As Ursula von der Leyen selected individuals to serve in her new College, Slovenia surprised many when Marta Kos was nominated as a Commissioner. Kos faced backlash over her alleged involvement with the former Yugoslav secret service, UDBA. Critics raised concerns about her lack of experience and potential affiliation with a controversial agency. However, historians argue that UDBA, and its successor agencies, were not uncommon in comparison to other security agencies globally at the time. The agency played a pivotal role in safeguarding Yugoslavia from internal and external threats during the Cold War era.
Yugoslavia’s UDBA was tasked with preventing disruptions to the socialist regime, often resorting to covert actions against those deemed a threat to the state. The agency had a significant influence in neutralising potential sources of unrest, both internally and externally. Following a decentralisation in the 1960s, the State Security Service collaborated with various global actors, including Mossad and terrorist organisations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. UDBA’s operations extended to neighbouring countries, potentially influencing events like Italy’s “Years of Lead” and engaging with groups like the Red Brigades.
Hrvoje Klasić, a Croatian historian, emphasises that UDBA’s activities were not unique, as many countries during the Cold War employed similar tactics. The agency’s involvement in extraterritorial executions of nationalist diaspora and Nazi collaborators highlights its uncompromising approach towards preserving the Yugoslav regime’s grip on power. These actions, though controversial, were seen as necessary measures to protect the country’s constitutional order. UDBA’s operations were not limited to traditional espionage but also extended to activities like sports security during the 1984 Winter Olympics.
Determining who worked for UDBA is a complex task due to the agency’s classification of informants, which included individuals from various sectors. Klasić explains that even innocent conversations were logged as “information,” potentially leading to misconstrued affiliations with the secret service. The difficulty in differentiating between genuine agents and ordinary citizens interviewed by UDBA complicates the assessment of past associations. In Kos’ case, allegations of ties to UDBA might be politically motivated rather than reflective of genuine security risks.
The concept of lustration, the questioning and removal of officials associated with a controversial political past, poses challenges in post-Yugoslav societies. Croatia, for instance, grapples with the dilemma of how to address individuals who served in security agencies during the socialist era but later participated in defending the country during the war of independence. The blurred lines between past affiliations and current contributions make lustration a contentious issue in the region. While concern over ties to former spy agencies persists, the broader context of individual experiences and contributions complicates efforts to address historical associations.
Overall, the controversy surrounding Marta Kos’ nomination underscores the complexities of addressing past political affiliations in post-socialist European countries. The legacy of agencies like UDBA continues to influence public perceptions and political debates, highlighting the ongoing struggle to reconcile historical narratives with present-day responsibilities. The case of Kos serves as a reminder of the enduring impact of Cold War security apparatuses on contemporary political landscapes and the challenges of navigating complex legacies in a rapidly evolving European Union.