Sunday, 27 September 2020 | News today: 0

Zaev’s skin more important than national security

The whistleblower protection law has put to the capacity and the sincere intentions for real fight against corruption of all participants in the negotiations, as well as the international mediators to the test. The legal solution must be aimed at preventing crime, corruption and the abuse of state power, but must not be supportive of undermining the state institutions and endangering the state security.

Whistleblowers should be encouraged to identify an act of suspicious unlawful action by disclosing the information they have. It can be done directly to the judicial authorities or the media. But their role must end here. Legally, in no circumstances should they be allowed to take violent action to solve the problem or to penalize the suspects. Moreover, the law must not exceed the cooperation with foreign services, nor to approve cash prizes for their “courage.” Right here should be located a large share of the responsibility of Zoran Zaev, Zoran Verushevski and the other defendants in the “Coup” case for which these people will have to answer before justice. Therefore, the law in no case should grant amnesty for these people. Finally, they will have an opportunity to prove their innocence in court.

This is certainly considered by the foreign mediators in the negotiations, particularly the US Ambassador Jess Baily, who is very well acquainted with the treatment of “whistleblowers” in the United States, especially during the presidency of Barack Obama. Critics accuse the Obama administration of leading a repressive policy towards the people who are encouraged to disclose illegal actions, as opposed to the protective relationship it has towards the persons referred to in the leaked documents.

The criticism is based on striking data that show that just during the rule of Obama, the “whistle-blowers” received prison sentences of 751 months. Among them are Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and there is still an active warrant against Julian Assange. For comparison, in the rule of all previous US presidents, the “whistleblowers” received a total sentence of 24 months. These people are treated as spies and enemies of the state and are being tried under the Espionage Act of 1917.

On the other hand, the persons referred to in leaked documents in relation to illegal wiretapping and torture of suspected terrorist, so far have not answered for any case. In other words, the United States granted amnesty to suspects and found the messengers guilty. What the US President regards as policy for national security protection, here it is interpreted as a regime policy and deprivation of democratic rights.

Therefore, the negotiators, those that are convincing us that they do all this in the interest of the state and the mediators, those who claim that Macedonia must respect the principles of Western democracy, have to clarify a few dilemmas to the public:

  • Will the legal solutions that are negotiated in Przino, including the whistleblower law allow Macedonia to implement democracy as nurtured in the other Western countries or special rules, with special laws and special prosecutors will apply for us in this case ?
  • Will the state institutions have the right to protect the citizens and defend the sovereignty of both internal and external spies or intelligence and counterintelligence will be under full control of diplomats and foreign embassies?
  • Will the citizens be allowed to learn the whole truth about the “Coup”case and the background of the wiretapping, or the public will only get information through the installations of Zaev’s Soros media and through the announcements of foreign embassies?
  • Will Macedonia be the first country to legalize illegal wiretapping and to grant amnesty in advance to all those who in the future will intend to endanger the security of the state in a similar way, we will learn after the negotiations are over. Then we will know whether and in what form the republishing of the wiretapped conversations that Zaev owns will be banned.

In relation to that, it would be interesting to fin out whether the opposition leader, who has publicly defended the journalists and promised not to allow any one of them to go to jail for the published bombs, at the negotiating table he made a request to abolish prison sentences for journalists who dared to publish materials and documents for lustrated snitches.