This article was published in Pravda u tranziciji, No. 1, October 2005.
We would be deprived if the goal of war-crime trials were merely to carry out punishment for perpetrators and orderers,
without our reaching the realisation about coresponsibility we all have to a greater or smaller
extent.
Even though humanitarian law defines what a crime is in a war, it fails to recognise war itself as
a crime. Still, all around us, even ten years later, there are many traces of the war, starting with
hatred, to the exiled, families of missing persons, destroyed lives of people deprived of
their rights, having suffered injustice that no court could set straight. War is a crime in itself,
even when it is ‘only’ soldiers killing each other.
In spite of that, or for that very reason, all of us, even those who have come out of the war fairly
unharmed, have a duty of recognising our own responsibility, both for what we have done and
supported and for what we haven’t done and could have.
Even today, it is with incredible energy and hatred that many publicly storm at citizens’
associations that struggle for human rights or contribute to shedding light on crimes, and
many ordinary people view them as traitors. They are being accused of being mercenary or
profiteer. And in turn, these same people recognise the ones who, during the bombing of
Serbia, got apartments as a reward for their political merits as protectors, their hopes for
the future are inspired by the ones who shamelessly enriched themselves during the
greatest poverty and robbery organised and sponsored by the state. There is no hatred
against such, and in fact there shouldn’t be any, for hatred is an illness a person carries, genuine
contempt for such individuals would be much more appropriate.
An average person living in Serbia today, in the year 2005, on the tenth anniversary of cessation
of military actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, will tell you they condemn all
crimes and that the ones responsible should be punished, at the same time opposing extradition
of ‘our guys’ to some foreign court, and that the traitors are the ones from our side who expose
evidence of crimes committed on their behalf. The crime on our behalf is confessed and
condemned with abhorrence providing there is footage of the killing, and the fact that, say, the
remains of hundreds and thousands of executed civilians lie in a warehouse near Tuzla hasn’t
been enough for the realisation of the committed crime to be accepted. It is no better
in the case of our neighbours we have lead the war against, but this average citizen is prepared
to compete in shamelessness of denying with the neighbours instead of taking a painful step of
facing and confessing, a step that is painful because it entails starting from one’s own self.
Where have I been, what have I been doing, whom was I supporting, whom was I admiring,
trusting, cheering to? The whole life bursting like a soap bubble.
And then, what follows is a tainted myth of innocence and righteousness of one’s own
people, the myth that should be got rid of and the fact accepted that people cannot be viewed
in terms of honest-dishonest, good-bad. Not much remains for this average person to hold on
to, and that’s why it is hard, because, on the bases of black and white categories, they cannot
place themselves where they would like to. And it is not that hard, because a person is what a
person does, and their actions can be altered in accordance with their sense and sense of
justice.
Condemnation and sentence
The realisation that not all are the same seems like a good start. There are many Serbs, Croats,
Bosniaks , Albanians who don’ t ident i f y themselves with crimes committed on behalf of
their people, but instead condemn these publicly, and, let’s call things their proper
names, they are not traitors, but conscience of their own people.
The first prerequisite for reconciliation and building mutual trust between people who were
on opposing sides during the war is not to sanction war crimes, but for them to be
condemned by the ones on behalf of whom they had been committed. Sanctioning is a logical
step that follows, not for the sake of revenge or setting straight the injustice that cannot be set
straight, but as an act of a responsible society that removes the blur of collective guilt and
reduces it to what it is, individual guilt. The punishment for a crime is not satisfaction to the
families of the victims, but an acknowledgement of their suffering, injustice
done to them, establishing the truth about the fate of the victims is what brings certainty and
ends a longtime process of struggle for truth and justice. This act merely opens the possibility of
the wounds people carry for years healing. Things would be easier and more simple if the
same criteria would be applied to ‘ours’ and ‘others’, then we would only measure with our
own sense of justice and basic humanity, with no interference of the national as an element
influencing the value system, transforming the suffering of our compatriots into something
larger and more important than that of the other side.
Responsibility is linked with the power we haveto influence things, us, citizens of Serbia, carry
this responsibility in this country of ours first of all, that’s where we can influence and
contribute to building a more just and more humane society, in favor of the huge majority,
including these maddened, confused and scared ordinary citizens of ours. We also carry the
responsibility for allowing the opportunity to change, to not label people and allow them to
abandon the bonds of stances they had been slaves to ten years ago. If we succumb to the
attraction of superior entrenchment and moralising, from the position of those whose
‘hands are clean’, as opposed to people with ‘dirty hands’, we will do injustice to the tricked
ones, the ones who haven’t known, haven’t been able to, have been afraid, have lied to
themselves, and even to the ones who have repented. The road of reconciliation also starts
with ourselves, in relation to and against society that supports change instead of cementing the
current condition and expanding the trenches between ‘us, the good’ and ‘them, the evil’.
Former warriors for peace
The one time warriors and peace activists are two seemingly irreconcilable categories of
people. Some would call them patriots and traitors respectively. It has been four years now
since former warriors from Serbia and M ntenegro, Croatia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina have worked together at what they have recognised as a shared value,
peacebuilding in the region. It had been hard to initiate such a thing, but much easier than would
have been expected. Contrary to the prevailing opinion about irreconcilable opposition, a great
number of people from all the one time warring sides, perceive the senselessness of violence
they have taken part in and feel the need and responsibility to, learning from their gruesome
experience, become engaged in building peace and cooperation between people, to advocate
the rights of all, and particularly the ones they used to experience as enemies.
It is not just the superficial and fake story of ‘whoever lead us to fight each other’, it is not
even the one of ‘the politicians are to blame, if it had been up to people the war would never
have taken place’. Things are more profound than that. The people had indeed been asked,
and when they had been asked, believing they’d win, the majority had been in favor of the
war, which should also be faced. Expectations had not been met, and their hearts filled with
sorrow, rage, hatred and fear.
One should oppose ‘one’s own’, the ones in their own environments who keep spreading
hatred, who keep the hopes of revenge warm, who allow themselves to speak on our behalf,
who flaunt the numbers of the masses behind them as they speak and deny the ones who think
differently the right to say or do anything. The choice is before the people yet again, the choice
between fake security of misconception trying to justify injustice done to others, and honesty
in relation to ‘their own’ and ‘others’. I know dozens of warriors from all three one time
warring sides who now have the courage to fight for peace and justice, for a fair society they live
in, and many of them say it was easier to carry a gun than fight myths of immaculacy of their own
people. I have also seen thousands of people who have visited panel discussions where the
former warriors from all three sides spoke and who generally saluted these brave people. And
the greatest number of visitors were former warriors and refugees, the ones that were
severely affected by the war. Such voices are not rare, but are rarely heard from all the noise
makers and bullies from all three sides, that’s why it is important to react, that’s why it is
important to voice it, to make it clear that it is not on our behalf.
If we lived in a country in which all structures of state and society had a consensus about this
honest attitude, that every person must have their own right, regardless of their name, there
would be less need for citizens to come together to protect themselves or to express their
solidarity in protecting others. Unfortunately, more often than not people realize this only
when they feel injustice on their own skin and see that the others don’t care because they fear
for themselves, and in fact merely hope they are not the next in line.