Welcome visitor you can log in or create an account

TO: Mr. Cullen (2)


January 9, 2018
St. Catharines, Ontario

Dear Mr. Cullen;
While reading your reply from December 22, 2017 to my letter addressed to Mr.Hahn from November 27, 2017, I got the impression that you either didn’t read the letter and accompanying material I sent, or that you misunderstood it, or worse yet,that you chose to misunderstand it. I’m not sure how else to construe the fact that you interpret what is clearly and demonstrably a systematic violation of constitutional and human rights as an individual case—and how you interpret my letter to Mr. Hahn as an appeal for intervention in my personal case. Beyond that Idon’t understand how in good faith you don’t see a major conflict of interest in having the people who carried out these violations now being appointed as reformers of the institutions that they abused, and revisers to a law that affects them personally. Therefore, I will attempt here to clarify what I may have failed to make clear in my original address, or what you failed to understand. First, let’s deal with your confusion regarding my “personal situation.” My personal situation reached its conclusion and satisfaction in 2005 when the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, after a four year process bestowed upon my and my family the status of Convention Refugees. My case, of which I’d be happy to forward you the details, argued that the ruling principles that govern the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, regardless of what party holds the nominal power, remained exactly the same as those before the publically avowed abandonment of
Titoism and the formal dissolution of Yugoslavia—those of a totalitarian, thuggish police state. Rather than as a means to an appeal for intervention, I chose to use my personal situation in my previous letter as evidence to support my claims that the persecution of political and ideological dissenters raged on in Macedonia during the 1990s as feverishly as it had in the four-and-half decades prior, as well as to give an impression of the attitudes of Macedonian authorities and legal and human rights
“experts” on it. Am I perhaps mistaken in assuming that Europe saw Yugoslav Communism as a totalitarian regime? My case was proven in the Canadian legal system, and my dossier (or rather that which is available to me from it) is the only one that I’m aware of that has been fully translated into English—if you wish I can provide you with excerpts from at least dozen others in their original form, which have been published by the State Archiveof R Macedonia. Had I failed to provide this evidence, your reply would likely have been along the lines that my claims are a bitter old fool’s baseless rants. My personal case is not an individual one. It was merely one of thousands, conducted in accordance with Governing Ordinances of the UBK. This much is stated
in the dossier itself: In the end I can also say that everything that has been undertaken toward PETROVSKI Dušan JORDAN, as well as with him, is within the frame of the Governing Ordinances for the activity of the DSC, with the knowledge of and agreement with the 1st Department of the DSC, and that an operative documentation (Operative Memos) has been regularly assembled. One of the excerpts from my dossier that I cited in my previous letter, and which you will find below this paragraph, clearly shows that the laws governing the State Security Apparatus of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia—that’s the former Yugoslav Macedonian republic of 1945-1990—remained in force well into the 1990s, namely until 1995, when according to the claims of the Macedonian Government at the time, the NGO sector, and of the people tapped to lead the reforms of the judiciary and the SSA, Macedonia was supposed to have been governed by a democratic constitution. In this case we are talking about a law that was adopted in the year 1987 (hence the underlined number 87 in the excerpt). On the basis of Article 16 of the Internal Affairs Act (“Official Journal of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia” No. 37/87), Articles 56 and 57 of the Governing Ordinances for the Operation of the SDB (“Official Journal of the Republic of Macedonia”—Special Official Journal No. 10/92)… (Emphasis added) According to Article 6 of the Macedonian Constitutional Law, the transitional constitution between Socialist and “free” Macedonia, “All laws not in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia shall be brought in compliance within one year of adoption of said Constitution.” The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia was adopted in November of 1991, meaning all provisions not in compliance with “the establishment and consolidation of the rule of law as a fundamental system of government,” or the provisions of “the guaranteeing of human rights, citizens' freedoms and ethnic equality,” or laws intended to preserve the security and physical integrity of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should have been taken off the books and nullified by late 1992. However, even the adoption of the new Governing Ordinances for the operation of the State Security Apparatus in 1995 did not lead to a change in the SSA’s approach toward issues regarding private property rights and freedoms of speech, movement, association, and thought. As I mentioned in my previous letter, neither I nor any of the thousands of others who were investigated by the SSA ever found ourselves indicted or convicted of wrongdoing—since the goal wasn’t to actually find wrongdoers, as we were all law abiding citizens, but rather to pressure us into becoming complicit with the way the country was being run, and to repress us into becoming SSA collaborators. From the example given from my dossier it is clear that the Minister of Internal Affairs at the time, one Mr. Ljubomir Frčkoski, disregarded the provisions of the Constitutional Law and the Constitution, and continued to employ the State Security Apparatus, not as it ought be used by a democratic state, but in the same manner as it had been used during Titoism: as a political-ideological police! Here is a sample of the “measures and activities” that were employed against me during the 1990s (again keep in mind this was not an isolated case):

