Paunović Deepens Scandal with Her Statements, Hyseni Calls for Strong Response

Serbian Minister Snezhana Paunović has sparked strong political and international reactions after declaring that, had she been in Slobodan Milošević’s position in 1999, she would have “ethnically cleansed Kosovo.”

Instead of distancing herself from the statement or apologizing, Paunović has deepened the scandal. She told Serbian media that even today she would “ethnically cleanse Kosovo of terrorists,” while claiming that her words had been taken out of context and referred only to KLA soldiers.

Speaking to “Bota sot,” political affairs expert Nehat Hyseni said the statement carries serious political and institutional consequences. According to him, the reaction from US Congressman Joe Wilson clearly demonstrates that tolerance for the glorification of the criminal policies of the past is diminishing.

Hyseni said the assertion by Serbian Minister Snezhana Paunović that, had she been in Slobodan Milošević’s position in 1999, she would have “ethnically cleansed Kosovo,” ranks among the most serious political statements made in the Balkans in recent years. According to him, it cannot be regarded merely as a verbal provocation or an act of personal irresponsibility. The fact that she is a member of the Serbian government gives the position an institutional dimension and raises serious questions about the political, moral and international direction of the Serbian state.

He stressed that the immediate reaction from US Congressman Joe Wilson, who called the statement “disgusting” and urged the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly not to hold its annual session in Belgrade in 2027, should not be viewed merely as an emotional response. According to Hyseni, it is an especially significant political message, indicating that Euro-Atlantic democracies are losing patience with the glorification of the criminal policies of the 1990s and Serbia’s refusal to confront its past.

Hyseni also emphasized that praise for ethnic cleansing cannot fall within the bounds of democratic debate because it concerns one of the gravest violations of international law.

According to him, freedom of expression is part of democratic societies, but it does not give individuals the right to glorify crimes against humanity. Ethnic cleansing is neither a political opinion nor a historical alternative that can be legitimately discussed. It is among the gravest violations of international humanitarian law and is directly linked to war crimes, crimes against humanity and, under certain circumstances, genocide.

Hyseni recalled that, during 1998–1999, Slobodan Milošević’s regime carried out an organized campaign in Kosovo to expel Albanians en masse. More than 800,000 Albanians were forcibly driven from their homes, thousands of civilians were killed, hundreds of villages were burned, and massacres were committed that are now documented by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Consequently, when a Serbian government minister says she would have carried that criminal project through to completion, she is essentially expressing regret that it was not fully accomplished. According to him, this is no longer a matter of historical debate or political interpretation of the past, but an attempt to relativize and legitimize a criminal policy with serious legal and humanitarian consequences.

In Hyseni’s assessment, one of the main problems facing Serbian institutions and society remains the lack of an honest reckoning with the past.

He said contemporary Serbia still faces the serious problem of failing to reflect sincerely on its past. Unlike Germany after World War II, Serbia has yet to undertake a comprehensive institutional and social process to examine the crimes of the Milošević regime. Instead, public discourse continues to rehabilitate figures from that regime, while war crimes are denied or relativized and the rulings of international courts are called into question. For this reason, Snezhana Paunović’s statement cannot be seen as a personal gaffe or an isolated incident, but as a sign of a political culture that has yet to fully break with the nationalist and chauvinist mindset that produced the bloody wars of the 1990s.

It is precisely in this context, according to Hyseni, that the reaction from US Congressman Joe Wilson carries particular political weight. It comes from a politician with extensive experience in Euro-Atlantic security and goes beyond the moral condemnation of the statement. By proposing that Serbia not host the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly session in 2027, he clearly expresses, for the first time, the view that the glorification of ethnic cleansing should have political and diplomatic consequences. Hyseni regarded this as a qualitative shift in the approach the international community may adopt toward rhetoric that rehabilitates the crimes of the past.

In conclusion, Hyseni called for an institutional response from the international community, warning that allowing such statements to go unpunished would set a dangerous precedent.

He warned that if the international community remains silent, it could create the impression that apologism for ethnic cleansing carries no political accountability. A state aspiring to join the European Union cannot accept ministers or senior officials expressing admiration or regret for policies condemned by both history and international justice. In many European countries, Holocaust denial or the glorification of Nazism is punishable by law. According to him, praise for ethnic cleansing in the Balkans should be viewed by the same standard, as it strikes at the legal and moral foundations upon which postwar Europe was built. Calling for diplomatic consequences is not political revenge, but serves to protect the international legal order and the fundamental principles of human rights.

Hyseni recalled that the OSCE was founded on the principles of democracy, security, cooperation and respect for human rights. If a country whose representatives publicly praise ethnic cleansing is allowed to host a session of this organization without facing an institutional response, then the credibility of the OSCE itself is put at risk. He concluded in his remarks to “Bota sot” that international institutions cannot remain neutral.