(pdf)

Centar za nenasilnu akciju

 

SEPTEMBER 2001 – AUGUST 2002

Centre for Nonviolent Action

Office in Belgrade:

Svetogorska 33 / st.7, 11000 Beograd, YU

Tel/Fax: +381 11 3226-793

cna.beograd@nenasilje.org

www.nenasilje.org

 

Office in Sarajevo:

Bentbasa 31, 71000 Sarajevo, BiH

Tel: +387 33 272 560 Fax: +387 33 440 417

cna.sarajevo@nenasilje.org

www.nenasilje.org

 

Adnan Hasanbegović

Helena Rill

Ivana Franović

Milan Colić

Nedžad Horozović

Nenad Vukosavljević

Tamara Šmidling

For Centre for Nonviolent Action

In Belgrade and Sarajevo, September 2002

Translation from Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian done by Nina Vukosavljević

Centar za nenasilnu akciju (Centre for Nonviolent Action) is a non-governmental and non-profit organisation whose basic goals are peace building, the development of civil society, cross-border cooperation and promotion of nonviolence.

Our main activity is to organise and implement trainings (seminars) in nonviolent conflict transformation and to support groups and individuals who wish to do this kind of work. Through training in nonviolent conflict transformation we are aiming to develop political awareness of the training participants, and to pass on skills in nonviolent dealing with conflict. At our trainings CNA gathers people from all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Yugoslavia and Macedonia, hence giving special focus on networking, and communication between people from different areas, whose communication has been interrupted through war and supporting the process of prejudice reduction and communication.

CNA started to work in 1997 with an office in Sarajevo. Office in Belgrade started in2001. CNA is an external branch of KURVE Wustrow.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

INTRODUCTION______________________________________________________________4

FIRST QUARTER _____________________________________________________________5

1.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES___________________________________________________________________5

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation ________________________________________________________________5

Training Manual “NONVIOLENCE?” Translated into Macedonian Language___________________________________________________________6

Exploratory Trip in Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) ___________________________________________________________________6

Training for Trainers III ____________________________________________________________6

1.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES__________________________________________________________________8

Seminar »The Status and the Prospects of the Acknowledgement of the Right to Conscientious Objection in Yugoslav Law«_________________________________________________________8

Seminar-Workshop on De-traumatization _____________________________________________8

Regional Consultation with QPSW (Quaker Peace and Social Witness) ______________________9

Seminar “Culture, Religion and Conflict” _____________________________________________9

Evaluation of “Abraham”___________________________________________________________9

Debate – The Role of Young People in Local Environment _______________________________________________________________10

Training in Peace Building for Youth of  Zavidovići and Žepče__________________________________________________________10

SECOND QUARTER __________________________________________________________________11

2.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES __________________________________________________________________11

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation _______________________________________________________________11

A Three-day Training In Štrpce, Kosovo _________________________________________________________________12

2.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES ________________________________________________________________12

Evaluation Meeting of CNA Staff ___________________________________________________________12

Training in Nonviolent Communication __________________________________________________________13

Internal Training for CNA staff _____________________________________________________13

CNA’s Visit to England and Northern Ireland ___________________________________________________________14

Regional Meeting In Grožnjan, Croatia_______________________________________________14

Annual Conference of Centre for Peacebuilding ____________________________________________________________15

THIRD QUARTER____________________________________________________________16

3.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES __________________________________________________________________16

Training organised by the Centre for Civic Consciousness Development from Babušnica, Serbia _______________________________________________________________________________16

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation ____________________________________________________________17

Basic Training In Nonviolent Conflict Transformation ____________________________________________________________17

3.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES ________________________________________________________________18

SHL Workshops For Highschool Students _____________________________________________________________18

Workshops on Relation between National and Gender Identity_______________________________________________________19

Panel Discussion and Presentation Of The Book «Diary With Reservists»________________________________________________19

FOURTH QUARTER __________________________________________________________20

4.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES____________________________________________________20

Panel Debates: Dealing With the Past ___________________________________________________________20

Programme Training for Trainers 2002 – 2003 ____________________________________________________________20

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation ____________________________________________________________24

4.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES___________________________________________________28

Internal Meeting of CNA team______________________________________________________28

EVALUATION OF CNA WORK___________________________________________________29

ENVIRONMENT THAT CNA WORKS IN ______________________________________________________________32

“My Bosnia”, or “oouch”____________________________________________________________32

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)_________________________________________________34

Macedonia Before the Parliamentary Elections____________________________________________________________35

Kosovo ___________________________________________________________36

Croatia_____________________________________________________________36

FUTURE ACTIVITIES _________________________________________________________38

Work Plan for 2003 _______________________________________________________________38

About the continuation of the Project «Dealing with the Past» __________________________________________________________38

PERSONAL WORDS AND VIEWS _________________________________________________39

And after five years: waves! – by Nenad Vukosavljević _______________________________________________________39

ANNEX ___________________________________________________________________40

SPEAKING TOUR: DEALING WITH THE PAST ______________________________________________________________40

INTRODUCTION______________________________________________________________________ 40

ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEBATES ______________________ 40

SINGLE DEBATES ____________________________________________________________________ 41

Inđija _____________________________________________________________________________ 41

Niš _______________________________________________________________________________ 42

Novi Pazar _________________________________________________________________________ 43

Kragujevac_________________________________________________________________________ 43

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS _________________________________________________________ 44

DIFFICULTIES AND LEARNING POINTS__________________________________________________ 46

Media _____________________________________________________________________________ 46

Local Partners ______________________________________________________________________ 47

Participants ________________________________________________________________________ 48

Local Authorities ____________________________________________________________________ 49

Visitors of the Debates _______________________________________________________________ 49

Coordination of the Project ___________________________________________________________ 50

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROJECT CONTINUATION ________________________________ 51

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Dear friends,

This September CNA turns 5. It has been five years since we started to work and we are anxious to enter our sixth year. We celebrate our anniversary with this report, which brings descriptions of all the activities of our Sarajevo and Belgrade. As we grow, this report grows, too…

Lots of activities and new things happened over the year that has passed. We completed five basic training events and one Training for Trainers. The new Training for Trainers programme is currently taking place, and unlike the previous one, it now lasts for 12 months and has 8 phases. It includes twenty one people from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Macedonia, who we experience to have great potential for work on peace building. However, that is not all we have done – we held workshops and short training events, cooperated with local organisations, took part on regional meetings, conferences, and workshops. We conducted an exploratory trip to Serbia and Montenegro, where we got a better picture of NGOs as well as their working conditions. We explored the needs for education in nonviolent conflict transformation and had a chance to analyse the current social and political scene. We have also been educating ourselves and had meetings and workshops.

What is completely new in our work is a stronger presence of CNA in the media. The series of public debates “Four Views – From the past: how I found myself in war, towards the future: how to reach sustainable peace?” Our guests on these debates were people who had directly participated in wars in the region of former Yugoslavia, who were ready to talk in public about their experiences of war, about their responsibility, and their perception of the future and the building of sustainable peace. For a long time we have wanted to open up this taboo more actively and publicly and to work on dealing with one’s individual responsibility for the past. This was achieved with this pilot project, which included four public debates in Serbia.

There were both nice and sad things in CNA, over the past year. We said goodbye to our colleague Iva Zenzerović, who returned to the Centre for Peace Studies in Zagreb, as planned, after having spent a year in our team, and with whom we are planning further activities for the future. A new member joined us – Tamara Šmidling from Belgrade, a participant of our last year’s Training for Trainers.

We have received lots of support from our friends and colleagues from different sides, support that is very important and for which we are very grateful. With some of them we developed an even a deeper relationship based on mutual understanding and cooperation. We are very glad because of it and it is a great encouragement for further work.

We have encountered different difficulties on the way – exhaustion because of intensive activities, grant refusals from potential donors which caused training delays, acquiring funds, various beaurocratic complications that may not seem serious but consume both time and energy. The social and political context in which CNA is working is very turbulent, and you can read about it in the second part of this report.

With the many plans we have for the future, we have an ever growing need for all kinds of support, as well as enlarging our team.

 

FIRST QUARTER

SEPTEMBER – OCTOBER 2011

 

1.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES

 

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation

Ulcinj, Montenegro, November 9 to 19, 2001

From November 9 – 19, 2001, the CNA office in Belgrade organised a basic training in nonviolent conflict transformation in Ulcinj, Montenegro.

The nineteen participants who attended the training came from the following countries and regions: Macedonia, Croatia, Yugoslavia (Montenegro, Serbia proper, Vojvodina, Kosovo), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic Srpska). There were 10 women and 9 men, aged 23 to 55. We received more than 160 applications for this training and it was very difficult to choose a group of 20 people. The training was financially supported by Auswaertiges Amt, German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The training team included the CNA team members (Helena, Ivana, Nedžad and Nenad) who had also worked together on the basic training in nonviolent conflict transformation in Žabljak, Montenegro. Based on their past work and evaluation, they decided to introduce a new work concept on this training, which was quite an experiment. The new concept was based on constant flexibility, where themes were adjusted to the group. The training team estimated the needs of the group and made the programme based on it and the work of the group. The following themes were worked on: nonviolent communication, team work/decision making, perception, understanding of conflicts, violence, differences, identity, national identity, gender roles in society, creative conflict transformation, and power. We introduced a new exercise in understanding conflicts. It is called “the other view” and it is intended to look at the conflict from the position of the other one. The base for this exercise was the current political situation and an ongoing conflict in Macedonia: Albanians were speaking from the Macedonian point of view, and vice versa. It was very valuable to hear the difficulties and the important things “one” side saw about the “other”. The impression remains that this exercise contributed to even more willingness to get to know how the “other one” is doing, and also to trust building.

The training team shared the opinion that the group was highly motivated. They worked hard even in informal hours, they were interested and ready for confrontation, ready to hear the “other” side and to work on the existing conflicts. From the first day the exercises were very emotional, with lots of re-examinations and discussions during working hours and afterwards, too. This is confirmed by the fact that there are many potential participants of Training for Trainers in this group.

Documentation of the training in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language, entitled «Everybody starts to pray to their own God, tomorrow» contains 87 pages, and is available on request.

 

Training Manual “NONVIOLENCE?” Translated into Macedonian Language

»NONVIOLENCE? The Manual for Trainings in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation for Work with Adults«, published in 2000, is translated into Macedonian. It was done by our friend and colleague, Jasmina Todorovska, participant of Training for Trainers 2000.

The manual is primarily for people who are doing workshops and training events on the theme of nonviolence and conflicts, but also for others who are interested in it. 500 copies were published. We have already started to distribute it, mainly through our friends from Macedonia and people who attended our programmes. If you are interested in a copy of the Manual in Macedonian, please contact the CNA office in Belgrade or Sarajevo. The translation will soon be available on our web page: www.nenasilje.org.

 

Exploratory Trip in Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

October-December, 2001

An exploratory trip in Yugoslavia was conducted by Ivana Franović, Milan Colić and Nedžad Horozović from the Centre for Nonviolent Action, in October and December 2001. These were the goals of the research:

• Getting to know NGOs and their local environment
• Analysing political situation in the country and problems of the society
• Exploring the needs of the groups working on peace building, conflict transformation, inter­ethnic relations and cross-border cooperation
• Exploring the needs for education in nonviolent conflict transformation.

A complete report on the exploratory trip is available as pdf file, on our web site:

http://www.nenasilje.org/publikacije/pdf/articles/exploratoryYU_e.pdf

Training for Trainers III

The third in a row of CNA’s Training for Trainers Programs started in the middle of 2001. The first phase of this programme (a ten-day training) was held in July, in Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The rest of the programme was held in this trimester:

• Phase II: Follow-up meetings (August/September 2001)
• Phase III: A ten-day training (Rama-Šćit, Bosnia and Herzegovina, September 14-24, 2001)
• Phase IV: Follow-up meetings (October/December, 2001)
• Phase V: A three-day training (Faletići, Sarajevo, October 26-29, 2001)

 

Phase II: Follow-up meetings

In this phase, participants were preparing their own workshops, on different themes based on their own interest, and within teams formed on the training in Jahorina. During these meetings, each team had a chance to get feedback and advice from those members of the training team they had chosen to work with.