SDB-1st Department
Operative worker XXXXXXX
Evidentiary number: 309
O U T L I N E of operative and operative-technical measures and activities to be undertaken in relation to PT "CRNI" In the current year for the purpose of detection, confirmation, documentation and prevention of the hostile activity of PT "CRNI", the
following measures and activities shall be undertaken:
1. The circle of close friendly connections from the region and beyond will be examined for the purpose of identifying a positive person for use;
2. An examination of commercial cooperation of entrepreneurs from the region and beyond for the purpose of identifying a positive person for use;
3. The connections and relations of PT "CRNI" with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX shall be examined for the purpose of opportunity recognition for approach and his further use toward "Crni";
4. Application of the measure XXXXXX of his home telephone;
5. Application of the measure XXXXXX of his telephone in the company "Snežana i Sinovi";
6. Conversation with XXXXXXXXXXXXXX concerning his commercial cooperation with private and public companies from R Bulgaria;

SDB – 1st Department
RUSBD Kumanovo
Operative worker XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Evidentiary number 218 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
O U T L I N E of operative and operative-technical measures and activities to be undertaken in relation to PT "CRNI". In the course of this program period, for the purpose of detection, confirmation, documentation and prevention of the hostile activity of
PT "CRNI", the following measures and activities shall be undertaken:
1. The operative connections xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are to be used in a more deliberate and more organized fashion.
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is also to be used from time to time.
3 Continuation of the implementation of the measure xxxxxxxxxx of the telephone numbers (34-475) and (24-467).
4 Considering that the same has put two new phone numbers in service, an operational examination is to be conducted so as to be concluded which one of the aforementioned (5) telephone lines he uses for long distance calls with the purpose of implementation of the measure xxxxxxxxxxx
5 Furtherance of the efforts of discovering and examination of his business and other connections in the Republic of Macedonia.
6 Furtherance of the efforts of discovering and examination of his business and other connections in the Republic of Bulgaria, with special attention to be paid to those coming from the ranks of VMRO-SMD, business and other connections.
7 Implementation of the measure Trailing in the country, when he travels outside of the city of Kumanovo.
8 Implementation of the measure Trailing when he travels to and stays in the Republic of Bulgaria.
9 Depending of the received results from the materialization of these measures, our attitude toward and treatment of him will be decided upon. Operative worker, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If you have an earnest desire to understand the essence of my claims regarding the conduct of the members of the Commissions for Reforms to the Judiciary and the SSA, I recommend you do what you ought to have already done: I recommend you ask the relevant authorities in Macedonia for the exact number of people under electronic and physical surveillance by the UBK between the years 1991 and 2000; that is to say the exact number of persons illegally conducted under treatment of the SSA during the first nine years of Macedonian “independence.” I speak of this timeperiod specifically, as opposed to beyond the year 2000, since for this period we have the available dossiers made public by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000. A second reason why I emphasize this period as opposed to the time prior, is because the persons tapped to run the reforms Commissions in question were participants in the violations of rights during that period—a fact easily verifiable by reviewing these people’s CV’s. Even this notwithstanding, the fact that so many of
the people tapped to run and man the Commissions in question were affected by the Law on lustration—a Law whose repeal/revision will be among the top priorities of the bodies in question—screams of conflict of interest. One would have expected an
