|
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia held
the expert workshop entitled “Regional Reconciliation: Achievements and
Problems“ on February 5, 2016 in Belgrade. The workshop assembled
representatives of civil society organizations and activists from the
Western Balkan countries, Norway, Ukraine, Moldova, Switzerland, as well
as OSCE Mission to Serbia, academic community and the media.
Participants discussed the progress in regional
reconciliation and dealing with the past in the countries emerging from
the former Yugoslavia, factors which hamper these processes, as well as
the role of various actors in regional reconciliation, such as
governmental institutions, political elites, civil society
organizations, academic community, citizens, etc. Participants also
examined the role of international institutions – particularly the Hague
Tribunal and EU institutions – in the process of regional reconciliation
in the Western Balkans. Regional reconciliation is slow, concluded the
participants, given that 20 years after disintegration of Yugoslavia far
less has been achieved than it should have been. They also concluded
that societies in the region were not prepared to deal with the past in
a decisive and mature way. Most participants believe that ruling
political elites can crucially contribute to reconciliation, but they
neither have legitimacy, nor capacity for effectuating genuine and
lasting reconciliation in the ex-Yugoslav territory. Therefore, the
process requires broader participation of civil society organizations,
academic community, young people and other groups of citizens.
Chairwoman of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
in Serbia Sonja Biserko highlighted that dealing with the past is a
trans-generational process. Moreover, she said, “We are witnessing
regression in the region. All the newly established states are
undergoing complex transformation, but their consolidation remains
incomplete. Transition in most of them was more or less unsuccessful,
and local societies have still not begun adopting new values. From this
perspective we should also mention new national-identity building and
its both internal and external components. Unfortunately, these newly
forged identities only raise regional tensions, for they embrace
narratives and stereotypes that deepen mutual misunderstanding.”
Speaking about Serbia, Biserko noted “Perception of the recent past
should be based on exact and proven facts irrespective of whether they
are pleasant or not.” “At the same time dealing with the past indicates
the level of the maturity of the Serbian society and its willingness to
accept certain civilizational values. We can only recover from our
trauma if we understand the past” she concluded.
Historian Hrvoje Klasić said, “Most people,
unfortunately, are increasingly ignoring the segments of the past they
dislike and emphasizing the segments that suit them instead.” “History
is the teacher of life, but we are very poor students. However, we need
to give thought to some developments in the past. For instance, we can
compare the war in Croatia and in Europe in 1939-45 and subsequently
compare the state of affairs between former Yugoslav republics and
Europe some 20 years later. What were the relations between Germany and
France in 1965 and the relations between Croatia and Serbia in 2015? So
you can see for yourselves how much have we accomplished.”
Historian Milivoj Bešlin noted that in underdeveloped
states, like the ones in the Balkans, the historiography still serves a
pragmatic function of fostering and homogenizing national identities as
well as formulating the political nationalistic ideologies. “Therefore,
the struggle for interpretation of the wars in the1990s, which we will
inevitably face, is to be a ‘struggle for history’, namely a struggle
for rational and critical thinking in a society which needs to distance
itself from the policy of greatpowerness, ethnic cleansings, crimes and
genocide,” Bešlin concluded.
Psychologist Žarko Korać argues that people are
reluctant to face the crimes and other acts that were done in the name
of their nation or on their behalf: “This reluctance is very consistent
and significant. It is only a conscious effort of political and
intellectual elites that may change the situation and make dealing with
the past possible. Regrettably, we who appeal for actions are seen as
acting against human nature and that makes us rather unpopular.”
Director of the Centre for Cultural Decontamination
Borka Pavićević pointed out the necessity of establishing the culture of
peace and added, “There can be no fruitful return to a normal human
condition while people with war experience are in power in Bosnia,
Croatia and Serbia.”
As for Professor Obrad Savić, he thinks that
“reconciliation as a normative and political task of a future democratic
state cannot be attained with the capacity of warring ethnicities.”
The workshop was organized with the support of the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Open Society Foundation
(OSF).
GALLERY::: |