Phase III: A ten-day training

(Rama-Šćit, September 14-24, 2001)

From September 14 to 24, 2001, the second ten-day training from Training For Trainers Program took place in the Peace House, within the Franciscan Monastery in Rama-Šćit.

In the first part of the training, there were workshops prepared and conducted by participants, while the second part of the training included workshops prepared and implemented by the training team.

Most of the workshops done by participants were thoroughly prepared and seriously facilitated showing the high motivation of the participants. For most of them it was their first experience in conducting a workshop. Also, there was mutual support within the group – most of the participants were actively involved in both exercises and evaluation. It resulted in very inclusive and motivating discussions.

Major difficulties participants encountered during the workshops were those related to teamwork, keeping up with the timetable, insecurity and lack of flexibility in unexpected situations.

Since almost all workshops took much longer time than planned, participants were very tired and worn out in the second part of the training. That was the reason why those workshops were, regarding both their contents and dynamics, on a »lower« level than expected.

Here are some of the participant’ statements taken from the evaluation:

-I felt I was part of the group. I am thinking about entering Training for Trainers again, under some false name.

-New experience, working in a team for the first time, lots of support and empowering from both CNA team and some people from the group, answers to some questions important for this job. I am more motivated. The way I see what this work means, has changed, the idea of my power also, I am much more strong and ready.

-It will be clearer when the impressions are settled. I have noticed I am much more sensitive to some questions. The ground under my feet has changed, in a positive sense.

-I have got self-esteem, people, place where I can tell some things. I have gained motivation and potential colleagues. I have become more sensitised towards violence and that change is not final. At the moment, I am motivated to do something, but I do not know how much it will last. That is why I have to do something as soon as possible.

-I think I have gained many things that will interact in my life. I have gained lots of confidence in nonviolent communication and in life too, and I somehow feel smart. I have gained experience of conducting a workshop. My attitudes towards some people and some opinions have changed. My criteria in regards to trainers have changed. Trainers seemed to look perfect to me, now I see some mistakes. I am surprised with my own confidence.

It is important to mention that our two cars were stolen in Rama–Šćit. The damaged cars were found the same day, but this entire event put a heavy burden on the training. It is certain that this will not make us give up the intention of organising future training events in the Peace House, because by doing so we want to support the very idea of having a Peace House.

Phase IV: Follow-up meetings

These meetings are intended to offer a chance to all the participants, individually or within small groups, to get feedback, advice and support from the training team (according to CNA’s capacities), concerning primarily what the participants were doing or intending to do in their own communities. Although they were originally planned to take place before the last phase of Training for Trainers Program, there was not enough time, and some meetings were held after the end of the Program.

Phase V: A Three-day Training

(Faletići, Sarajevo, October 26-29, 2001)

The final meeting was at the same time the fifth and the last phase of the Training for Trainers Program. It was held from November 26th to 29th, 2001, in the lovely surroundings of »Faletići« boarding-house, near Sarajevo. Some of the participants were absent due to other engagements, therefore 15 of them attended the training.

At the end of this programme, one may say that a network with potential for joint cooperation has been created. Indeed participants have expressed their expectations regarding support for their work from CNA, especially for those individuals who cannot rely on support from their own environment.

More information in detail, about the whole Training for Trainers Program is available in documentation of the training, from CNA offices, and soon on our web page as well.

We need to emphasise at this point that financial support came from Auswärtiges Amt and Süedost Europa Kultur e.V. Berlin. We use this chance to thank them.

 

1.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES

 

Seminar »The Status and the Prospects of the Acknowledgement of the Right to Conscientious Objection in Yugoslav Law«

Belgrade, Serbia, September 14 – 15, 2001

The seminar on the theme of The Status and the Prospects of the Acknowledgement of the Right to Conscientious Objection in Yugoslav Law was organized in Belgrade, on 14th and 15th of September 2001 by YUCOM-a (Yugoslav Committee of Lawyers) and »Women in Black«. Milan Colić from CNA was invited by the organizers to take part in the seminar.

The event was attended by NGOs and individuals who deal with the issue of conscientious objection from the countries of ex-Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, FRY) and representatives of EBCO (European Bureau for Conscientious Objection).

In the first part, there was a round table on ‘Nongovernmental organizations and conscientious objection«. The second day was planned for a meeting with MPs and parliamentary parties’ representatives, but none of them showed up.

For more information about this, please contact YUCOM, email: yulaw@eunet.yu

 

Seminar-Workshop on De-traumatization

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, October 6-9, 2001

From October 6 to 9, a three-day seminar-workshop was organized by GTZ (Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit) Sarajevo, in »Terme« hotel, in Ilidža, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The member of CNA team, Nedžad Horozović, took part in it. Workshop was created and conducted by a psychologist from USA, Yeal Daniely, phd. Participants were mostly psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, students and NGO activists from all over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The discussions weren’t clearly and strictly structured by the facilitator, therefore participants sometimes had difficulties following them. The issues were wide and sometimes not closely connected to the elements of detraumatization. However, they were certainly very useful.

 

Regional Consultation with QPSW (Quaker Peace and Social Witness)

Osijek, Croatia, October 7-9, 2001

Two members of CNA accepted an invitation from QPSW, and took part in a two-day meeting, held in Osijek, Croatia, from October 7 to 9, 2001. QPSW team wanted to consult other partner organizations and individuals from the region, about future strategy and action and to look back at their past activities.

Discussions were mostly focused on their work in the past and present period, actual plans and visions of future and possible strategies, and the role of international organizations in building of peace and civil society, with a special review on QPSW and ways they can support local initiatives, which was one of their basic goals.

 

Seminar “Culture, Religion and Conflict”

Novi Sad, October 11-12, 2001

Ecumenical humanitarian organization from Novi Sad, organized a 2-day seminar/workshop on October 11-12, 2001 with the title »Culture, religion and conflict«. Member of CNA team, Helena Rill took part in it. The facilitator and the author of the seminar was Tamara Mihalić from Ecumenical Peace Initiative from Zagreb, also a participant of CNA’s Training for Trainers 2000. Regarding the fact that the facilitator of the seminar implemented and introduced some new communication models and some new insights on the theme, the member of CNA team was asked to give her feedback to the 2-day seminar, which she did.

For more information on this, please contact Tamara Mihalić, email: tmihalic@zamir.net

 

Evaluation of “Abraham”

June – October, 2001

Between June and October of 2001, CNA team member Nenad Vukosavljević conducted an external evaluation of the work of “Abraham”.

These were the goals of the external evaluation:

• Detecting key issues concerning further work strategy, and pointing out to the possible consequences of different choices of development.
• Indicating strong and week points of organisational structure, and initiating a change towards more successful balance of different interests and capacities.

Fifteen interviews were done with people gathered in and around “Abraham”. Based on these interviews, the whole set of recommendations was given regarding organizational structure and strategic guidelines for future. Complete report is available from “Abraham”, on request. Email: ibrahime@bih.net.ba

 

Debate – The Role of Young People in Local Environment

Zavidovići, Bosnia and Herzegovina, November 3, 2001

On November 11th, 2001, a public debate on the theme: »The Role of Young People in Local Environment« took place in Zavidovići, in »The Youth Centre« premises, at the same time with the public presentation of the training »Peace is Young« (held in Banovići, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in August). It was organized by Agency for Local Democracy from Zavidovići and facilitated by CNA member, Nedžad Horozović. Along with many high school students from Zavidovići and members of »The Youth Centre« who attended the debate, there were also representatives of youth centres from Žepče (»Putokazi«) and Prijedor (»Omladinski centar«), the youngest councilman of The Council of Zavidovići and the assistant chief for social work of The Council of Zavidovići who took part in it.

The discussion concerned the problems of young people from Zavidovići, and chances for cooperation between youth representatives and local authorities.

 

Training in Peace Building for Youth of Zavidovići and Žepče

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; November 23-27, 2001

From November 23 to 27, a five-day training for youth from Youth Centres of Zavidovići and Žepče was held, in SHL House in Sarajevo. The idea to repeat training in peace building within community, and to introduce young people from two ethnic communities (one with the Bosniak majority and the other one with Croat majority) came after the successful summer training in Banovići with the same goals (for more information in detail, look for our the Annual report 2000-2001)

From CNA’s point of view, this training was important not only because of the support given to youth centres and young people of Zavidovići and Žepče, but also because of the team made of CNA members Iva Zenzerović, Milan Colić and Sanjin Omeragić, as a guest trainer, who had participated in Training for Trainers 2001 Program.

The experience has taught us that working with young people from the communities where there are still consequences of conflicts and violence present, demands long-term empowering, because they are often incapable to bring changes into a community which is closed, by themselves. In this case, young people have the support from their Centres, which is in favour of empowering them to change the society. That support is additionally increased with training events like these.

We find that by giving a chance to a young person from Bosnia and Herzegovina, to conduct a training with young people, we made a step toward strengthening local capacities for work on nonviolence and peace building, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

SECOND QUARTER

SEPTEMBER – OCTOBER 2002

 

2.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES

 

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation

Kiseljak, Bosnia and Herzegovina, December 7 to 17, 2001

From December 7th to 17th, 2001, CNA Sarajevo organized and implemented the training in Basics of Nonviolent Conflict Transformation in Kiseljak, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The training was initiated and financially supported by Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Sarajevo. They wanted to do training for people from organizations they support or those with whom they have mutual cooperation.

There were 17 participants altogether, 7 male and 10 female, aged 18 to 31, from two regions of ex-Yugoslavia: Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Here are some of the organizations participants came from: Udruženje mladih (Youth Alliance) – Zvornik, O.C. IPAK – Simin Han, H.O. IPAK – Tuzla, Stay Free – Novi Grad, HUG, Zemlja djece (Children’s Land) – Tuzla, Biro za ljudska prava (Bureau for Human Rights) – Bijeljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina and OSCE Gnjilane, OSCE Mitrovica, OSCE Priština, OSCE Prizren, Kosovo.

The training team included members of both of our offices, in Sarajevo and Belgrade: Tamara Šmidling, Iva Zenzerović, Milan Colić, and Helena Rill, with Adnan Hasanbegović as a guest-trainer.

Applications were sent to the organizations GTZ either gave support or had cooperation with, but also throughout CNA contacts. Such an unbalanced selection of participants, made by both organizations, resulted in an additional difficulty – participants’ motivation varied. It affected the training process, primarily regarding different needs and expectations people in the group were having from the training.

Training programme/concept was created as a flexible combination of different experiences, views and needs of the training team: themes were defined, as well as the proximate schedule and work method, while some blocks were left open. It created more space for further work, which was being adjusted to the needs of the group.

Participants came from the areas affected by the war, and were carrying heavy burden of experiences and traumas. Some of them still are not safe in their own environment. These feelings of insecurity and mistrust were present throughout the whole training, therefore working on building a group and safe space took a long time.

The training itself and its content/concept were different and specific in comparison to the training events organized entirely by CNA, because there had been less chance to examine participants’ motivation and their expectations from the event.

The reason it took longer time for trust building within the group was the team’s unbalance concerning the area trainers were coming from: three of them were from FRY (from Belgrade, south-east Serbia and Vojvodina) and one from Croatia, while on the other hand the group was made mostly of Albanians and Bosniaks. The guest-trainer, Bosniak from Sarajevo, has contributed to team’s trustworthiness and helped trust building because of his Bosniak nationality.

In the course of the training, the training team paid special attention to empowering of participants and understanding of power as a precondition for initiating changes in society. Having in mind all the difficulties, the training team was generally satisfied with what was accomplished.

The documentation from this training contains 69 pages. It is titled “As long as we’re OK!” and will be available on CNA’s website: www.nenasilje.org.

A Three-day Training In Štrpce, Kosovo

Štrpce, December 13 to 15, 2001

Two members of CNA team (Ivana Franović from Belgrade office and Nedžad Horozović from Sarajevo office) responded to an invitation from OSCE Democratisation Office and conducted a short three-day training on the theme of “Introduction to Nonviolent Conflict Transformation” in Štrpce, Kosovo, from December 13 to 15, 2001. Participants came mostly from Štrpce, but also from Gnjilane and Kamenica (Kosovo). Except for one Roma person, all the other participants were Serbs, aged 23-36.