institution populated mostly with lawyers, such as the European Commission, to notice this gross violation of some of the most basic principles of ethics. Next, the Lustration Act, your criticisms and the Venice Commission’s amicus curae brief. In your reply letter from December 22, 2017 you say: The implementation of the Law on lustration had been criticized by the European Commission and the Venice Commission. This led the European Commission, in the definition of Urgent Reform Priorities, to call upon the country to “Address the serious shortcomings and revise/repeal of the Law on Lustration and its implementation (in particular with reference to the Venice Commission’s amicus curiae brief) as regards e.g. temporal limits; safeguards against political, ideological or party reasons used as grounds for lustration; exclusions of persons in private and semi-private positions and stronger safeguards protecting the identity of subjects until final court decision.” I had expected that the recoding of our Committee’s telephone conversation with Mr. Thomas Markert from December of 2012 would alert you to the fact that the Venice Commission’s amicus curiae brief was tainted. This, if you had taken the time to listen to the conversation was due to the omission of important information that the Macedonian side provided to the Commission. Namely, the fact that there had been so many instances of politically motivated persecutions during the 1990s (upward of 4,000, hardly a case of “individual case”), and that these “investigations” were governed by an illegally published set of Governing Ordinances that were published in a “Special” edition of the “Official Journal/Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”—that’s an edition unavailable to the general public and contrary to
Article 52 of the Constitution (“Laws and other regulations are published before they come into force. Laws and other regulations are published in 'The Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia' at most seven days after the day of their adoption.”)—in this case Special Official Journal No. 10/92, and later in Special Official Journal No. 10, from 31 October, 1995. I’m not sure which is more disturbing, the fact that the Macedonian system is so brazenly corrupt as to dupe European bodies, or the fact that their manipulations so obviously work! Our Committee agrees that the specific path to lustration taken by the Gruevski Government was improper. In fact at the time when the Lustration Act was being put through Parliamentary procedure, our Committee made countless attempts to make both the relevant bodies and the public aware that what was being adopted would only produce a false lustration—which has proven to be the case. Our stance from the beginning has been that lustration ought to be conducted through the regular courts, and should be guided by Article 7 of EC Resolution 1096. Lustration must not be a process of political reprisals, however, neither should it be one of purifying the reputations and whitewashing the crimes of those who abused the
State. That said, our Committee disagrees with how the EC has approached the lustration question in Macedonia. For one, we fault the EC for not taking a more determined stand on the fact that Macedonia cannot move forward without lustration. The
present attitude of the EU and its bodies is often construed in Macedonian circles as one disapproving of lustration, period. For another, we find fault with the European Commission for not taking a firmer guiding position in Macedonia’s attempt at lustration, for not insisting on a process that would mirror those of East Germany or of Lithuania—to name but two. We find fault with the European Commission for not making a more explicit stand on the fact that the so-called previous regime was in fact a totalitarian regime, since it summarily shot, imprisoned, and re-educated by the thousands those whom it deemed morally-politically deficient. We also find fault with the EU and its bodies in failing to take a more diligent interest in the systematic violations that took place/most likely still taking place in post-Yugoslav Macedonia. While the crimes of the “previous regime” may have happened “a long time ago,” those of the “post-Communist” era are quite more recent. So disinterested does the EU and all its bodies appear in this problem, that, for example, on the numerous occasions when we contacted former Euroambassador to Macedonia, Erwan Foere, regarding lustration and the violations that had taken place during the 1990s, his standard reply was that he cannot intervene in individual cases—sadly, also the conclusion to your letter from December 22. Were I not such a naïve believer in Europe and its partiality for the rule of law and justice, I may be inclined to believe that perhaps Europe has a soft spot for Balkanized Communist thugs and pillagers. Perhaps, as means to remedy this situation the EC could make an effort to insist on the adoption of Article 7 of EC Resolution 1096 within the revision of the Lustration Act. I mention the number of upward of 4,000 persecuted between 1991 and 2000 above and in my first letter. This is a rather conservative figure and on the low side of an estimate of 4,000-10,000 at one time floated by former State Archive Director Zoran Todorovski. There is another number to consider. Namely the one recently floated by former UBD chief, Slobodan Bogoevski, in one of his what now appear to be weekly interviews in the Macedonian media. Mr. Bogoevski stated the number 350,000 as the potential number of collaborators to the SSA. This should give you a better idea as to the actual number of SSA persecution victims in Macedonia, especially knowing that the SSA generally makes a collaborator out of a former victim. Or rather, a SSA collaborator is for the most part also a victim in that they remain under surveillance and other repressive measures throughout their time of collaboration as a means of ensuring their loyalty. Their blood, metaphorical though it may be, is no longer just on the hands of Yugoslavian/Macedonian authorities. It is also on the hands of European officials who choose to turn their nose up and hide behind the comfort of the excuse that they cannot intervene in individual cases. Too bad for Goering and company that people with your and Mr. Fouere’s attitude were
