The breakup of the Yugoslav Federation was an historic event with many, often horrific, consequences. Some European politicians wanted to stop the dissolution of the state in the Southeast of Europe. Some, on the other hand, supported it, especially those who were eager to see the Serb influence reduced. I saw it pragmatically. The diverging forces inside the country were obviously too strong and the forces to keep the country together too authoritarian and undemocratic to enable a continuation of Yugoslavia. The wars following the dissolution demonstrated this clearly. Thirty years on, people who have been involved in those events, along with younger generations, should use the opportunity to discuss in a more detached way what happened during and after the dissolution. To foster this conversation, the IIP has launched a series of interviews and discussions that explore possibilities and conditions for reconciliation in the region. In this context, reconciliation is understood not so much as a formal procedure but as a „way of life“, as was put by Vesna Pusic – a Croatian political leader and one of respondents in our interview series.
Forgetting and remembering
Thirty years after the breakup of Yugoslavia a new dynamic for reconciliation is needed. Any nation-building process requires a great deal of forgetting, as Ernest Renan once said. The crimes of the “other side” are well remembered, but one’s own crimes are easily forgotten. That concerns not only the crimes committed by states, but also those carried out by representatives of different ethnic communities inside countries. Naturally, ignoring one’s own misdeeds is not helpful for reconciliation.
The Balkans serve as an example of this one-sidedness in remembering. However, it would be totally wrong to say that this attitude is typical only for this region. Unfortunately, there are many similar cases all over the world. It suffices to look at Northern Ireland and Catalonia to see the still incomplete process of reconciliation in Western Europe itself. For this reason and considering Western Europe’s colonial past and crimes it committed on the colonized territories, the West should be cautious in the way it promotes democracy, human rights and reconciliation in other countries today.
Nevertheless, the commemoration of the breakup of Yugoslavia can serve as an occasion to give reconciliation a new start. Reconciliation is hardly possible without justice. Justice does not mean revenge, but clarification of guilt and responsibility. It is unacceptable to leave the crimes committed in the name of national governments and ethnic groups unprosecuted. As there was too much hesitation and even strong resistance to look for justice inside the countries, the international community established an international justice system. Naturally, other problems arise when justice is imposed from the outside. But there was no other way to do it.
Personal experience
My first official acquaintance with a newly founded country after the breakdown of Yugoslavia was with Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the 1000th day of the siege of Sarajevo by Serb/Yugoslav military forces I could bring some financial support from the city of Vienna. On this occasion, I met with several people – many younger ones among them – who were extremely concerned about the threat to their lives. Nevertheless, I saw not so much hatred, but rather disbelief that the horrors they were living through had been brought about by their brothers from another ethnic group. Sarajevo was often seen as the example of peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups and religious beliefs. It was also often compared to Jerusalem. But as the recent events in Jerusalem demonstrate, the mere coexistence of different temples in one city is no guarantee for understanding and peace. Political and religious fanatics are always interested in disturbing peace with a risk of starting a war. Fascinating as it is to walk through Sarajevo, it shows also the fragility of peace and mutual acceptance.
During my years in the European Parliament, I visited all the countries in the Western Balkans several times - mostly together with MEPs from other political groups. Beyond our party-political allegiance, we tried to motivate political representatives of these countries to work together on reconstituting their countries and taking up the way towards the European Union in cooperation with each other. Sometimes we were successful, but especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina we were confronted with a lot of resistance. Nevertheless, in relation to the war and the atrocities during the times after the breakup of Yugoslavia many things have changed. Probably we were too demanding and not recognizing that reconciliation needs time. We must realize that forces of reconciliation and of division, disunity and hatred live together, it is always a question of who will be dominant. Extreme forces will not stop trying to win the struggle between the future and the past.
Looking for a new way of life.
As mentioned before, reconciliation is not so much an event or process but rather a way of life. At least it should be understood that way. Such a way of life also includes a respectful relationship between majorities and minorities. But this relationship is of special character in many countries. Interestingly, I saw that minority representatives, which were clearly discriminated against and suffered for many years, were themselves discriminating the members of the former majority when it became a minority. This was visible especially in Kosovo. Perhaps, this behavior can be explained as a reaction to the lack of recognition of crimes and discrimination committed by the (Serb) majority. However, even as I found such phenomenon in Kosovo and also in Croatia, I have also seen many people who from the beginning on were openly pleading for reconciliation and who tried to stop the cycle of discrimination and hatred.