Štrpce is on of the Serbian enclaves in the southeast of Kosovo. People live in isolation, which is quite apparent. More information on this enclave and Štrpce Municipality is available in OSCE comprehensive report “Municipal profile: Štrpce/Shtërpcë” (“Profil opštine Štrpce/Shtërpcë”), September 2001 (copy of the report is also available from CNA, on request).

We tried to cover as many elements, important for understanding of conflict and sensitising for violence, as possible, in just three days. We were strongly supported by the group all along. Participants were very motivated to work and ready to extend working hours for more than previously planed. During workshops we tried to work on the following themes: non-violent communication, teamwork, violence, perception, understanding of conflict, power. Although we didn’t insist on the existing and permanent conflict in Kosovo, when an example was needed, participants referred to it quite often. This showed us their strong urge and willingness to work on the transformation of this conflict.

 

2.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES

 

Evaluation Meeting of CNA Staff

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, December 19 – 20, 2001

At the end of December (on 19th and 20th) last year, all our members (except for one, who was in USA at the time) from both of our offices gathered in Sarajevo. This meeting was a chance to exchange our views and impressions about the work of CNA in the last year, and at the same time an opportunity to ask some questions concerning the future direction of our work.

During those two days, many views, dilemmas, questions were heard, mostly in regard to our activities in 2001, difficulties we encountered and learning points useful for future work. Some difficulties were mentioned, related mostly to the strenuous work schedule and uneven distribution of responsibilities in both offices, which made some people totally exhausted. While preparing the activity plan for this year, we had in mind a detailed and well-balanced schedule of duties in order to let all the team members do different kind of jobs necessary for running an office.

Martina Fischer from Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management interviewed all team members. This has given us a chance to get a deeper insight into past and future work of CNA. It was done as a part of the project for Auswaertiges Amt with an aim to follow our activities.

 

Training in Nonviolent Communication

Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina – Republic of Srpska, January 26 – 30, 2002

From January 26th to 30th, 2002, the training in nonviolent communication was implemented in «Košuta» hotel in Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was organized by Norwegian People’s Aid in cooperation with Centre for Nonviolent Action Sarajevo, aiming to offer a short training for members of Postpesimists’ Network of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

There were 20 participants, aged 18 – 22, coming from different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo, Mostar, Banja Luka, Olovo and Blagaj). Training team was made of two members of CNA Sarajevo -Tamara Šmidling and Nedžad Horozović, together with two participants of our last year’s Training for Trainers Programme, from Kolašin, Montenegro – Dragana Šćepanović and Dimitrovgrad, Serbia – Rozeta Aleksov.

The training was prepared with the basic idea to put an emphasis on learning skills of nonviolent communication, sensitising for violence and understanding of conflict. In regard to the fact that the whole group was very young, with little activist experience and unbalanced motivation, the training team tried to prepare a flexible concept in order to leave enough space to respond to the needs of the group. Besides the issues we have already mentioned, other themes were also covered: team work, perception, prejudice, differences and power.

Judging by the group’s interest and activity, and by the number and the contents of topics discussed, the key issue of this training was violence, in an attempt to perceive the types of violence occurring in our society. The training was extremely hard and exhausting. There were several reasons for it: some of the participants had bad experiences from the war and post-war situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the training was short and there were some different approaches inside the training team concerning ways to deal with the difficulties. Although the prepared concept seemed to be too emotionally demanding for this group of participants, still there was a strong demand for this type of work, especially in regard to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the absence of communication on a deeper level, between young people from different ethnic communities.

Training team’s opinion is that the training was successful because it showed possible constructive attitude towards violence and conflicts, as well as created a potential in some of the participants to continue further work on these issues.

One of the important learning points for the future concerns the need for more empowering concept in order to give participants a chance to receive more support in dealing with some “painful” issues and problems in their communities.

 

Internal Training for CNA staff

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 1-4, 2002

On CNA’s last joint meeting at the end of December, we agreed to meet again for an internal training. The training was to cover the areas some members need more information about, regarding functioning of CNA. This training-meeting was held in Sarajevo, from February 1st to 4th, 2002.

During a three-day training, following areas were worked on (although some other things important for CNA were also mentioned):

-Auditing (financial report, bookkeeping, annual account)

-Fundraising, past and up to date

-CNA’s mission

-Presentation of CNA.

 

CNA’s Visit to England and Northern Ireland

England and Northern Ireland, February 17 to 24, 2002

From February 17 – 24, 2002, two CNA tem members: Ivana Franović from Belgrade office and Adnan Hasanbegović from Sarajevo office, visited England and Northern Ireland to an invitation from CCTS (Committee for Conflict Transformation Support) from London.

This visit was planed with an idea to get to know local organisations; colleagues and peace groups close to CNA; to present our work and peace work in the Balkans with an aim to exchange experiences.

The visit was organized by our friends and colleagues who welcomed us, Celia McKeon from London, former activist of QPSW office in Sarajevo, now working for Conciliation Resources (CR) and Cara Gibney from Belfast, ex-member of CNA team. The visit was financially supported by CCTS. We use this opportunity to thank them.

Besides CCTS and Conciliation Resources from London, we also visited Friends House – Quaker Centre and Westminster Foundation and attended the regular meeting of CCTS where we had a chance to meet people from Bradford University, War Resisters, etc. CCTS is a network of peace organisations such as CR, Quaker Peace and Social Witness, War Resisters International, Responding to Conflict and others. Our friends from QPSW organised a short panel discussion in Friends House. In Birmingham, we visited Quaker Study Centre and Responding to Conflict.

During a short visit to Northern Ireland, we met several people from organizations dealing with local communities. We met representatives of Community Dialogue Centre and Voluntary Services in the small town of Armagh, near Portadown, in the northern part of the country where there were several local and international organisations active. In Belfast, we had a chance to talk to activists of Concorde Community Centre and Community Relation Council.

Apart from the usual exchange of experiences and material, and presentation of work and activities to each other, we discussed similarities and differences of current political situation in Northern Ireland and the region of former Yugoslavia and types of violence and social conflicts existing in the past and today. It appears there is a need for peace groups from both regions to get to know each other better, primarily because the patterns of present conflicts are similar in both regions. The transformation of these conflicts might be easier through the process of comparing cultural, religious and ethnic differences, which are the primary causes for them, and the presence of collective guilt syndrome and victimization which is similar in both regions.

 

Regional Meeting In Grožnjan, Croatia

Evaluation and Work Plan of the Project “Contribution to Communication within Divided Communities – Regional Peace Response for Southern Serbia and Macedonia” Grožnjan, February 19 to 24, 2002

Two CNA team members, Helena Rill and Nenad Vukosavljević, attended the regional meeting in Grožnjan, Croatia, from February 19th to 24th 2002.

The goals of the meeting were: evaluating MIRamiDA training events/meetings in South Serbia (near Medveđa and Bujanovac), in Macedonia (in Ohrid and Skopje), MIRamiDA Plus in Grožnjan; exchanging experiences; getting an insight into new skills and knowledge: perceiving needs of this region and what can be done concerning all that… CNA found it important to offer support to both this project and our friends from Regional Centre in Grožnjan, and to use this chance for an exchange of opinions concerning approach to peace work.

Expectations of CNA members from this meeting were based on the need for more exchange of experiences and discussions about approach and strategy of peace building, while other participants took it as an important chance to meet people and hear their concrete experiences concerning specific activities, which were two different levels of expectations.

For more information on this project, please contact CMS Zagreb, email: cms@zamir.net

 

Annual Conference of Centre for Peacebuilding

Bern, Switzerland, February 28, 2002

Centre for Peacebuilding – KOFF, the project of Swiss Peace Foundation, organised their first annual conference on February 28, in Bern, Switzerland. The theme of the conference was “Peacebuilding after War”. The main idea of the conference was focused on the process of peacebuilding after ratification of peace agreements.

CNA was invited to give their contribution to the conference by reading a report. Discussion that took place in the morning panel was mostly about problems and obstacles to peacebuilding process in post-war societies and about the role of the external factors. In the afternoon, there were six workshops on different subjects. CNA volunteer took part in the workshop on “re-building/strengthening of nonviolent means/capacities of conflict resolution in society”. She also gave a short input on CNA’s work.

More information on KOFF and the conference is available on Swiss Peace Foundation web page:

http://www.swisspeace.org/

 

THIRD QUARTER

MARCH – MAY 2002

 

3.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES

 

Training organised by the Centre for Civic Consciousness Development from Babušnica, Serbia

Zvonačka banja, Serbia, March 15-22, 2002

Centar za razvoj građanske svesti – Centre for development of civic awareness (CDCA) from Babušnica, Serbia, invited CNA to conduct a seven-day training in nonviolent conflict transformation, in Zvonačka banja, from March 15 to 22, 2002. CDCA named this training »Friendly neighbours«.

The training was organized for people from a local community in the southeast part of Serbia, of both Bulgarian and Serbian ethnicity. Population of the southeast Serbia (Pirot, Dimitrovgrad, Babušnica, Zvonce, etc.) is mostly Serb and Bulgarian. For several decades already, there have been mistrust and strong prejudices amongst them. Current situation is very delicate, because mistrust, prejudice and discrimination haven’t been discussed, thus deepening the gap that already exists.

Part of the participants came from NGOs, although for most of them, it has been the first encounter with the work of NGOs, and what was completely new to them was our work method. Members of training team were: Tamara Šmidling and Nedžad Horozović from CNA Sarajevo office, Helena Rill from Belgrade office and Rozeta Aleksov from Creative centre »Caribrod« from Dimitrovgrad, who had participated in CNA’s Training for Trainers Programme 2001. Having Rozeta in our team was of great value to us, and her contribution to our work was big, especially since she came from the community where the training took place.

Organizers of the training (CDCA) insisted on having more than 30 participants. We decided to divide participants into two groups because according to our approach, 15-20 participants is an optimal number for an interactive work. Two groups were planned to work separately, which was very demanding.

The following themes were worked on: nonviolent communication, teamwork, decision making, violence, prejudices, discrimination, perception, understanding of conflicts, differences, identity, national identity, power. By choosing these subjects, training team wanted to work on difficulties in communication between two groups, prejudices/stereotypes, the importance of national identity, what does it mean to people … During the workshop on »national identity«, there was an apparent fear of treating any kind of conflicts, expressed with comments like »It is better not to touch it«.

The training team realised how important it was to continue with work on building of the group and mutual trust, and especially on empowering people before opening up those painful issues that hadn’t been opened for decades, except in »their own« safe environments.

For more information, please contact CDCA, email: crgs@ptt.yu

 

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation

Ulcinj, Montenegro, April 8 – 18, 2002

In April, CNA implemented the twelfth Basic Training in Ulcinj, at the Adriatic coast of Montenegro. We received 162 applications for it; therefore it was very difficult to choose only 20 participants. This time, we had more participants coming from media and political parties, which was our intention in the first place. Having in mind that we have had already plenty of candidates for Training for Trainers, from two previous Basic Training events, this time we decided to invite more people from media and political parties. We also had more people from Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia than from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, since we intended to focus on the present conflict in the triangle of Serbia-Kosovo-Macedonia.

There were 18 participants instead of 20, 11 male and 7 female. One person cancelled a day before the training, and the other simply did not show up. Gender imbalance was certainly noticeable during work process.

Training team included: Ivana from CNA’s Belgrade office and Nedžad, Nenad and Tamara from Sarajevo office. Training was financially supported by Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. This is a chance thank them.

One of the most important focuses of this training was a reflection to the situation in Kosovo, since five participants came from Kosovo (from Albanian, Bosniak and Serb ethnicity). We had several discussions about the past and present painful events in Kosovo, from different perspectives, which contributed to a better understanding of the view of the “other side”. These discussions were often emotional, so they sometimes caused individuals to withdraw because they feared things might escalate.

Most participants from Kosovo came from the southeast part of the region, from the triangle of Gnjilane – Prizren – Štrpce (Serb enclave). This situation created a possibility to get in touch, firsthand, with individuals from the neighbouring community. It provided a solid basis to establish communication between those communities.

