Bosnia had taken similar action.



“In January 1992, Republika Srbska in its constitution omitted the Croat component from the name and they called their language Serbian, so for this reason the Croats called their language Croatian. They simply deleted that part of the name which mentioned Serbs,” he said.



Prlic is accused of taking part in a joint criminal enterprise to “politically and militarily subjugate, permanently remove and ethnically cleanse” Bosniaks and other non-Croats from Herceg-Bosna – and to make it part of a Greater Croatia.



On trial with Prlic are former Herceg-Bosna defence minister Bruno Stojic, military police commander Valentin Coric, General Slobodan Praljak, General Milivoj Petkovic and head of the commission for prisoner exchange Berislav Pusic.



All are charged with responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including persecution, murder, rape, and deportation.



Palamenta explained how after the Second World War, the language used in the former Yugoslavia was labelled Croatian or Serbian in the different regional constitutions of 1946. Only in the 1974 constitution was the name changed to Serbo-Croatian, he said, implying the 1992 re-naming was not entirely new.



“The name was not imported, the name simply fluctuated in the area itself,” added the witness.



In 1991, Palamenta was a member of a commission representing the cultural interests of ethnic groups in Hercegovina while the country’s constitution was drawn up, following the break-up of the former Yugoslavia.



One of the commission’s tasks was to consider what the language of Bosnia should be called, said Palamenta.



At the meetings, he said, the Bosniaks on the commission did not put forward proposals for a name for the Bosnian or Bosniak language.



Presiding judge Jean-Claude Antonetti asked the witness whether they discussed the issue of language on the basis of the views of the residents in an area, or because of region’s particular territorial position.



“What I am certain of, almost, is that none of the professors ever spoke of any territorial reasons,” replied Palamenta.



Asked by Prlic’s defence counsel Michael Karnavas whether the Bosniak community objected to the 1992 name change, the witness replied, “I did not hear of any reactions to the introduction of the name of the Croatian language.”



However, in 1993, a group of Bosniaks came to Prlic’s office to complain about the school curriculum, asking for Bosniak writers to be added, said the witness.



Palamenta responded by telling them to draw up a list of writers and literary works to resolve the issue, he said.



But the witness said neither a list of authors nor a name for the Bosniak language was ever proposed.



“There was no insistence whatsoever about resolving the situation at that very moment,” he said. “I did not get the impression that they did want to reach a final agreement.”



The view that predominantly Muslim schools should have to not refer to their language as Croatian was also raised, said Palamenta. He said a solution was discussed for a name to be chosen for the language in schools with a Bosniak population.



”The name could change depending on the school population since we were in charge of developing the curricula,” he said.



Palamenta also explained that the University of Mostar had its name changed from Dzemal Bijedic University after the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia because Bijedic, a prominent Muslim academic, was not well known enough.



Bijedic was born in Mostar and was also prime minister of Yugoslavia between 1971 and 1977.



Antonetti expressed curiosity that the university had changed its name for this reason only, prompting the witness to clarify.



“There were other motivations as well,” he said. “Names of universities and schools were not supposed to be burdened by ideology any longer.”



According to Palamenta, it was common throughout the former Yugoslavia to rename institutions that had originally been called after communists or Second World War partisans.



Palamenta gave the example of the town of Titograd, which was renamed in honour of the Yugoslav leader in 1945, Josip Broz Tito, and has since reverted back to Podgorica.



Karnavas then showed the witness a document giving details of a seminar hosted by Prlic in Zagreb which Palamenta confirmed was attended by professors from the University of Mostar.



Asked what the purpose of the seminar was, Palamenta said it “meant to underline the positive links between the Croats and the Muslims throughout history, [and] the creation of a friendly atmosphere between these two peoples”.



The trial continues next week.



Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.