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

Strong political and international reactions have followed remarks by Serbian Minister Snezhana Paunović, who said that, had she been in Slobodan Milošević’s position in 1999, she would have “ethnically cleansed Kosovo.”

Paunović not only refused to retract her position or apologize, but further aggravated the situation. Speaking to Serbian media, she said that even today she would “ethnically cleanse Kosovo of terrorists.” At the same time, the minister claimed that her words had been taken out of context and referred only to KLA soldiers.

Commenting on the matter for “Bota sot,” political affairs analyst Nehat Hyseni said the statement carries serious political and institutional consequences. According to him, the reaction from U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson clearly shows that tolerance for the glorification of the criminal policies of the past is diminishing.

Hyseni said the assertion by Serbian Minister Snezhana Paunović that she would have “ethnically cleansed Kosovo” in 1999 had she been in Slobodan Milošević’s position 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 irresponsible personal position. The fact that it came from a member of the Serbian government gives the statement an institutional dimension and raises major questions about the political, moral and international direction of the Serbian state.

He said the immediate reaction from U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson should not be viewed simply as an emotional response. The congressman called the statement “disgusting” and urged the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly not to hold its 2027 annual session in Belgrade. For Hyseni, this is a political message of particular significance, demonstrating 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 went on to stress that the glorification of ethnic cleansing cannot be placed within the framework of democratic debate, as it represents one of the most serious violations of international law.

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

Hyseni recalled that Slobodan Milošević’s regime carried out an organized campaign for the mass expulsion of Albanians in Kosovo during 1998–1999. More than 800,000 Albanians were forcibly driven from their homes, thousands of civilians lost their lives, hundreds of villages were burned, and massacres were committed that are now part of the records of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

For this reason, according to him, a Serbian government minister who says she would have completed that criminal project is, in essence, expressing regret that it was not fully carried out. Hyseni said this goes beyond historical discussion or a political interpretation of the past and becomes the relativization and legitimization of a criminal policy whose humanitarian and legal consequences were severe.

He also said that one of the main challenges facing Serbian society and institutions remains the lack of an honest reckoning with the past.

According to Hyseni, contemporary Serbia still faces the serious problem of failing to reflect honestly on its past. Unlike Germany after World War II, Serbia has yet to undergo a genuine institutional and societal process of examining the crimes of the Milošević regime. On the contrary, figures from that regime continue to be rehabilitated in the public sphere, while war crimes are denied or downplayed and the rulings of international courts are called into question.

Under such circumstances, Hyseni said Snezhana Paunović’s statement cannot be viewed as an isolated case or a personal gaffe. According to him, it reflects a political culture that has not fully distanced itself from the nationalist and chauvinist mindset that led to the bloody wars of the 1990s.

It is precisely in this context that he attached particular political importance to U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson’s reaction. Hyseni stressed that the response came from a politician with extensive experience in Euro-Atlantic security and went beyond a moral condemnation of the statement. According to him, the proposal that Serbia not host the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly session in 2027 clearly expresses, for the first time, the position that glorifying ethnic cleansing should carry political and diplomatic consequences. He described this as a qualitative change in how the international community may respond to rhetoric that rehabilitates the crimes of the past.

In conclusion, Hyseni called on international institutions to respond, warning that the absence of consequences would set a dangerous precedent.

He said that if the international community remains silent in the face of statements of this kind, it will create the impression that advocacy of ethnic cleansing can go without political accountability. According to him, a state seeking membership in the European Union cannot tolerate ministers or senior officials who express admiration or regret for policies condemned both by history and international justice.

Hyseni noted that in many European countries, the glorification of Nazism or Holocaust denial is considered a criminal offense. According to him, the glorification of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans should be treated in the same way because it strikes at the moral and legal foundations on which postwar Europe was built. He added that the call for diplomatic measures does not constitute political retaliation but is intended to protect the international legal order and the fundamental principles of human rights.

At the end of his statement to “Bota sot,” Hyseni recalled that the OSCE is founded on the principles of security, cooperation, democracy and respect for human rights. According to him, if a state whose representatives publicly praise ethnic cleansing is allowed to host a session of this organization without any institutional response, the OSCE’s very credibility will be put at risk. He concluded that international institutions cannot remain neutral.