More details about the training, the themes and the evaluation are available in the documentation titled “I call people to play the music”. It is available on request from CNA, and it will soon be on our web page, too.

 

Basic Training In Nonviolent Conflict Transformation

Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, May 17 – 27, 2002

From May 17 – 27, 2002, CNA Sarajevo organised and implemented a ten-day training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation in «Bistrica» Hotel, in Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Training team included: Nedžad Horozović, Helena Rill, Tamara Šmidling and Nenad Vukosavljević.

There were 18 participants in the group, coming from different parts of former Yugoslavia – Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Due to an unusually big number of cancellations we received from those who had been invited (which is why the waiting list was completely cleared), there was an unbalance between the number of women and men in the group (11:7). That caused some difficulties.

Another characteristic of the training was the fact that there was only one Albanian participant from Kosovo, due to a very few application we received.

Participants were political activists, people from media and from different NGOs. The training team perceives the training as a very important experience for most of the participants, because for some of them it was the first encounter with people from almost all parts of former common country and also the first chance to exchange mutual experiences. In some moments, is was quite painful, but at the same time it opened some space for trust building and the beginning of the process of understanding the needs and fears of the “others”.

The key issues and those that marked a ten-day work were the following: nonviolent communication, violence and understanding of conflicts. Besides those, other themes were worked on: team work and decision making, differences, identity and national identity, gender roles, creative conflict transformation, power and nonviolent action. Having in mind the experience from our two previous basic training events, team set up a flexible concept, with only a few workshops prepared in advance.

According to the statements in evaluation questionnaires, workshop on national identity was especially important for almost the entire group, because it opened up many painful issues (experience of imposition of identity from environment, disability to express one’s own identity in accordance to one’s feelings, high level of sustained violence due to a certain identity, etc.).

Some of the turning points of the training happened while we were working on the issue of violence. It was very important that participants were willing to open up the process of looking for ways of direct action in conflict situations or situations in which structural violence is extreme. The leitmotifs of that training were the following questions: what are the ways of nonviolent action and what exactly does it mean to them as individuals? Awareness that, after all, many things can be done had a strong influence on empowering of participants and their understanding that it is necessary that they take responsibility for the society they live in.

At the end in their evaluation, the training team expressed their deep satisfaction with a ten-day work, trust that existed within the group and the team and with space that has opened up for future cooperation with participants, either through Training for Trainers Program (there was a lot of potential in the group for it) or through other forms of cooperation and mutual support in the future.

 

3.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES

 

SHL Workshops For Highschool Students

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, March 8 – 10, 2002

SHL (Shuler Helfen Leben) initiated and organised a two-day workshop in SHL House in Sarajevo, from March 8 -10, 2002. The workshop was conducted by CNA team members Nedžad Horozović and Adnan Hasanbegović. Participants were high school students from several towns of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bihać, Višegrad, Goražde, Glamoč). These workshops were a part of the series of seminars, organised by SHL, aiming to educate high school students and engage them in work on civil initiatives. Participants have been already engaged in their schools, in some groups dealing with civil activities within the community.

High motivation of participants indicates that more work should be done with this group and this segment of population in general on development of their capacity for social activity.

 

Workshops on Relation between National and Gender Identity

Belgrade, Serbia, March 2002

In February and March, a series of workshops dealing with the relationship between national and gender identity were implemented in Belgrade. The CNA Sarajevo team member Tamara Šmidling together with Danica Minić from Belgrade conducted a weekend-workshop on the themes of differences, and prejudices and gender roles within society. It was a quite heterogeneous group, made up of 12 participants with different interests and ideas about the work in the group.

The basic idea of the whole series was to try to disclose and analyse the way identity was formed in Yugoslav society during the last decade, and also to analyse the points in which gender and national identity were interlaced. A handful of different material was collected, including video tapes, newspaper articles and advertisements, photographs, billboard photos etc., that in a specific way revealed models that were being imposed in the socialisation process ever since early childhood. Considering that this was a type of pilot project, we hope there will be space and support to use this creative energy and invest it in further work on similar issues.

 

Panel Discussion and Presentation Of The Book «Diary With Reservists»

Belgrade, May 20th, 2002

On May 20th 2002, the Documentation Centre – Wars 1991 – 99 organised the presentation of the book entitled “Diary with Reservists”, by Nebojša Jovanović, a historian from Belgrade. It included a public debate about the book, about this kind of literature that was dealing with past wars in this region, their role in peace building and psychosocial processes that were happening under the circumstances of war.

The guests of the debate, besides the author, were: Tanja Tagirov, a journalist for «Vreme» news magazine from Belgrade, a correspondent with the Croatian news agency HINA who was living in Zagreb during the war in Croatia, a psychologist from Belgrade, Nebojša Petrović, who is currently working on research on the psychological aspects of reconciliation in the region of former Yugoslavia and Adnan Hasanbegović a CNA Sarajevo team member, who was present as a peace activist.

It is important to note that the book has been distributed in Croatia for quite some time already with the title “Let’s take Zagreb “.

We should mention that this debate happened while the CNA team was preparing the series of panel discussions named “Four Views – From The Past: How I Found Myself In War, Towards The Future: How To Reach Sustainable Peace?” that were implemented in Serbia in June, and that the author of the book, Nebojša Jovanović was one of the guests of these debates.

 

FOURTH QUARTER

JUNE – AUGUST 2002

4.1 MAIN ACTIVITIES

 

Panel Debates: Dealing With the Past

June 2002, Serbia

During June 2002, a series of public debates named “Four Views – From The Past: How I Found Myself In War, Towards The Future: How To Reach Sustainable Peace?” Were Held In Serbia. Guests of these debates were people who had participated in wars in the region of former Yugoslavia: Adnan Hasanbegović from Sarajevo, Gordan Bodog from Zagreb, Nebojša Jovanović and Saša Dujović from Belgrade. Facilitator of the debates was Katarina Katanić, a journalist from Kragujevac and also a participant of our Basic training (held in Ulcinj, Montenegro in April 2002).

We have been wanting for a long time already to start working more actively and more publicly on dealing with one’s individual responsibility for the past. It was materialised as this pilot project that included four debates, organised to start in Serbia: in Inđija (June 3rd, 2002), Niš (June 12th), Novi Pazar (June 17th) and Kragujevac (June 24th).

The idea was to find three or four people who took part in the wars as volunteers or those who were drafted; and who were on different sides, were ready to talk publicly about the way they had experienced the war, their responsibility, and their view on the future and building of sustainable peace. During each debate there was plenty of time left for the audience to ask questions or to give comments and opinions.

We were financially supported by the Swiss Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A complete report on these debates is included in this report (please see annex, page 40).

 

Programme Training for Trainers 2002 – 2003

The fourth Training for Trainers started with the first ten-day training, organized in Jahorina, near Sarajevo, from July 5 – 15, 2002. The programme will continue for 12 months with 8 phases altogether, which means it has been extended. We decided to extend because of our experiences with the previous training and results of evaluation. CNA team members developed the concept of the programme.

The programme is designed to train participants not only to facilitate a learning process in delicate, ethnically mixed and other groups, but also to provide them with skills and knowledge necessary to plan, organize, implement and evaluate such activities.

Participants of the programme

Most of the participants (17 out of 21 of them) received basic education in nonviolence from CNA’s Basic training events. There were13 women and 8 men, from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia.

Participants of the programme are activists of the following organisations:

Antiratna kampanja Hrvatske (Anti-war Campaign Croatia)

Autonomni ženski centar, Beograd (Autonomous Women Centre, Belgrade)

“Budućnost bez straha”, Štrpce (Future Without Fear, Štrpce, Kosovo)

Centar za balkansku saradnju “Loja”, Tetovo (Centre for Balkan Cooperation “Loja”, Tetovo, Macedonia)

Centar za prava čoveka i rešavanje konflikata, Skopje (Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, Skopje, Macedonia)

DOO Krug Dnevnik, Skopje (Krug Dnevnik, newspapers, Skopje, Macedonia)

Odbor za ljudska prava, Karlovac (Committee for Human Rights, Karlovac, Croatia)

OSCE Mission in Kosovo

Osnovna škola, Prijedor (Primary school from Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Postpesimisti Crne Gore (Postpessimists, Montenegro)

Prva detska ambasada vo svetot Megjashi, Skopje (The First Children’s Embassy in the World from Megjashi, Skopje, Macedonia)

Queeria LGBT radna grupa Socijaldemokratske Partije (Srbija) za prava homoseksualaca-ki (Queeria LGBT Social-democratic Party Work Group for Gay Rights, Serbia)

Radio Television Serbia, Novi Sad

Socijaldemokratska omladina (Youth of Social Democratic Party, Serbia)

Socijaldemokratska partija (Social Democratic Party, Serbia)

Stranka Liga socijaldemokrata Vojvodine – Forum žena GrO Novi Sad (Leaugue of Social-democrats of Vojvodina, Women’s Section, Novi Sad, Vojvodina)

Volonterski centar “Susret”, Sombor (Volunteer Centre “Susret”, Sombor, Vojvodina)

Ženske studije i istraživanja, Novi Sad (Women’s Studies and Research, Novi Sad, Vojvodina)

Training Team

The training team was made of CNA team members from our Belgrade and Sarajevo offices:

Helena Rill

Ivana Franović

Nedžad Horozović

Nenad Vukosavljević

Financial Support

The first 6 phases were founded by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Auswaertiges Amt). We still have not provided funding for the last two phases of the programme.

Phase I

A 10-day training, July 5 – 15, 2002

The first phase is an enhancement of The Basic Training, where the issues that were already worked on are being deepened. Participants are divided into teams that are going to prepare workshops on the subject they are interested in. They are going to implement them in the Phase III of the programme.

Phase II

Follow-up meetings, July – August 2002

Teams of participants that have been formed already get a chance to meet and work on preparations and elaboration of the workshop with back up from the training team. These meetings are planned to take 1-2 days.

Phase III

A 10-day training, August 23 – September 2, 2002

In the first half of this training, teams of participants are going to conduct workshops they prepared earlier, thus having an opportunity to work and get feedback in a safe environment. In the other part of the training, issues regarding the trainer’s work are covered: the role of the trainer, difficulties, preparation of workshops, and motivation.

Phase IV

A 5-day training, October 25 – 30, 2002 During this new phase of the programme, participants are going to develop new ideas for concrete activities they want to pursue. Participants form small teams and work on the implementation of these ideas. Together with the training team, they further elaborate these activities, define target groups and prepare strategies. Writing a project proposal is also addressed.

Phase V

Follow-up meetings, November – December 2002 In the meantime, prior to this phase of the programme, teams of participants make a draft or a project proposal for the activity they want to implement. During these meetings, they get a chance to elaborate their proposals, together with the training team.

Phase VI

A 5-day training, December 13 – 18, 2002 The teams of participants introduce their project proposals. They get a chance to hear opinions and criticism from the other participants. We will work on the development of skills for the public presentation of the goals and aims of the activities planned. Special attention is paid to the way we give the message to a wider public, and the values we promote. At the end, after the finalisation of project proposals, together we choose the ones that are going to be completed, adjust it to the total budget, and make a detailed plan of their implementation.

Phase VII

Implementation of the activities planed, 2003 This phase of the programme, which should last for 5 months, includes implementation of the activities planned according to projects. Participants gathered around purposeful activities are going to work on their implementation, with the support of the CNA team. This will include preparation, realisation and evaluation of their projects, and working on final written and financial reports. However, participants are the ones to determine what kind of support they want from the CNA team, based on their own assessment.

Phase VIII

A 4-day training, 2003 This is the last phase of the training. During this phase, experiences gained in the previous phase are exchanged, thorough evaluation is conducted, and possible future cooperation is discussed and need for support of CNA team is analysed.

 

Training for Trainers Programme, Phase I

Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, July 5-15, 2002

The knowledge and skills, learned during basic education, were deepened through covering the following themes: understanding of conflicts, nonviolent communication, gender roles within society, peace building, nonviolence and nonviolent action, creative conflict transformation, understanding of the role of the trainer and preparation of workshops.

