Jankuloska: SDSM views almost identical to Greek views
The Minister for Interior Affairs, Gordana Jankulovska in the interview for Republic speaks about all challenges during her seven years as Minister in this sector, which face with a number of challenges from security and political background. In her mandate were organized several police raids to crack down the serious organized crime groups, while her work was constantly exposed to criticism from the opposition, as is the case with the last major intervention of the Ministry for Interior Affairs conducted under the operational name “Spy”.
Last week you realized major action to crack the network that dealt with espionage and selling state secrets to foreign services. SDSM accused you that the action “Spy” you use exclusively for political manipulation. You assessed their attitudes as identical with those coming from one of our neighbors. Do you think that the criticism from the opposition are harmful to the state and national interests and why?
Jankulovska: The denial and destruction of the institution’s reputation is not, nor it can be useful for the country. They neither belong to VMRO nor to SDSM and it is absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable that opposition’s behavior. It is absurd to think at all, to try to make hay while the sun shines at the expense of the state and institutions. It is a shame to devalue professionals in the police, prosecution, or court that acted in these cases. I am sure that this behavior is not in favor of SDSM because people already seven times in a row they sent clear message that the destructive policies they promote are not acceptable. You have to be extremely desperate to go with head through the wall if you cannot read those messages. Therefore the question arises who benefits from such outbursts of SDSM. Why they feel the need to criticize the action and come out with names of persons before the police ever said anything? In terms of matching public appearances SDSM and those of our southern neighbor, I can only confirm that it is not assessment, but it is notorious fact. The views that SDSM come out are almost identical to those published in “Kathimerini”, where are the cited the sources from the Greek government. It can be easily checked by anyone. As your colleagues informed, “Kathimerini” in the text even quoted the view of SDSM as confirmation for the suspicion of the Greek government for the action justification.
What are the consequences of the actions of the group to “Spy” over the security system of the Republic of Macedonia? Whether the involved in the “Spy” had access to the lists of Macedonian operatives and if they were able to provide information that put Macedonia in a long-term defensive position?
Jankulovska : Macedonia on short and long term was placed in a defensive position if the institutions hadn’t done their job and if let this spy network to continue working. After all, it is not in vain that our Criminal Law predicted high sentences for crime espionage. I do not think anyone can predict right now what consequences for Macedonia would have been if the case group was not revealed and who and what for might have misused the information provided by the members of this group. Our Laws for handling classified information is fully compliant with the legislation of the countries that are members of the EU and NATO. It accurately predicts when, how and why you may need to place certain level of classification over information. It accurately explains who are the people and on which way they should treat such information. Such standards at home and abroad are not included due to someone’s whim, but because of security needs. It is fact that no matter how much you adhere to standards, always occur individuals or groups that at the expense of the state will try to make profit. The similar situation was found at our partners, the U.S. from where leaked classified information. The strength of the system and the state is noticed in your capacity to fight with these risks, and we have shown that we are ready for it.
On the one hand, the opposition alleged that the action was amateur, and on the other, if the indictment was served, you were guilty you are allowed smooth reveal of the state secrets for two years, while the investigation lasted. What is your comment on these allegations?
Jankulovska : Do you or any citizen sees any logic in these manipulations and accusations? Such political stumbling and one statement in the morning and another at night, show that SDSM is in heavy knock down. But speaking with sports terms, the time runs. Whether they will suffer another knockout or will be reformed and will try to return remains open. So far, only one thing is sure, that new-old leadership is already seen clueless option. How can they know if the operation was amateur and if there are evidences? How they can know who is guilty and for what when the formal judicial investigation has not started yet? With a look at the biography of the first suspect, or the organizer of the network “Spy” you can notice progress his career in the security services. In 2000 he was dismissed, and in 2004 was again returned to work. His progress starts right in 2004, and in 2007 he reached the position of Adviser in the Director’s Office. Intelligence Agency is in the authority of the President. We know who was president in 2000 and who was in 2004. In 2009, the first suspect gets fired again after without the knowledge and approval of his superiors traveled to a neighboring country. It would be frivolous to go down to the level of SDSM, but the general impression is that this case causes an inexplicable anxiety, which cannot be excluded as motive for their confusion and disorientation.
Although in the past on several occasions were spill state secrets even from politicians, this is first time to arrest suspected for espionage crime. Some experts see it as a positive, but argue that it is very difficult to prove. Does MIA have sufficient evidence to prove that the arrested people were selling state secrets to neighboring countries?
Jankulovska : The court evaluate the evidence. If there is, enough evidence or not they will determine during the procedure. What we can say at this point is that in these two years we acted extremely carefully and professionally. There were dozens of operatives involved in all phases of the action. It is always very difficult when on the opposite side you have people from the security structures that also know the procedures for operation of Institutions. Some cases have been documented before, but for purposes of completing all activities, we decided not to disclose details to the public. We were in constant coordination with the prosecution. After the search, was seized huge documentation. I can express my delight that it confirmed our grounds for suspicion of criminal acts they put the burden on suspects, although so far only the analysis of the seized materials is finished. They are valuable for the services. What is more important is that the Prosecutor accepted the application and submitted evidence and submits the request to the court to begin with an investigation. Basic Court Skopje 1 accepted the request, examined the suspects, and issued a detention.
