Serbian journalist Vera Didanović has condemned Minister Snezhana Paunović’s statement as a reflection of a much deeper problem within Serbia’s political establishment, arguing that it was not a simple “mistake” or a careless remark, but a clear expression of the nationalist mindset that continues to influence Serbian politics.
In her article published by Radar titled “Where Shame Lives – The Minister Calls for Ethnic Cleansing,” Didanović argues that the biggest shame is not only Paunović’s words, but the fact that the Serbian government chose to defend her instead of condemning a statement that openly refers to ethnic cleansing.
She points out that the support Paunović received from Ivica Dačić, leader of the Socialist Party of Serbia and deputy prime minister, proves that this rhetoric is not an isolated incident but part of a political environment where the legacy of Slobodan Milošević’s era continues to be tolerated and protected.
According to Didanović, Paunović’s statement — that she would have “ethnically cleansed Kosovo” in 1998 if she had been in Milošević’s position — should not be dismissed as a personal failure or a political slip. It represents a dangerous normalization of ideas that caused wars, suffering, mass killings, and the displacement of thousands of people in the Balkans.
She notes that despite international condemnation and calls for her dismissal, Paunović refused to distance herself from her words. Instead, she defended the policies of the Socialist Party of Serbia, the same party that ruled Serbia during Milošević’s years, while Dačić attacked those criticizing her as “shameful and hypocritical.”
Didanović also highlights that the European Commission warned that such rhetoric has no place in Europe, yet Serbia’s leadership has chosen silence or justification instead of accountability.
According to the journalist, Dačić’s defense of Paunović was not accidental. It was a political tactic designed to shift attention away from Serbia’s responsibility and replace accountability with narratives about Serbian victimhood.
She concludes that Paunović, Dačić, and Vučić understand exactly what such statements represent, but they believe they can use nationalist rhetoric for political gain without consequences. The danger, she warns, is that society pays the price when politicians revive the language of hatred and ethnic division.
