The Centre for Civic Education (CCE) stands by all the statements made in its press release concerning the guest lectures by Russian professors Ekaterina Entina and Mark Entin at the Historical Institute of the University of Montenegro (UoM), including its description of the content of the lectures, the substance of the views expressed and the atmosphere at the event. The photographs published by CCE accurately depict the event attended by our representative, and CCE also possesses other material that can substantiate its statements. CCE also stands by the information available to it that the Director of the Institute was aware of the nature and background of the visit and knowingly participated in its organisation.
It is therefore unusual that Radenko Šćekić, Director of the Historical Institute, instead of answering the questions of public interest raised by this case, is questioning the presence of the CCE representative, describing him as “uninvited”, as well as objecting to the photographing and recording of the event.
The event was neither closed to the public nor presented as an internal meeting for a predetermined group of people. On the contrary, these were guest lectures held at a public academic institution, information about which was available to the interested public, while numerous individuals also received direct invitations but did not attend. It is therefore unacceptable for the director of an organisational unit of a public university to retrospectively portray interested members of the public, including the CCE representative, as “uninvited” simply because they asked questions that were evidently uncomfortable for the organisers.
Moreover, since when has photographing or documenting an open academic event on the premises of a public university been impermissible in itself? If Šćekić believes that a specific regulation was violated, we expect him to identify it precisely, rather than divert attention from the substance of the event through untenable characterisations. CCE has no objection to the legality of anyone’s conduct being examined, but we expect the conduct of the Institute’s leadership to be examined with the same degree of seriousness.
Unfortunately, the atmosphere witnessed by our representative was also far removed from what is customary in an academic setting. Our colleague Ivan Kašćelan, who completed part of his education in the Czech Republic, Poland and the Netherlands, alongside numerous additional programmes and specialisations, has attended a wide range of academic events in Montenegro and abroad, but never a lecture at which rakija was being consumed and toasts were made during the presentations. It was precisely this atmosphere that caused his astonishment. When he pointed out that the room needed to be aired because of the strong smell of rakija, he was told that, if it bothered him, he should leave the event, which he did.
However, notwithstanding all the “colourfulness” of the event, the core issue is the Gorchakov Fund. Šćekić confirmed to Pobjeda that the Historical Institute had previously cooperated with the Fund. At the same time, he did not dispute CCE’s statement that, during this event, he responded positively to a new offer of cooperation made by Ekaterina Entina. We recall that the Gorchakov Fund has been subject to EU restrictive measures since July 2022 and that Entina serves as an adviser to the Fund’s Director.
CCE also stands by the information available to it that the Director of the Institute was aware of the nature and background of this visit and knowingly participated in its organisation. We expect the documentation and communications preceding the event to be made public: who initiated the visit, who communicated with and invited the guests, who financed their travel and stay, when the Institute’s leadership became aware of their institutional links with the Gorchakov Fund, and what form of cooperation with the Fund was being considered.
Šćekić claims that he reacted to political messages expressed during the event and pointed out that they had no place at the Institute. CCE states unequivocally that no such reaction to the controversial messages witnessed by our representative took place, particularly regarding the use of the concept of the “Serbian World” and the statement by one attendee that “the Serbian World is part of the Historical Institute”, which none of those present challenged. On the other hand, our colleague’s attempt to raise concerns about cooperation with an organisation under EU sanctions and individuals close to the Russian regime prompted a reaction from Director Šćekić, who warned him not to “bring politics” into the event.
It is important to emphasise that this is a matter of accountability for a university funded by the citizens of Montenegro. UoM Rector Vladimir Božović must therefore explain how an event can be organised at a UoM organisational unit at which political narratives close to official Moscow are promoted and cooperation with a fund under EU sanctions is announced, while the civil society organisation that attended the event and asked questions is being presented as the problem.
Sara Čabarkapa, Coordinator of the Active Citizenship Programme