#sorry for the jstor length rant but there you go! hahaha

[zingaplanet]

While I am personally horrified by the people Djokovic has associated with I am not sure I would call someone who often talks about peace and the need for education (and seemingly puts money into it too, if you don't trust his words) a genocide supporter? I have seen people from his home country and the neighbouring countries (on different sides of the war in question) express very different opinions on whether his actions are problematic or not. Can you share on what basis you formed that opinion? (which you are obviously entitled to, I'm just curious)

Hi! Yes of course, I actually like genuine scientific inquiries like this, I’ll do my best to answer it (and I’m going to answer this seriously because genocide is a serious topic). This is going to be a long answer, perhaps even separated into several posts (and i'm going to treat this like a scientific research cos i'm bored lol sorry), so bear with me. Now before I start, I’d like to point out that I don’t have a background in psychology, that being said I can’t scientifically prove nor deny whether certain words/actions indicate his support on the genocide in absolute (unless he explicitly said it on record) but I did my master’s research on genocide and have studied to a certain extent the Srebrenica massacre and I'm going to approach this from a political science perspective.

Let me start by saying that I am also not Slavic in any sense, thus resources available to me are those written not in the native tongue of their primary sources. But even in the most rigorous scientific research, you can never fully eliminate researcher’s socio-cultural bias, and for specific emotionally sensitive topic such as genocide, a third-party perspective is sometimes more beneficial for a detached overview free of personal affiliations.

Firstly, what you’re saying about Djokovic’s explicit statement about peace is to a large extent correct. For instance, he has publicly appeared in the UN General Assembly (the only tennis player to do so), to condemn the US military strikes against Syria (see here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennis-open-djokovic-syria-idUSBRE98101W20130902). He even said, on the record, “I’m totally against any kind of weapon, any kind of air strike, missile attack”.

The reason I was willing to give him the benefit of a doubt (as we should actually always do to every person) is to go beyond what he explicitly has been seen as consciously doing (such as making statements on the record or public actions that can be picked up or traced by media). And this is because, public figures very very rarely actually tells the truth unprompted about sensitive political issues that are PERSONAL to them or that they are involved in (Hannah Arendt wrote a book about this! Called On Lying and Politics, it’s awesome check it out). To put it simply, it’s survival instincts and self-protection. This is why in political science we rarely ever found what is called the “smoking gun evidence” (this came from old detective stories where detectives actually found a gun that is “smoking” meaning it’s just been shot and behind the barrel, voila the undisputed murderer!), or the indefinite, absolute proof of someone doing something. You also cannot treat a statement that the suspected person CONSCIOUSLY made in presence of the public media (as in the case of his statements on the war in Syria) as indefinite grounds for his stance as they can very easily be pre-empted.

In political research, what we mostly found is non-definite, guiding evidences (called “straw in the winds”, "hoops", and other very pretentious terminologies if you wanna get technical lol see here) especially if it concerns very sensitive closed-door matters such as genocide. But I mention this because, if you find enough of these evidences, methodologists say that they can in a way substitute as strong enough convictions combined together (this of course needs more rigorous tests unapplicable here but the general logic is applicable everywhere, the method is called process tracing).

Now the reason this whole controversy about Djokovic started was because people simply started stalking him for his extreme nationalist political views. Now everyone is of course entitled to their own political beliefs and it is not my intention to go into a moral debate on the idea of nationalism itself (this is actually a branch of political philosophy that is still highly debated). But there is solid, ground evidence that political ideologies that are too extreme (left or right) induced dangerous policies threatening to human rights. One of the most prominent examples is far-right nationalism (or ultranationalism). The rise of this in 1940s triggered fascism with notions such as racial supremacy in WW2. Now, without going into detail into the history of Yugoslavia or the Bosnian war, political scientists have noted the rise of fascism in post-yugoslavian states. Far-right parties took power most notably in the newly formed Republic of Serbia. Far-right organizations also acted as paramilitaries and they committed crimes of humanities during the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. 

Now Djokovic was very little when the war occured and was only 8 when Srebrenica happened, how is it possible that he might show support or be associated with it? This is because the prosecution of war crimes in the Yugoslav wars didn’t happen until much later, and the political tension in the region hasn’t actually been fully resolved until now. That is to say, as you rightly state, the region itself is INCREDIBLY divided, with talks of race and ethnicity often a taboo, and genocide deniers are not hard to find, and far-right ideologies are still prominent in Serbia until now. And Djokovic, unfortunately, has demonstrated a lot of credible signs over the year (mostly unconsciously when he’s out of the public eye or actions that would not be understood widely outside of his region) that he is leaning towards this ultra-nationalist ideology and this far-right group.

First point of evidence is his clear stance on the Kosovo war (which is part of the larger Yugoslav war). After larger protests broke out in Belgrade over Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008, Djokovic famously recorded a video saying “We are prepared to defend what is rightfully ours. Kosovo is Serbia.” After the Serbian national team won the ATP Cup in 2020, Djokovic, together with his teammates, sang nationalist songs, including “Vidovdan” — a common tune about Kosovo that featured prominently during the wars of the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

The Kosovo war is highly controversial but it was initially started as an insurgency movement to fight the Serbian prosecution of Kosovo Albanians (With around 9000 kosovar Albanians missing and 900,000 displaced during the war). Serbia never fully recognised Kosovo’s independence. In 2001 a Supreme Court, based in Kosovo and administered by the United Nations, found that there had been "a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments", it was also a significant example of repressive Serbian ultranationalism. Asked in 2011 whether he regretted his actions, Djokovic told German magazine Der Spiegel “it is the birthplace of my family and, indeed, of Serbian culture itself.”

