What
is Done of Research on Nonviolent Actions Regarding the Balkans in Recent
Years?
By Ivica Djordjevic
Causes of the Balkan Crisis: Cultural
Conflicts or Something Else?
The concepts of democratisation
and system of government defined within the framework of the dominant western
social paradigm neglected the local features of other parts of the world.
International factors were not able to understand the Balkan problem, they
undertook inadequate steps and, instead of calming the situation down, they
even more incited the destructive and separatist ambitions of all the parties.
Why didn’t they use the potential of those groups that advocated nonviolent
resolution of the conflict? It has remained the question difficult to answer
and not enter the sphere of speculation. The real answer demands overall and
comprehensive research which would comprise all the relevant variables - participants
in the events in the Balkan area.
The interests of the developed
West, socialist East Block and former Balkan conquerors came into conflict in
the Balkan area. Each of the interested parties had its stronghold in some of
the social groups in this area. Religious differences were used as the most
fertile ground for causing bad blood. The struggle to win over the flock was
very dirty, and the other two parties were accused of causing all the troubles.
The struggle for people’s souls was not in accordance with religious canons, it
even directly negated some principal religious postulates in these areas. Such
assumptions that we were the only victims, and the others criminals, as well as
the unsettled old scores from World War II brought us to the dangerous opinion
that the time had come to settle the old scores. Its beginning was at the
sports events with fans' skirmishing incited by national affiliation. This was
extended to companies where personnel policy was based not on professional
qualities but on national criteria. Such a situation reached its culmination in
assemblies where minority discrimination was omnipresent phenomenon. National
élites were in the service of political personnel managers who took care, first
of all, of their personal existence on the political stage. There was no
awareness of possible tragic development of events.
Words became dangerous weapon.
Thanks to the monopoly over electronic media, especially those nationally
oriented TVs, warmongers succeeded in achieving their goal. Masses became
hysterical followers of their leaders. A step towards the use of real weapons
was small, and it was, unfortunately, made. After the first shot, logic did not
help any more. People who preserved common sense approach to the problem could
not have been heard. The fuse on the Balkan powder barrel was fired and there
came the explosion. The Balkan war, which was worse than any other known war,
began and it took hundreds of thousands of lives and destroyed social
structures. There was no winner in this war. Sufferings and tragedies of all
the people living in these countries were immense. No matter how we interpret
the outcome, no one can imagine that “freedom” has any meaning after the period
of death and destruction in these areas.
Killing is wrong. No one normal
wants to kill or to be killed. The solution of world problems does not lie in
the increase of violence, but in the prevention of the death cycle and
destruction, and in creation of a society in which people would respect each
other beyond national and religious boundaries, and where we could direct our
energy towards reconciliation and peace strengthening. Nonviolent movements
have proved that it is possible to solve conflicts with nonviolent means. Brave
nonviolent movements have thrown down the dictatorships (often leaded by
students) in Guatemala, El Salvador, India, at the Philippines, in Iran,
Russia, Checkoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia,
Letonia, Lithuania, South Africa, Chile, etc. The actions of the Resistance
movement have shown the power of active nonviolence even in the Balkan area.
Let us remember that Mahatma
Gandhi once said that the instruments you used had to be in accordance with
your goals. In other words, if you want a peaceful society in which human
rights of all the citizens are respected, the instruments you use to achieve
that must be peaceful and adjusted to the local conditions. In the armed
conflicts in the area of ex-Yugoslavia many people died, and the seed of
animosity and hostility, and hatred may continue to poison the atmosphere
throughout the generations, unless something is done. It is vital to take an
action and humanize our relations, build new society respecting each others,
first of all, as human beings.
In such a situation when there
is a need to create new social liaisons, methods which would lead to the closer
contacts of the members of various communities should be found. Potential
allies should be identified in all ethnic groups. As many contacts as possible
should be made, various manifestations with Balkan peoples having their chances
to get to know each other as human beings should be organized. As many steps as
possible should be made so that prejudices and stereotypes on members of other
national communities as abstract entities could disappear. We should create
such atmosphere in which all conflict situations could be resolved through the
dialogue, and not war. The primary objective of this phase should be talk, and
not killing.
A need to build open society
should be present in the Balkan area. The main problem in this process is the
intermediate stage: transition to civil society. That process cannot be solved
by bringing some groups to the foreground and by emphasizing only their
problems. It is counter-productive. In the Balkan area all the people live
worse than during the pre-war period, except war profiteers, of course. The
status of Serbs, ethnic Albanians, Roma
and Bosnians and others depends on chances to create social safety. But, there
is no social safety, economy is ruined, unemployment is high, and educational
system is falling apart. All of these factors create basis for a new cycle of
conflicts. It is always easier to look for a culprit on the other side, than in
your own ranks. Bringing some groups to the foreground and saying that they are
more endangered than the others make this problem even more delicate. Problems
of this process were expressed by Dahrendorf through the metaphor which is not
far from the truth: it is true, he says, that six months are needed to
establish new political institutions (law on elections, constitution), six
years are needed to create steady economy, but sixty years are needed to create
a civil society.[1]
Inflexible insistence on the
introduction of market economy without regard to local characteristics causes
high expenses and poor results, and they are unevenly arranged. Only few
people, who occupy leading positions and/or had good connections during the
previous system, are in a position to take chances offered by the market and
turn them into privileged position even in the new system. The young, educated
and venturous will also successfully join the new system. Real economic power
is in the hands of members of the yesterday’s élites who have accumulated
wealth for themselves. “Transition” has already, however, brought dramatic
decrease of living standard to a mass of common people, and further production
decrease, increased unemployment and inflation growth will be affecting for
some more time in the future those strata that depend on steady employment and
fixed salaries. Although the majority of western economists thinks that these
phenomena are inevitable (short-term) “costs” of the transition to market
economy, the more this period of economic problems is prolonged, the less
persuasive these arguments will be to the masses who are coping daily with
misery on the one hand, and with glamour on the other.