This time, the programme of the training was flexible: it was adjusted as the training progressed, in accordance to the group’s needs and issues that were coming from the dynamics of the training process. In the first half, the training was dedicated only to the building of the group, exercises in team work and decision making, understanding of conflicts and nonviolent communication, for the purpose of the understanding of conflict and trust building. The training team found workshops to develop in quite an unexpected way, especially during the first three days. The programme was constantly adjusted in the breaks and in the evenings, which made the training team completely exhausted, but it showed in the quality of the training. All the issues were treated in a strong and direct relation to real problems. Therefore, many people compared empirical exercises with their own traumatic experiences, thus making the workshops emotionally charged. It was especially the case with the workshop on decision-making in which the group was asked to decide where the next training was going to take place, by choosing one of three options offered to them:

1. Višegrad – “Vilina vlas” hotel, in which Bosniak women were imprisoned and violated during the war.
2. Rama -“Peace House” within the Franciscan monastery in which CNA had held training last year. At the end of the training two of our cars were stolen, and local extremists threatened several people because they were not Croats. The monastery building is relatively safe, in case an attack should occur.
3. Kolašin – A hotel in a northern Montenegrin town, politically divided between those who are pro-independence of Montenegro and those who support the continuance of the joint state with Serbia (slight majority). The hotel has two buildings, one of which is taken completely by Montenegrin special police, paramilitary forces formed in case of war with former Serbian president Milošević. The group was unable to reach the decision, but the questions “ Why not (go to) Višegrad?” provoked emotional outbursts from many people who said they would not want to be in such a place under any circumstances. Some participants misunderstood why others would not discuss this issue that resulted in personal conflicts and suspicions. This made the subject of the training i.e. it was one of the key aspects of the training. The conflict was resolved/transformed in the following days.

 

Before the end of the training, seven small groups, made of three participants each, were formed. They chose the themes of workshops to prepare in the meantime finalize during follow-up meetings with trainers and conduct themselves on the next ten-day training.

The evaluation workshop and the evaluation of the training team expressed satisfaction with all the things that were accomplished, which was a solid base to continue working. It was concluded that 4 basic training events represent an optimum base for the selection of participants for this programme and that it was preferred to leave 3-4 places for people who had gained their basic education in conflict transformation outside CNA.

Here are some of the participants’ statements from evaluation:

What is your most important experience from this training?

-I carry lots of different experiences, and I am not sure I can rank them depending on their importance. The most precious is the feeling I can understand things I do not accept.

What do you think you have learned on these workshops? Which of those things can you apply in your work and in your life?

-I already have some ideas how I can pass the things I learned onto adults who work with children, through training events. I’ll explore ways to help me enable kids to understand conflicts better and therefore deal with them actively and constructively. First of all, when it comes to violence of any kind I’ll try to be more active in my personal life and in my family, than I was before.

-It had a significant influence on some of my opinions. Some of these themes made me realize I wasn’t an indifferent or careless person at all, uninterested in the issues we were covering in workshops for which I once thought “OK, that’s it, so what?”

What have you found in these workshops that you never expected to?

-I was taken by surprise when I realised I was a bully in a way, that I had some schemes I used in violent situations or more precisely, I was taking a role of the victim while the other bullies should stop all by themselves and even feel ashamed. Now, I’ve seen that it really generates even greater violence. I’ve realised that the solution is in constructive action, not passivity.

Training for Trainers programme, Phase II

In July and August we implemented the Phase II follow-up meetings of the Training for Trainers programme. Seven small teams of participants had to prepare a workshop that they were going to conduct in the next training. Two members of the training team took part in these meetings to give the participant teams support, advice, suggestions and feedback. The themes chosen by participants in Phase I of the programme were

-Respecting differences

-Identity

-Prejudices (2 teams)

-Gender roles in the society

-Peace building

-Power

There were meetings with each of the seven participant teams, mostly 2 days long, two of which were held in Sarajevo, two in Skopje and three in Belgrade. The meetings covered the themes of defining the goals of the workshop, defining the main issues participants wanted to treat in the workshop, structural elaboration of the workshop, defining exercises which were going to be conducted, and discussing the questions why and how much the defined structure of the workshop covered the issues and goals of the workshop.

For most of the participants these meetings were exhausting, but at the same time very useful. They considered them to be an adequate preparation for the workshops they were going to conduct in the next training in Kolašin, from August 23 to September 2, 2002.

 

Basic Training in Nonviolent Conflict Transformation

Vogošća, Bosnia and Herzegovina, July 26 – August 5, 2002

The fourteenth Basic Training, and the third one in 2002, was held in Vogošća near Sarajevo, in the «Park» hotel. It was organized by the CNA Sarajevo office. We received 112 applications, and 19 people took part instead of 20 because one participant from Kosovo cancelled at the beginning of the training. Adnan Hasanbegović and Tamara Šmidling from the CNA Sarajevo office, and Milan Colić from the CNA Belgrade office, together with Bosa Janjušević from Belgrade (a participant of last year’s Training for Trainers) were in the training team.

Participants came from different parts of former Yugoslavia: Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The participant group was well gender balanced: there were 10 women and 9 men. Several people, who were invited, had to cancel at the last moment and this caused some difficulties for the training team regarding the organisation of the event. A number people from the waiting list were contacted, even later than it had been agreed originally. One day before the training, right after two people had cancelled, two women were invited (one from Macedonia and the other from Montenegro) and they left on the same day.

Due to a small number of applications, and one cancellation, there were no Albanian participants on the training. This caused problems as we intended to intensify work on the Serbia – Kosovo – Macedonia triangle, because of its specific nature and constant relevance. This training was specific because almost all of the participants came from NGOs with a very different mission: religious organisations, youth associations, women’s groups, Roma associations, peace organisations, organisations for cultural development and those that support the development of the NGO sector.

The training was attended by one person from media (a journalist from Stara Pazova radio station), one from a political party (Democratic Party of Republic of Srpska) and one from an international government organisation (OSCE Kosovo). One male and two female participants who came from NGOs also worked as teachers. We found this particularly important because they carry great potential as multipliers of the knowledge and awareness gained on the training.

We express our thanks to UNO Stiftung Foundation for financially supporting this event. In this training we implemented the so-called “open concept” of workshops. This means that only a few first sessions were prepared in advance, while the rest was adjusted to the group’s dynamics and the process that was going on which enabled us to respond to the more specific needs of the group. For most of the team (apart from one team member) it was the first time we worked with this “open concept”, and all the possibilities and difficulties it brings along. It was also the first time that we applied such a concept with a training team not entirely made up of CNA team members.

It was obvious that the whole group of participants was highly motivated. They took part in the process intensively (in both exercises and their evaluation); they were very active, always on time, stayed longer than planned. During breaks (for coffee, lunch, in the evenings…) participants spent a lot of time discussing some issues initiated in the workshops, with the trainers and amongst themselves.

The group process changed on a daily basis in a very obvious way. Some of the issues relevant for nonviolent communication (I-speech, active listening) were not presented through a model, but in an attempt to analyse all the elements of nonviolent communication together with the participants. Some of the values we achieved while making the Agreement on how to work together and while doing a workshop on nonviolent communication were present throughout all the training.

It was obvious that people from the group experienced the themes of the training on the emotional level, too. Participant’s comments and reactions were often charged with emotions, which were affecting the group’s dynamics, the atmosphere in it and building of a safe space within the group.

In our opinion, the most important points of this training are workshops on prejudices and national identity, gender roles within society, creative conflict transformation and a round of feedback included in the programme later because it was necessary. The following themes were worked on as well: mutual decision making, understanding of conflicts, sensitising to violence, differences, identities and power.

The workshop on prejudices and national identity initiated a very important discussion, first about prejudices, one’s right to have them and a way towards discrimination, which is often a result of prejudices. We had discussions about everyday situations we encountered, individual re­examination and one’s own personal development, our (non) recognition of the roles we take in those situations (whether it was the role of the discriminator or the one who’s being discriminated) and possibilities to structurally change routine patterns by changing points of view.

Some participant statements:

-It is something that is hurting the one I have prejudice against. I still don’t think I should be harassed because of my prejudices. We all have them them and get, so nobody should be treated as a sinner but we should work on it.

-I wonder if it’s a prejudice if I estimate people upfront. Is caution the same as  prejudice?

-For me, every prejudice – is prejudice. It  might be positive for me, but I wonder what’s it like for the person I have prejudice against.

-I can say for example that Japanese are precise. It is a prejudice, but not discrimination.

-Prejudices are the starting point towards discrimination.

-I’m standing in the middle. I think they lead to discrimination because they put everyone who’s a part of some group in some mould, and that is some kind of violence.

The training initiated a discussion about national identity and how big a part of an individual’s whole identity it was. As a result of this discussion we got the impression that participants were very insecure about their national identity and whether it was adequate or not to express it in social systems within the present post-war atmosphere (or in some cases even war atmosphere), in the region of a former joint country. This was recognized as a characteristic of the whole region. This subject was discussed with a considerable amount of political correctness and caution, and it was not unusual to hear people say they don’t want (or even shouldn’t) talk about it. This confirms how important it is to work on it and establish a safe space where these issues can be discussed in order to start a wide public discussion and open up possibilities for re-examination of the “values” that have come out of the national “awakening” that has taken place in this region over the past fifteen years. Nationalism and the misuse of national identity in the past were also discussed a lot in the training. Some statements from the national identity workshop included;

-I think people feel the need to belong because it gives them a sense of security, they don’t feel alone. For me that feeling of belonging to some nation is a form of security and protection.

-Nationality is for me something artificially imposed in former Yugoslavia. I prefer to take a position towards some people, Slovenian for example, than towards some nation. We were all Yugoslavs before, and nobody complained too much.

-It would be a whole different story if the economic situation were better. It wouldn’t be important if the standard of living were like the one in Switzerland.

-We talked about how national identity became stronger when we were in danger. I cannot understand the positive content of this identity. Is it the alphabet, the language or what? I know more songs from Macedonia than the Šumadija region (in Serbia). I think about whether I have an emotional relation towards the Cyrillic alphabet, because I stopped using it in the nineties, because of all the pressure that we had to use it. Now, I feel sorry about it.

-For me the positive content is great people: scientists, poets, etc.

-I shiver when I hear the Yugoslav national anthem or see the Yugoslav flag. I see that these young generations don’t accept it at all. I carry this great conflict inside me, when it comes to it. One feels more comfortable if there’s a group one can identify with, but in present conditions national identity may present a big problem.

During the workshop on gender roles within society we started to discuss the social imposition of gender roles and the re-examination of our own participation in this process. The discussion referred to the concrete social roles in which men and women found themselves most often, about (in)flexibility of these roles, systems that were imposed on us through upbringing and growing up, and possibilities to change what was recognized as gender discrimination. CNA considers work on these issues and re-examination of the role of the individual are both important aspects of self-improvement but also of establishing social values (or even better promoting values that have been neglected). These values establish the basis for equality and equal rights that are one of the corner stones of the process of establishing a sustainable peace in this (or any other) region.

Throughout the whole training we discussed some of the important principal issues of nonviolent action and the potential for an active individual to have an impact on reducing social injustice and de-escalating violence through an analysis of structures that support the violence. Special reflection on this kind of social action was given during the following workshops: Prejudice and national identity, Gender roles within society, Creative transformation of conflicts, Understanding of conflicts, Violence and Power. A very fruitful discussion was held during the workshop on the theme of Creative conflict Transformation. It was about the possibilities of the individual to alter and multiply the values of nonviolent action with as many people who have been the subject of social injustice as possible. Not just with those who recognized it, but also with those who did not feel like they were affected first hand. The impression remains with us that after that workshop and the following one which was about the power of individual (structured as an empowering element at the end of the training), the participants left empowered and much more sensitised to violence in society, as they said themselves in the evaluation of both workshops.

In the internal evaluation of the training, the training team expressed their satisfaction with what was accomplished while looking back at difficulties and learning points. We finished the training with a high level of energy, which was very much related to what we were receiving from the group all along. We are also satisfied that there is a chance for further co-operation with participants either through Training for Trainers (we see much potential in this group) or through other forms of co-operation and support in the future. Just one day after the training, some participants initiated a mailing list, moderated by one of them, in which they discuss the possibilities of establishing some kind of regional co-operation.