At the time, his father Srđan came to his defence with a controversial statement. “Novak is a nationalist, of course, and so am I,” 

There is thus no doubt that he is a fervent nationalist, but is he really an ultranationalist to the extent of tolerance towards mass killings in the name of his country? As I said, there has never been explicit statements, but there are enough background evidences that can point us in the right direction.

Now onto those people he was 'photographed with'. In 2021, Djokovic found himself criticised for his visit to Bosnia after photographs surfaced of his meeting with a commander Milan Jolovic of the “Drina Volves”, a unit that took part in the 1995 Srebrenica genocide where more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were summarily executed for their nominal Muslim faith. Jolovic has never been convicted of a war crime but he actually earned his nickname "The Legend" saving the life of former war criminal Ratko Mladic. In 2017, Mladic was convicted of war crimes and genocide (along with the Drina Volves) by independent international courts for his time as a commander in the Bosnian war during the 1990s.

The Drina Volves and the figures mentioned are prominent public personas in Serbia, their accolades and the international court ruling are available out in the open and well-known.

Secondly, far more convicting than being photographed together, Djokovic was reported and recorded associating, singing, and dancing alongside Milorad Dodik at the wedding of Nemanja Majdov, the Serbian athlete. Dodik is former chairman of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and a well-known genocide denier in Serbia. He has publicly and widely been known to described the Srebrenica massacre as a "fabricated myth".

Bear in mind that Djokovic was not under scrutiny for simply being "in the same event" or even "in the same room", he also wasn't "photographed with" in the loose sense of merely standing side by side by chance as tabloid media often likes to exaggerate. He was recorded and photographed in action of INTERACTING with them (e.g., the photograph was taken on what was clearly a discussion in a civil dining table) which he chose to do so freely.

The third and perhaps most indicative notion of his stance on the genocide is his acceptance and public posting by himself on the pride he has in receiving the award of the order of the Republika Srpska, the highest order given by the region. Now bear in mind that the Republika Srpska is a separate entity from Serbia and is instead a predominantly Serbian region inside Bosnia and Herzegovina that housed most of the Serbs migrating from the Bosnian war after the Croatian and Bosnian massacres.

The problem was that this award has ONLY ever been given to those considered to have significantly contributed to progressing Serbian nationalism, and unfortunately this means 80% of the recipients are party to the war. Amongst others they include CONVICTED genocidaires Slobodan Milošević,  Ratko Mladić, Radovan Karadžić. Even its most progressive recent recipient Ana Brnabić, PM of Serbia since 2017 and the first OPENLY GAY woman to hold the office has consistently denied Srebrenica as genocide. This award ceremony is a big PUBLIC event, and its recipients are not in any way closeted.

Although there is always the benefit of a doubt that Djokovic as a public figure is simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, that he was ignorant of all this historical background, this seems incredibly far-fetched, if not impossible. It is difficult to imagine that someone from the region (especially one who grew up DURING the war), and who regularly travels and has access to international media, unless they CONSCIOUSLY choose to be misled over skewed historical information, does not know about this. Most of the war convictions were common knowledge, widely reported, and certainly something that people in the region would have heard about. The more plausible explanation is (as is the case with many ultranationalist party arguments at the moment), that possessing the knowledge, he CONSCIOUSLY chose not to believe or agree with it (either the conviction or the views over the mass atrocities during the war).

I admit that I might have used the word “supporter” liberally, but the repeat of association also supports the explanation that Djokovic did in fact at the very least TOLERATE or ACCEPT the mass atrocities committed as unproblematic, enough to repeatedly associate himself with the companies mentioned. As mentioned, a collated group of un-explicit, “straw in the wind” or “hoops” evidence that point to the same direction is relatively conclusive enough to determine his stance.

Here are the known facts: He's a self-identified fervent nationalist in support of far-right nationalist ideas, he chose to associate with the genocidaires repeatedly AND without showing remorse nor response towards the very public media criticism. If we go further by the plausible assumption (after eliminating the less likely presumption that he doesn't know anything about the people he chose to associate with), his acceptance of the award and clear pride of it can even indicate a conscious acceptance to be honoured in the same name as those he considered worthy of honouring, which sadly in this context are mostly genocide deniers and war criminals. This all builds up towards his "loose" moral stance on the genocide at least in the name of his nationalistic beliefs.

After this, judgment is left to each person’s moral compass but personally for me, in the face of atrocities as horrible as genocide, where human beings are treated like numbered animals to be slaughtered for “the greater purpose”, no matter what this century’s chosen purpose is, there is NO neutral stance, because silence or not condemning is equal to allowing these people to die.

Of course, this argument is in no way seeking to oversimplify the intensely complex conflict in the Balkan regions nor to deny the genocide that has occurred towards the Serbians during Ustashe regime. But condemning one genocide does not mean delegitimising another.

All I’m saying is, one should simply not assume that a certain person’s attitude towards a certain aspect of a larger issue (such as peace and human rights) implies a similar one to all other parts of the issue. Just like Djokovic’s stance on Srebrenica and the Bosnian war shouldn’t automatically denote him a peace-hating person, I think we should give him a much larger benefit of a doubt that his public statements and actions do not automatically cleanse him of his controversial views in genocide denial and ultranationalism, and even more possibly, taking into account the evidences, of his support for them.

Now I can’t put link sources to every single thing that I said here but if you are curious about any of them send me an ask and I’ll give you the source. Sorry for the long answer, but there you go!