not around in Nuremberg in 1945-46. The world might have seen some real justice then! Please understand, Sir, Macedonia doesn’t need Europe for its highway, green energy, and equity funds. Apparently she’s been having access to enough of those for
long enough. Rather Macedonia needs Europe for its traditions of rule of law and respect for individual and property rights. The Macedonian situation has long roots, and Macedonian society cannot move forward until they are addressed. In 1935 French author Henry Pozzi, while describing the situation in Serbian annexed Macedonia—i.e. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—wrote: It is also quite true that the barbed wire has transformed Serbian Macedonia
into an immense prison, into an indescribable hell of violence and misery, from which it is no longer possible to escape, no longer possible to enter without special permission from the Yugoslav authorities. The jailors of the prison are not responsible to anyone. The barbed wire M. Pozzi spoke of was a more than 200-mile long quadruple fortification that separated one part of Macedonia from another, turning my homeland into an open air prison. In the same exposé, War is Coming Again: Black
Hand Over Europe, M. Pozzi echoes the findings of the Carnegie Commission Report on the atrocities committed during and immediately following the Balkan Wars, from two decades earlier, which speak of unimaginable acts of violence and
inhumanity against the Macedonian people. At the time, M. Pozzi’s work remained ignored by European decision makers. Following the Second World War, and the installation of the Communist Regime, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia—i.e. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia— continued acting as a prison for the Macedonian population, the proof of which is to be found in the State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia, as well as the archives of the American Central Intelligence Agency. Here, escape and the spread of ideas not in line with those of the ruling party were again a crime. Regardless of what Europeans may wish the world to believe, Tito’s Yugoslavia was scarcely more than a vehicle for the Pan-Serbian dream of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that had led the world global war. The government’s attitude toward Macedonian self-identification was practically indistinguishable between that of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (the one ruled by the Serbian king) and of Tito’s “Federal” Yugoslavia. The same treatment continued even after the ostensible declaration of independence of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same treatment continued because all the judicial, police, academic, media and cultural principles
and figures remained unchanged. My dossier, my case in its totality is proof of it. Macedonians were investigated and put under repressive measure for the suspicion of being pro-Macedonian “local patriots” and for espousing ideals different to those
of the ruling party—ideals of free speech, free markets, and the rule of law! To me this suggests that a Macedonian cannot be free in the country that calls itself Macedonia (or something like that) even today. Life became untenable for my family in Macedonia after I went public with what I had suspected was being done to me and to the party I was supporting. Mine is not an isolated case, as again can be established by a perusal of the State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia. I am only
unique in that I escaped and sought refugee status, which I obtained only thanks to the timely adoption of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000—something that those before me would not have been so lucky with. You may say I’m unique in one
way, in that my immediate family and I have completely broken ties with our former life in Macedonia, since that is the price for our defection, and that is the only reason why I remain vocal about the issue. The common thread through the three periods of Macedonian oppression that have encompassed the past century is the complicity of European statesmen in the process. Every single one of the three regimes that ruled Macedonia throughout this time were approved of and financed by the great European powers. Today, again Europe seems uninterested in establishing law and order in Macedonia, and seemingly is more concerned about the protection of the reputations of those who have blood on their hands. This was not the case with Nuremberg, nor was it the case with post-Communist Poland, East Germany, Lithuania, etc. Yet, with the “former” Yugoslavia Europe seems far more concerned with the reputations of those who violated, tortured, pillaged, and brain-washed entire nations. This begs the question, why? Why is it that Europe keeps insisting on preserving the Pan-Serbian Communist elite in Macedonia, Croatia, and elsewhere in Greater Serbia and why is it that Europe seems poised on forming another Belgrade dominated Yugoslavia? Are we South Slavs not worthy of European status, or better yet, of human status? Have the past hundred years not been enough of a lesson in what happens when Belgrade is in charge of those not of its kind? The jailors of the prison called Yugoslav Macedonia remain not responsible to anyone. Not only do continue to roam free, but also continue to influence the present and frame the future of this tragic land.

Jordan Petrovski
Committee for the Democratization of the Republic of Macedonia