Here are some of the statements from evaluation questionnaires. They gave answers to the following questions: “What is your most important experience from this training? What do you think you’ve learned on this training? Which of the things you’ve learned can you apply in your work and your life?”

-I can believe in nonviolent communication as a way to solve problems (overcome conflicts).

-This training is a totally new experience for me. It‘s important that I‘ve seen that prejudices exist, but that it is possible to work on them, that it isn‘t difficult to accomplish changes. It’s even more important I‘ve realised that any kind of activity is better than observing passively. Therefore, I‘ll become even more active.

-I‘m better in talking to people, and I‘m going to get organised better.

-New energy to go on … answers to questions from other perspectives, self-realisation, re­examination, awakening, plenty of new experiences and exchange, emotional charge, exchange of energy and emotions.

-I don‘t remember when I was more relaxed and open. I‘ve realised: when I think there is no way – now I know that there are at least four of them.

-Well, this training has certainly initiated me into re-examining myself and working in my own community in different ways. I think I‘m a whole new person now.

-Lots of things learned: discussion, listening, conflict. I can do a lot – I‘m a schoolteacher.

-I think I‘ve learned how important it is to express one‘s needs, how essential it is to think whether some action will make violence escalate or de-escalate in a conflict and how important it is to know there are some other experiences. I think I can improve my behaviour in time, acting and having in mind these three things.

-There‘s a way out of every situation, every problem, and every conflict, a solution exists. I don‘t want to be a passive observer of injustice any more!

-I‘ve learned to perceive other people‘s needs, to talk about them, but not for the purpose of justifying them but to understand them, respect and accept them.

More details about the training, the themes covered and the evaluation will soon be available in the documentation of the training. It has 84 pages and it’s titled «The Gym». It is available on request from CNA, and it will soon be on our web page, too.

 

4.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES

 

Internal Meeting of CNA team

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, August 13-14, 2002

Internal 2-day meeting of all CNA team members from both of our offices was held in August. Looking at some important moments of our every day work, we discussed the issues of fund raising, sharing of responsibility, work agreement, new volunteers in CNA, the work plan for 2003, etc.

In the first part of the meeting we made a detailed plan the fund raising strategy, and the distribution of responsibility between the two offices. The suggestion was made to try and find some new partners besides those we’ve been co-operating with up to date. We spent a lot of time discussing the distribution of responsibility and the taking over of duties inside the office. There’s a huge need for better co-ordination because people were often overburdened with many different engagements. It’s important to improve the exchange of information on a daily basis, especially between offices in Belgrade and Sarajevo. There’s also a need for additional internal workshops on issues that some of our members lack, e.g. fundraising and computer skills.

We came up with several suggestions for future members of our team in Sarajevo and Belgrade. We plan to increase our staff by two or three people by the end of the year. The work plan for the forthcoming period will be enclosed as a separate section of this report.

 

 

EVALUATION OF CNA WORK

SEPTEMBER 2001 – AUGUST 2002

Activities

We had a very busy past twelve months, here in the Centre for Nonviolent Action. Besides our regular basic activities, basic training events and Training for Trainers programme, the past year meant the beginning of work on another area of peace building: the implementation of the project «Dealing With the Past ».

We had five basic training events in nonviolent conflict transformation organized consecutively by both of our offices. Our experiences from the previous training events resulted in some conceptual changes. An open and flexible programme, adjusted to the needs and the dynamics of the group was first tried in Ulcinj, in November 2001. This concept became regular on other training events.

Participants of these seminars are mostly NGO activists from the region where we work, but we find it especially important to have lot more people from media, from political parties and those who work in educational institutions, which was not the case in the previous period. Exploratory trips done by our team members in Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, during 2000 and 2001, increased significantly the number of people from those regions who are interested in participating in our training events. We received an average of 120 applications per training. Different people feel they need this kind of training (disabled persons for example) therefore it’s our “task” to find an adequate way to meet their needs. What remains a problem is a relatively small number of applications from people from Kosovo who work in local organizations. This indicates the need to establish even closer contact with such organizations and empower them to work on peace building.

During the last four months of the past year we implemented most of the Training for Trainers programme. We had two training events (one lasted for ten and the other for four days) and two sessions of follow-up meetings. In order to strengthen regional cooperation, participants of the Training were able to start some initiatives in their own local communities, that were at the same time important for these communities. An informal trainers network made up of people who work on peace building in this region has been expanded with new “members”. A new initiative was born in this process, which we consider especially valuable. People who went through this programme several years ago supported it and participated in it. It’s an initiative to organize and implement a ten-day training in the southeast of Serbia, which was done by two women, and one man who had participated in CNA’s first Training for Trainers, in 1998/99.

One of the important points regarding multiplication and the connecting of people who went through Training for Trainers is how to give them support and stimulate them to take further steps as activist, after the Program is over. As a result of that need, a new, expanded concept of Training for Trainers was created. In additional phases of the programme participants are going to write project proposals (which we should oversee and support during both the writing process and the implementation) and provide financial resources for the implementation of their ideas.

The first phase (a ten-day training) of this year’s Training for Trainers was held in Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in July with an unusually big group made of 21 participants. Our last year’s learning point concerning the organization of more basic training events in order to have more people we can invite to TfT (Training for Trainers programme) gave good results, because this time it was much easier to compose a group of highly motivated people to work on nonviolence. After the first phase the other training events should follow in which participants are going to learn how to write project proposals, how to present them, pursue strategic planning, etc. The project «Dealing with the past” that included four public debates organized in Serbia, was a new kind of activity and a new field of action for our organization. Through the stories of people who had participated in wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, we tried to initiate and open up a long term processing of war events. We hope to continue this process in co-operation with different organizations and individuals from Serbia, but also from Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, where we intend to implement a new series of public debates.

Work on the implementation of this idea demands a lot more presence in the media, and in the community where the project is taking place. All of which is quite difficult and exhausting. It also requires lot more work within CNA on improving our skills on public appearance and presentation of our work.

Co-operation with local partners in the towns where the debates will take place is also something we believe we need to work on. The primary aim of this is to include local organizations in the process of creating and implementing ideas, and ensuring that they feel we are all working together on a common cause and promoting common values.

Along with our basic activities, CNA team members conducted several short training events and workshops with different groups in different regions (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo). In March 2002 we worked on a very specific training in the southeast Serbia, in Zvonačka Banja. The participant group was made out of Bulgarians and Serbs from the three neighbouring municipalities of Pirot, Dimitrovgrad and Babušnica.

A three-day training in Štrpce held in December 2001 was the first time we worked in Kosovo, in completely exceptional and very hard circumstances. Štrpce is a Serb enclave, whose people have very restricted freedom of movement outside the enclave, and almost no communication with people from other ethnic communities whatsoever. We are glad to establish contact with the local population and activists of local NGOs, and we hope these contacts will result in further and wider cooperation.

Chances to establish and deepen contacts that have already existed, and to exchange experiences and get an insight into ways, impulses and obstacles to work in peace building were given to us while visiting England, Northern Ireland and Switzerland. These were also suitable moments to present the work of CNA to the environment and within circles where social conflicts and relations are quite specific and where peace work is perceived in various ways.

 

The Manual in Macedonian Language

Last year, The Manual «NONVIOLENCE» was translated into Macedonian. We hope that by doing so we made another step towards promoting the values of nonviolence between people whose native language is Macedonian. It’s even more important because of the complexity of the situation in Macedonia and an everlasting hovering conflict between people of different ethnicity. We see a great need for action in that region and having a medium written in local language may be helpful. Publishing The Manual in Albanian is the next step planned for next year.

 

Exploratory Trip in Serbia and Montenegro

We conducted an exploratory trip in Serbia and Montenegro in October and December last year. On that occasion our members met activists from numerous NGOs, peace groups and women’s groups active in the area. Our impression is that getting in touch with people first-hand, and talking to them face-to-face, contributes to establishing and maintaining contacts, and to possible cooperation with organizations and individuals we want to support and whose support is important to us.

 

Delayed Activities

A regional meeting for people who work on peace building, which had been awaited and planned for a long time, was postponed due to lack of funding. We won’t have the financial resources required for the networking meeting until January or February 2003.

One of the basic training events, planned to happen in the first half of 2002 was delayed, despite the fact that the Council of Europe approved that project. However since their budget is not big enough to cover all of the activities they approve, we need to wait for the moment when they will have the money for our training, which at this point seems quite uncertain.

Belgrade Office

The CNA office in Belgrade opened last July. We have completed the phase of consolidating and getting started and that is behind us. Now we can say we’re going full steam ahead with plenty of initiatives. Working in an organization with two separate offices in two different countries is quite a challenge for everyone in the team. On one hand, we see it as an active approach to work in different places in the region of former Yugoslavia thus underlining the importance of regional work, while on the other hand the actual distance between Belgrade and Sarajevo puts great demands in front of us regarding communication and organization of our activities. However, we consider ourselves ready to meet this challenge.

Capacities

In the past work year we considerably intensified our activities and expanded the field of action. However this increase of activities was not accompanied with any increase of capacities, and the same number of people are doing more work, with an uneven distribution of responsibilities. Having in mind next year’s work plan with and additional list of activities, we will need to enlarge our team. Therefore, we hope new people will join both our offices, in Sarajevo and Belgrade thus reducing the number of occasions in which we are at the point of complete exhaustion.

Funding

Providing financial support for our activities and for the costs of running our two offices required lots of energy and contacts, having in mind the increase and some new kind of activities. We are relatively satisfied with the connections and the financial backup we received. We are somewhat unsatisfied with the length of time we need to wait for donors to answer our requests. This has delayed many activities, and resulted in an uneven schedule of events throughout the year. We still haven’t got the money for the two last phases of Training for Trainers. Our aim to achieve a long-term and stable funding for CNA remains a priority, which we still haven’t reached mostly because the European Union once again turned down our project proposal.

However this year another step towards that goal was made with co-operation we’ve started with Swiss Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They financially supported the implementation of the project «Dealing With the Past», as well as two basic training events. We hope to have long-term co-operation with this partner since we feel they understand and support what we do and how we do it.

Besides our long term partners like Diakonisches Werk, German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Berghof Stiftung, Quaker Peace and Social Witness and IPPNW, this year we were also supported, for the first time, by UNO Stiftung and Quaker Hilfe.

An expanded concept of the Training for Trainers programme means securing a lot more money than before, which also means lots more work when it comes to applying for funding in this year and next one too. It also means extending these responsibilities to other team members.

 

ENVIRONMENT THAT CNA WORKS IN

August 2002

“My Bosnia”, or “oouch”

What has changed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? – it seems that it’s always difficult to answer this question. In comparison to 1997, the infrastructure has been rebuilt in general. There’s enough electricity, water and telecommunications, but the rest of the economy is still almost non-existent. It would also be unfair not to mention that unlike a few years ago, the food industry of Bosnia and Herzegovina offers plenty of products now.

Foreign military presence is less obvious than before, the percentage of refugees who returned to their homes has reached an incredibly high number of 50% (for the whole country) and some estimation say (those of OHR, amongst others) this process is going to end until 2004. However, discrimination of minorities remains present.

Not so long ago we discussed the possibilities of the media presentation of our project „Dealing with the Past” with one of the participants of our former basic training events. He is a TV and a radio journalist (until recently he’s been a news presenter for a newly founded state TV station – originally called Public Broadcasting Service RTV Bosnia and Herzegovina – yes, in English!). We were told that such a presentation is simply impossible, because the CRA (Communication Regulatory Agency – also an original name; formerly known as the Independent Media Commission, which is completely independent from the influence of any Bosnian institutions), has been monitoring the media all along, and doesn’t allow mention of the word „war” in the media. Breaking this rule is fined with high penalties (this is how the Commission is financed). Hence there is no past since there is no discussion about it. We should sweep everything under the carpet and pretend it never happened, while people should turn to the future, whatever it is … How to heal the wounds from the war, how to talk about the pain that people of all sides went through, how to wipe out something that is still there present in people’s minds, something they don’t know how to get out of? Forget? So, what are we going to learn from everything that has happened, if we don’t look back together? There are going to be at least three mutually exclusive conclusions, just as well as there are three views of history, and at least three mutually exclusive visions of future society in which everything and everybody is deprived and interconnected.