Any thorough and long-lasting reconciliation requires justice and recognition of one’s own crimes. Justice can be brought about through the legal system or by truth commissions as it happened in South Africa. Unfortunately, justice is often seen as an attack on the whole people and state that the perpetrators come from. Nationalists use judicial proceedings of war criminals – who they regard as heroes – to claim that the whole country is being put on trial.
As one can see in several cases, where the persecution of crimes has not been an important part of reconciliation, the forgotten conflicts reemerge. Spain is a good example of that. In addition, the lively and antagonistic discussion about colonialism is a proof that certain historic events can be hidden for some time and overshadowed by nationalism and supremacy, but this cannot last forever.
With all respect to justice, one should not forget other elements which could also promote reconciliation. In the recent past, we saw a great deal of solidarity and help across the borders in the Western Balkans. During earthquakes, floods and the Covid-19 pandemic new ways of helping each other became visible. They showed that the past can be substituted by a new future where mutual support is stronger than animosity. But these tender signs of support must be strengthened. And here comes a big task for the European Union that has not yet been fully grasped and realized.
The European Union and the Western Balkans
For the EU, the dissolution of Yugoslavia came unexpectedly and caught the Union unprepared. It had problems to come to a common position on Kosovo’s independence that is not yet recognized by all member states. Only two countries of former Yugoslavia became members of the EU: Slovenia and Croatia. I supported Croatian membership as the Rapporteur of the EU Parliament on this country. The antagonism and disputes among the countries and ethnic groups of former Yugoslavia was always of great concern to EU member states and institutions. Albania became part of this concern due to many Albanians living in Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro etc. These concerns came in addition to Albania’s internal divisions and quarrels.
Many NGOs were also active and tried to help those who were interested in reconciliation. One of them, the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe (CDRSEE) in Thessaloniki brought together historians from across the region in order to develop history textbooks which shed a different light on the region’s past. Unfortunately, the CDRSEE’s funding from private donors and the European Commission had been substantially reduced. Therefore, as the chairman of its board – I had to close the Center. The CDRSEE’s closure indicates the EU’s decreased interest in a long-term support for reconciliation in the region.
The basic problem is that most of those who were involved in reconciliation activities were already convinced of their necessity while reaching out to the uninterested or opposing actors had proven difficult. However, educating the young is still an important element of any reconciliation effort. In history education one must insist on the possibility of seeing events from different perspectives. This is not to relativize facts and see each perspective as equally correct and true. But reconciliation must start with knowing and - at least at the beginning of a dialogue - accepting different perceptions and interpretations of facts. After that, a fruitful discussion can start.
After all, there is no reason to despair. One should not forget, that in the case of the Yugoslav wars there were no clear winners and losers. Therefore, nobody could enforce a process of “purification” on the “guilty” countries, as it was the case with Germany and – unfortunately, to a lesser intent – with Austria. The European Union should choose a way between negligence and over-ambition. It should recognize the long-term steps that are necessary and give incentives. The IIP as an institute interested in peace and reconciliation want to make our - even if small - contribution to a new way of life which is not only needed in the Western Balkans.
Whatever efforts we undertake, we must stay realistic and lead the fight in the whole Europe. As different opinion polls show, in most European countries - inside the EU and beyond - the support for autocratic leaders is growing – however, in parallel to support for democracy. Therefore, we see again very contradictory attitudes. The strong support for authoritarian leaders and the strong sympathy for President Putin and for China is also not helping to overcome internal divisions and reconciliation. Authoritarian leaders are promoting nationalism and not reconciliation - unless it serves their immediate interest. A special example was Russia’s fight against the Prespa Agreement between Macedonia and Greece on the name issue. In Macedonia Russians argued that to change its name to North Macedonia would be clearly against Macedonian interests and give one-sided benefits to Greece. In Greece, Russian representatives were saying the agreement would violate Greek interests. In this case Russia was not highly successful. But Russia and recently also China have been increasingly active in using the social media for influencing public opinion. From the European side, a comprehensive social media strategy to promote reconciliation as a way of life is still missing.
Picture: Thierry Figini
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.