The research conducted in
central and eastern Europe has shown that although positive evaluation of
liberal rights, like freedom of speech or right to association, has increased,
the persons questioned attach special importance to economic rights. Among
these priorities particularly important are the following: the right to work,
health care, social security, and “life
deprived of existential troubles”. The response of a questioned Hungarian
worker is characteristic in this sense: “I am free from four decades of
communist governance, as well as from my employment. Now, I am so free that I
simply do not know what to do with it.”.[2]
The approach to the Balkan
problems by the international community must be well weighed out. The way the
assistance and advice are given must not cause the association with
colonisation or protectorate. It must be a partner relationship between equal
participants, so that a great number of members of the local community would
take part in the reconciliation process. Funds invested in the work of
humanitarian and non-governmental organisation must be highly rationally used.
It should not happen that local organisations fight more for the donors’ funds
than for mutual cooperation during the realization of the common goals.
Faddishness must be avoided in forcing some actions which question the good
wishes of the international community. We must always bear in mind that the
fact that the same concepts and standards cannot be applied anywhere without
realizing concrete conditions. Political, economic and the level of social
development in general in the countries of intervention must be the basic
parameter when defining the adequate strategy. The explanation should be looked
for in the history and sociology through the historical-sociological study of a
concrete social community. An important moment in the process of creating the
approach strategy is certainly the possibility to induce the members of the
local community to self-examination.
Strategy of building civil
society through the forced actions of non-governmental organisation under the
conditions of weak states and their institutions should be reexamined. Local
élites are not prepared to respect the
constitution and law, i.e. the change of what has left from the former
power-holders. Apathy and still present syndrome of victims are not fertile
ground for reconciliation. There have been no alternatives so far with the
strong domination of politics over the other spheres of life, and the
non-governmental sector represents the only balance to the official authority.
Beside all these disadvantages that are present in the activities of
non-governmental sector, it still has an important role in the social spheres
and in articulating nonviolent actions. If the international organisations
retrieved from this area, the smoldering conflicts would swiftly burst into
flames. Even beside the undoubted contribution of NGOs to nonviolent solution
of the problems, the following should be insisted upon:
Ø return of the refugees and displaced
persons, which may be a kind of a bridge for resuming the faith in the
possibility of mutual life. That process, especially on Kosovo, has not been
satisfactory. Politicians often do not show persistency and consistency
regarding this problem;
Ø programme and funds provided by
international community must be coordinated to give real effects. Competition
in the field, which may cause even more problems during the reconciliation
process, must be avoided;
Ø the other subjects of civil society must be
identified and part of the action must be directed towards them. NGOs are not
the only partners to the international community in this area;
Ø discussion on the relationship between the
goals of international community and goals of civil sector in the host
countries must be opened;
Ø civil sector models and concepts must be
adjusted to the political, economic and overall social conditions;
Ø development of a strategy to reach those
who can contribute to the realization of the goals and not only organisations
and individuals who are skillful in communication with the donors;
Ø the examination of ways and procedures of
funds allocation. To provide transparency of the implementation and funds
expenditure, availability of the reports to the public both in the donor
countries and in the countries that receive help;
Ø avoiding disproportion of support to civil
society pertaining to regional presence of this support. When the election
results in former Yugoslavia are analyzed, it is clearly seen that the changes
of political orientation of citizens are present in those areas where NGOs are
the most active and the most important. While the election results in the areas
where their activities were minimal are below expectation, and mostly in favour
of nationalist parties.
What is to Be Emphasized in Potential Research of Nonviolent Actions in the Balkans
The research should be organized so as to
determine, first of all, the conditions
which may lead to the conflict situations so that the adequate nonviolent
action might prevent the crisis. The very analysis of the past events in the
Balkans might contribute to the understanding of the present situation. The
research should provide the answers to the following questions:
Ø Which historical moments conditioned
contemporary conflicts?
Ø Which social, political and economic
factors have contributed to the peace disturbance?
Ø Which parts of the Balkan peninsula are
the most liable to new conflicts?
Ø Who are the potential protagonists of new
conflicts, what are their interests and what do they think about each other?
Ø And finally, what kinds of forces and
methods can represent a dam against new conflicts and crises?
On the basis of the post-war experience
we may define the possible direction of the future nonviolent actions. It is
important to define the target groups, the areas and protagonists of the future
activities which are, undoubtedly, still bare necessities in the Balkan area.