On July 1st 2000 The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina reached the decision that parts of the Constitutions of the entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not in accordance with the Federal Constitution, because they violate the principle of the constituency of nations in the whole territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. „The Agreement about the Implementation of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina about the Constituency of the Nations« was made, almost two years later, on March 27 2002. All that remains now is implementing the Agreement.

What are the changes of the Constitution?

Among other things, they regulate:

• The minimum number of representatives of constitutional nations in Parliaments (at least 4)
• The distribution of vital political functions, such as that of the prime minister, the president of the entity parliaments, the president of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court and the public attorney. Representatives of the constitutional nations may have two of the functions stated above, at the most.
• Presidents and vice-presidents of the entities must belong to different constitutional nations.
• The number of ministers in entity governments is distributed ethnically, providing a slight majority to Serbs and Bosniaks in those entities where they have the majority.
• The number of representatives in public institutions (executive and legal authority) is in proportion with the census of 1991.

The High Representative is the final interpreter of the Agreement, as long as it is not fully implemented by the parliaments. It seems it is presumably left to the High Representative to estimate.

Implementation of these decisions and agreements doesn’t mean that any step is made against the discrimination of minority nations. On the contrary it means that discrimination is wrapped into »constitutional equality«. Thus the current situation remains intact. Every chance there is for Bosnia and Herzegovina to become a civil society in which citizens will not be ethnically divided is irretrievably abolished.

The ethnically proportional number and distribution of ministers is hardly going to affect the existing discrimination, or change the atmosphere in society. It is used as an argument by all of those who want to keep the status quo, and look for an excuse to do so in the changes stated above. In the meantime bureaucracy, which is just as corrupt as most of the government structures, as we experience it ourselves, makes life unbearable for ordinary citizens, even in the areas where they are the majority.

Parliamentary and presidential general elections are scheduled for the end of this year. Election campaigns have already started, offering demagogy for the purpose of remaining in power or coming to power. The ‘discussions’ between political opponents, (everybody is against everybody, and has to be defeated with whatever means there are), and even their names, resemble those in the early nineties. The main stumbling block in all public debates between political candidates is the question on whether the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was an aggression or a civil war. All of this indicates that, despite many hopes, very little is going to change in both the ruling structures and the lives of the majority of people after these elections.

It is important to point out that the events of 11th September 2001 in the USA have had a great impact on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. While the country has been listed as one of those that support international terrorism, it is also a member of the anti-terrorist coalition. Local government does not handle the current situation very well. Very often social conflicts occur while the government tries to keep the balance, attempting to satisfy both the interests of the international community, primarily the USA; while one section of the local population experiences this process as the return of anti-Islamism. Discrimination against people with an authentic Islamic appearance is increased in domestic and international institutions. Work of the organizations and foreigners from Islamic countries is currently under thorough investigation, the process of getting visa for some European countries and USA for citizens of Islamic countries is made much more difficult…

Bosnia in Europe!

The commercials and products of international companies all over Bosnia and Herzegovina create an impression similar to that of some cities in Western Europe. Coca Cola opened its factory here in Sarajevo few years ago. Over the past several months it has made several commercial and monopolistic moves and put the market at risk by pushing out domestic companies that produce original mineral water, unlike Coca Cola’s »carbonated mineralised water«. Not long ago, part of the participants of our training in Jahorina, refused to consume this and other products of that company which left the hotel staff quite confused.

 

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

Unlike in Bosnia and Herzegovina which kept its name at least, the citizens of the country in which the CNA office in Belgrade works, still aren’t sure what their country’s name is … However, the constitution of the new state (or union?) of Serbia and Montenegro, is on it’s way, or to be more precise, the constitution of the Constitutional Charter which is very hard to agree on and which some politicians are using to score points. What do citizens call their country now? They use different names, but many of them have a hard time forgetting the old one – Yugoslavia. Whatever that means …

The way things are, concerning the name of the country, is similar to what the political and social scene looks like – and that is very confusing. Lots of things remain unseen because of numerous affairs, scandals, disputes, disagreements, quarrels between politicians and political parties, happening one after another, incredibly quickly, and which is all very tiresome and even invisible… As they say: you cannot see the wood for the trees…

For example, a parliamentary crisis was caused by the requisition of parliamentary mandates from MPs in the Democratic Party of Serbia. This cannot be considered an act of democracy, and it may have some serious consequences. The scandal with the former Army Chief of Staff General Pavković (President Kostunica replaced general Pavkovic and in turn, Pavkovic revealed supposed wiretapping of president Koštunica and his alleged plans to use the Army to raid the Serbian Government Bureau for Communications) makes us wonder if there is a misuse of power by the highest state officials, and whether the people they employ are acting under authorization. It also makes us wonder about the safety of ordinary citizens, while the friction between Serbia’s ruling coalition, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS), and Yugoslav President Koštunica’s Democratic Party of Serbia (DPS) is becoming more frequent.

Presidential elections in Serbia are scheduled for autumn, and the campaign is becoming hectic. It seems that tension is rising and the hate speech is adding up to it’s vivid folklore. People who belong to the Socialistic Party of Serbia (the party of former Serbian president Milošević) did their best to make it all look like a theatre with their proposal that he should run for president, while Milošević proposed the extreme nationalist Šešelj… If it weren’t tragic it would be funny.

Local elections were held in the south of Serbia (Preševo, Bujanovac, Medveđa). Instead of resolving the situation in some way, it became even more turbulent – different political options argue heatedly over this part of Serbia – the argument is primarily between the Co-ordination Body of the Serbian Government and Nebojša Čović, the Serbian Vice Minister on one side, and the and local DOS and Democratic party on the other.

Igniting the flame of nationalism and stirring up people against “the other ones”, encouraged by certain individuals from the opposition, is just one aspect of the political scene. Unfortunately, people are still being questioned in relation to their (or even their relatives) ethnic background. Therefore, Velimir Ilić, the president of Nova Serbia and the major of Čačak, declared that Labus sounds “suspicious” and “that he has never met anyone in Serbia whose surname is Labus”. (Miroljub Labus, the vice-president of the Federal government, is now running for president of Serbia). When Ilic criticizes the Serbian government he explains their poor results with the fact that the former minister for energy is Croat, while the husband of the major of Belgrade is Muslim.

The issues of Sandžak and Vojvodina remain present; therefore many events related to this are explained exclusively as separatism, with a lot of scepticism and suspicion. Some people even claim there’s no need to introduce the Bosnian language in schools because it’s just a change of “a few words and accents “…

This country is, as they say, in “transition”. That is also something the ordinary citizen is interested in – what is happening with the privatisation process? Foreign loans? Are we moving towards economic recovery? What’s the right course in politics? Will there be enough electricity in the winter (always interesting before the winter season). An important item for every country is whether its currency is stable or not, and whether there is a dependable banking system, which has not been the case here for a long time.

Legal regulations don’t disregard NGOs either. The status of NGOs has not been legally regulated in this country. Yet. When the CNA Belgrade office opened last summer, the bill on NGOs was supposed to be passed. One year later and it has still not happened. This makes it harder for the organization to function because there are no definite rights and obligations according to which it can act. Therefore organizations are not protected from other regulations that may be questionable when applied to their activities.

 

Macedonia Before the Parliamentary Elections

A year has passed since the so-called Ohrid Agreement was reached. The agreement put a stop to the military conflict between the two sides in Macedonia, in return for the constitutional changes demanded from the Albanian side, aiming to bring equal rights to Albanians in Macedonia. Parliamentary elections are going to be held in autumn and they’ve been prepared in the atmosphere of fear and insecurity, because the armed incidents are getting more regular, while the party political rhetoric is getting tougher in order to ethnically unite citizens and present themselves as their patrons.

During our recent visit to Macedonia, our friends who lived there expressed their dilemmas about the elections, because there was no political party they could trust. During our stay in Skopje, we could hear sporadic gunfire every night, and on one occasion a bullet hit the window of the house we were staying in and ended up right above the bed of one of the participants. Although there was no one in the room when this happened it was very frightening, and what is probably worse, it resulted an ongoing feeling of insecurity. When we talked to the police we were surprised that they didn’t accuse “Albanian terrorists” for the attack on the police patrol, which was close to the house (that is why the bullet accidentally ended up in the house). The young policemen looked quite helpless wearing their bulletproof vests, carrying automatic rifles, which they discerningly put away when entering the house.

The day before that, while registering for temporary residence at the police station, we witnessed a scene in which a seemingly higher police official was talking to an elderly woman who was sitting next to us and crying. In front of everybody in the waiting room, he told her she had to bring him personally 2500 denier (40 EURO) in order for him to release her son, arrested for theft, from custody. While we were going down the street and talking with some friends from Macedonia about what we just witnessed, we passed by one of many graffiti saying „Death for Šiptari” (a defamatory expression for Albanians). I pointed to it and looked at my Albanian friend, but he just shook his head and said: „It has already become normal “.

The situation in Tetovo seems to be peaceful and normal, with people on the streets and in cafes. Anyway, we hear that a lot has changed since the last year’s armed conflict – the economy is ruined, there’s ongoing fear and distrust, especially in villages, and that in some of them people from’ other’ ethnicities (Albanians or Macedonians) are not allowed to enter. There’s a prevailing feeling that “it’s not over yet” and that’s an additional obstacle to those who try to build trust and communication between two sides.

The corruption is incredibly widespread and the public services employ only those who are politically fitting (those who are members of the right political party). The gross national product has dropped. All of this remains in the shadow of inter-ethnic distrust and fear that the armed conflict might continue.

Last year was marked with numerous political scandals. Perhaps the most obscure manifested itself in the character of the Macedonian interior minister. He’s always organizing special paramilitary forces that call themselves after wild animals. In May, at the practice exercise of one such unit, the minister took it upon himself to fire some heavy infantry weapon, and ended up wounding several guests, including the French Embassy interpreter’s wife, the Police Chief of Skopje, one member of the special military unit and a journalist for the Skopje daily “Dnevnik”.

The upcoming September elections do not indicate a good result, regardless of what their outcome will be. However there are examples of cooperation between members of opposite communities despite the fear and silent pressure of the environment that looks at these attempts with suspicion.

 

Kosovo

The government of Kosovo was formed after a several month long process of negotiation, following the parliamentary and presidential elections that were held a year ago. It was certainly the most important thing that happened last year. Since none of the political parties were able to provide the absolute majority in the parliament, finally an agreement was reached in which all the major political opponents on the Albanian political scene in Kosovo divided the functions of the President, Prime minister and the Parliamentary President, amongst themselves.

Not much has changed regarding economic prosperity, which is the most important issue for Albanians in Kosovo right now. However this August another matter became even more important than that: the arrest and indictment of the former high commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army. One highly ranked officer of the Kosovo Defence Corps has been detained in custody for the torture and killing of five people. At the same time, Ramuš Haradinaj, the leader of The Alliance for the Future of Kosovo, which is the third largest party in the Kosovo Parliament, was charged with an assault on an Albanian family in 2000.

The Albanian reaction to these steps of the international prosecuting attorney and the UNMIK administration (which has the power to revoke any decision of the government, the president or the parliament) were large and violent rallies, blaming the international administration of following Serbian orders, when accusing former Kosovo Liberating Army leaders.

Speaking in the short-term, the whole situation is to the advantage of the radical wing of the Albanian political elite. They use it to mobilize people and suppress problems like the multi-million EURO worth embezzlement in The Electrical Company of Kosovo, the chronic shortage of electricity and the economic shock caused by the many soldiers and foreign humanitarian workers leaving Kosovo, and thus leaving a local economy without a significant source of income. In the long term, in case conflicts with the UNMIK administration continue, the credibility of Kosovo institutions as well as the media who supported the demonstration will inevitably diminish.

While the Albanians are preoccupied with their own problems, other ethnic communities worry about things like maintaining their own identity, lack of freedom of movement etc. Five newly renovated houses were destroyed and two American soldiers were injured in a bomb-attack in one village where Serbian refugees were supposed to return to. The Bosniak community, which is situated mostly around the town of Prizren, at the Southwest, feels subjected to assimilation and albanisation. The Serbian community is spread-out in several enclaves. They fear that Kosovo might become independent which would most certainly lead to a massive emigration to Serbia proper.

 

Croatia

It seems that the results of the latest census are going to be the news of the decade in Croatia. According to these results there is now only 4,04 % of Serbs in Croatia, as opposed to 12,2 % before the war. Many conservative politicians announced it as the best news of this decade, while the reaction of the Croatian government was much more reserved, understanding that this information might be used against Croatia, because it undoubtedly points towards the consequence, or even the goal, of the so called “war for the fatherland”. The new Croatian government was formed after breaking up with one of seven former coalition partners. The government is pressed to the wall because public opinion has turned against it, due to bad economic indicators and an increased unemployment rate. Nationalistic opposition uses this situation to gather their supporters, thus taking away space from the government which is currently having disputes about the border with all three neighbouring countries: FRY Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia. It seems that the incidents at the border are being used to gather populist support for the government, which is also the case in some neighbouring countries (especially in Republic of Srpska / Bosnia and Herzegovina).

The merits of the current Croatian government, such as membership in international organisations, and the country’s regained respectability, which were achieved after the disastrous rule of the Tudjman regime, have already sunk into oblivion. The country’s respectability is seriously impaired with the infamously biased decisions of the presiding judge in the trial of the members of the Croatian Army who committed war crimes against Serbs in Split in 1992. The question of whether it is possible to commit war crimes in a defensive war or not, still remains open in wider public in Croatia.

Although, there’s more than a year left before the new elections, there’s still a great threat that the representatives of the old “patriotic” political forces might regain power.

 

FUTURE ACTIVITIES

 

From September to December 2002, we are going to work on the III, IV, V and VI phase of the Training for Trainers programme. We are going to start working on the continuation of the pilot-project «Dealing With the Past » as well as organize one or two Basic training events in nonviolent conflict transformation. These Basic training events are unsettled, because we still haven’t provided funding for them.

 

Work Plan for 2003

 

BELGRADE OFFICE

January, February, March, April, May

Training for Trainers 2002-2003

Phases: VII and VIII

June

Basic training in Nonviolent conflicttransformation (BG1)

August

Basic training in Nonviolent conflict transformation (BG2)

October, November, December

The continuation of the project «Dealing with the Past» in Serbia and Montenegro

 

SARAJEVO OFFICE

January, February, March, April, May

Networking meeting

Basic training in Nonviolent conflict   transformation (SA1)

The beginning of the project «Dealing with the Past» in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Basic training in Nonviolent conflict transformation (SA2)

 July, August, September, October, November, December

Training for Trainers 2003-2004

Phases: I, II, III, IV, V and VI

 

About the continuation of the Project «Dealing with the Past»

The project « Dealing with the Past» should continue in the forthcoming period, also in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. From August 2002 to January 2003, we plan to research further the needs and possibilities for the implementation of the project in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, and the continuance of the project in Serbia. After we choose towns and places suitable for the debates, and find local partners and participants – former soldiers, as well as determine the mode of the activities, we plan to implement the meetings in Bosnia and Herzegovina during April/May 2003 and in Serbia and Montenegro during October/November/December 2003.

In Croatia debates should be organized by Centre for Peace Studies (CPS) – Zagreb, with whom we’ve agreed to have close cooperation throughout the entire «Dealing With the Past» project. At the end of 2002 we plan to have a meeting in Zagreb to further discuss this project and present CNA’s work and our experiences from the debates held in June 2002 in Serbia. This will be implemented for the members and students of CPS and other interested NGO’s from Croatia.

 

 PERSONAL WORLDS AND VIEWS

 

And after five years: waves!

Personal story by Nenad Vukosavljević

I came to Sarajevo on September 5th five years ago, with the intention to stay in this town, but not knowing for how long it would be or what would come out of that beginning of something that I had already invested a lot of work into.

After being absent/exiled from Belgrade -my town and my home, for almost fourteen years, I’m getting ready to go back there in October. I’ve been thinking about it constantly, ever since October 2000, and the fall of the old regime. I thought it would come quicker than it did, but still I had to wait to turn 35 and become too old to be sanctioned under the Law of Military Service. While thinking about going back, I’m also thinking about leaving Sarajevo. Although I have never felt completely at home here, just like I never did when I lived in Hamburg, I realize I’ve built myself some kind of a home here, with people who are close to me and with whom I share my life and my work, in this warm little CNA house on the cliff, surrounded with the constant humming and the echo of the river that is running beneath us. Those who have been here understand what I’m saying.

I feel somehow sad while writing these words, although I know I’m not going so far away. Looking back at what the Centre for Nonviolent Action has turned into over the years. From one man who was sleeping in one part of the room, behind the closet, and working in an “office” in the other part of the same room, I feel proud of being here from the start and contributing a great deal to what we are now and what we do today. While I’m writing these words, in the part of the room I once slept in, my colleagues are doing an evaluation of the training conducted by four people.

Those who read my first report in November 1997 were joking at my expense, because of my lamentation – it seemed to me that mine was a Sisyphean task. Over the past couple of years I kept having these moments of despair and wrath caused by acts of violence that were committed by people who had the power of weapons and the power of manipulation in “our region”. These moments repeat over and again, and it seems to me that the drops in the ocean that a few of us in CNA together with several dozen friends from this region make, turn into nothing. However experience has taught me that whatever we build in our peace garden resists the challenges of violence and hate. It survives and stands up to it. I see more and more people who act autonomously, conscientiously and confidently in their own environment, thus creating a counterbalance to the potential of manipulation. I see the drops in the ocean that create little waves. They give me hope, I feel obliged to them and they give me strength to continue.

I know what I’ve just written is quite pathetic, although I believe it’s not very much like me. However I had to incorporate some of these feelings into this 5-year anniversary report. Thank you all, who supported me and all of us from CNA, and who worked with us. I believe we fulfilled the expectations and I’m looking forward to my next outburst in our 10-anniversary report. Or, perhaps even sooner…

In Sarajevo, August 6 2002

 

 

ANNEX

 

SPEAKING TOUR: DEALING WITH THE PAST

May-June 2002

Introduction

In May and June 2002, four public debates were held in Serbia (including Vojvodina), as the part of the project “Speaking Tour: Dealing with the Past”. Debates took place in the following towns: Inđija, Niš, Novi Pazar and Kragujevac. The guests of these debates were four participants of the wars in the region of former Yugoslavia, one from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina each, and two from Serbia.

One of the main reasons why this project has started is the need to begin with intensive work on re-examination of past events, perception of their causes and consequences, and reflection on possibilities to build sustainable peace, as well as for citizens to deal with their own responsibility for the past and the future, in the region of ex-Yugoslavia.

The project named “Speaking Tour: Dealing with the Past” (“Four Views – From the past: how I found myself in war, towards the future: how to reach sustainable peace?”) was shaped as a pilot phase, aimed at offering some recommendations for further work on this problem, within the same or similar approach that should be applied in those areas of former Yugoslavia affected by military operations and their consequences.

The project was financially supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, which placed their trust in us and gave us total freedom of initiative and creation of the whole process. This has helped us a lot because it has given us a chance to focus on the analysis of the things we found important for further work on the subject. This kind of support from the donors is quite non-typical for the circumstances we work in, and very important to us.

The results of this project require further analysis from both our team and other people and organisations that deal with these issues. The way we feel at the moment is that despite many problems and flaws our expectations were fairly exceeded.

About the participants and the structure of the debates

Participants of the debates were:

Adnan Hasanbegović from Sarajevo – participated in the war as a soldier of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from 1992 until 1995. Works as a peace activist in the Centre for Nonviolent Action in Sarajevo.

Gordan Bodog from Zagreb – participated in the war in Croatia, as a member of Zbor narodne garde (Croatian Military Formations) from 1991 to 1994. Today he’s an activist of the Centre for peace Studies in Zagreb, and currently works on empowering civil initiatives in Croatia and the wider region.

Nebojša Jovanović from Belgrade – took part in the war in Croatia as a member of the former Yugoslav Army Reserve Forces from 1991 to 1992. Author of the book entitled “Idemo na Zagreb – dnevnik sa rezervistima” (“Let’s take Zagreb – Diary with reservists”), works as a history editor in the Institute for schoolbooks publishing.

Saša Dujović from Belgrade – former volunteer in the Serbian Guard, and the Army of

Despite our primary intention to have three participants at the debates (also in the project proposal) we decided to have the fourth person (the second person from Serbia). We want to show that there are many different attitudes towards the same events, inside one ethnic group like having (or not having) a motive to go to war, for example. These attitudes can be shaded differently, not just ethnically but individually as well.

The facilitator of all four debates was Katarina Katanić from Kragujevac. We estimated that choosing one person as facilitator for all the debates of this pilot-series was a good move because it made things easier and established a safe space for communication between the participants, with the CNA team and the rest of the people included in the project. Therefore it enabled more space for analysis of each debate and re­examination and self-criticism. Katarina is a professional journalist, and what’s also important, is one of the participants of our basic training and also a participant of the Training for Trainers programme that is currently going on.

Republic of Srpska from 1991 – 1995. Works in the Disabled Veterans’ Association of Serbia (DVA).

Discussions were structured in advance, according to the goals we determined as priorities and planned to cover during the debates. The debates were titled: from the past: HOW I FOUND MYSELF IN WAR, towards the future: HOW TO REACH SUSTAINABLE PEACE? The course of the debates ran in order, after the introduction the participants answered the following questions: “How I find myself in war and what was it like for me?” and then they discussed the war and their experiences and feelings from their personal point of view. In the second part they expressed their views on “dealing with the past”, obstacles and impulses for establishing sustainable peace in the regions where they came from. In the third part they had discussions with the audience. Visitors had a chance to ask questions, express their own opinions and talk about their own experiences relevant to this subject. Afterwards, participants gave their final speech as an answer to the question “Sustainable peace, where do we go next and how?” Visitors were offered a guest box for written messages to organisers and participants of these debates.

 

Single Debates

Inđija

June 3, 2002, City Library Auditorium in Inđija

We chose Inđija for our first debate. It’s a small town in Vojvodina with a very specific structure, in many ways (religious, ethnic, social) and with an interesting recent, political history. The present mayor of Inđija (the youngest one in FRY) was a participant of one CNA training event and someone we can trust. Since we expected to have strong support from the local authorities, we decided to have our first debate there. Besides giving us technical and advisory support, the mayor and his close associates came to the event which was very important and empowering to us, and very necessary in the first of a series of these events.

There were about 70 visitors at the debate (that was the number of seats at the auditorium). According to our local partners that was very good for local conditions, because the usual number of visitors of such events is 30 to 50. The interior of the library was very cosy, with books on the shelves. Participants were sitting at the same level as the visitors which made the whole atmosphere very constructive and relaxed and very appealing to both participants and visitors. The debate drew a lot of attention, which indicates that people are not informed about past events. This is a result of many factors: taboos from war and post-war period, avoiding subjects that deal “the other side” and/or expecting someone else to take the initiative for things people themselves consider necessary. There were all kinds of questions and comments coming from visitors: from the opinion that gatherings like these needed to be supported and more frequent, to the attitude towards patriotism, and questions about the “new world order” and its influence on everything that is going on in the world. The debate continued for three hours. Here are some illustrating statements from the radio poll, taken immediately after the event and on the next day, using the method of random sample:

-This is useful. They got together, had a talk! As one of them put it nicely – it’s a long process. The very fact that they’re sitting together means it’s already going somewhere. Even that is nice. I liked this guy from Zagreb …

-If only you made such a poll 10 years ago, in 1990. And if we had discussions like these. It would be better than all of this. What you’re trying to do now is good, but all nations should have talked before. Perhaps, everything would be different. We would travel freely, in this region, the economy wouldn’t be ruined …

-There are politicians who stir it up. It’s their job. That’s how they make a living, that what they do. First America, and then further on.

-We should talk. After this evening, I’ve come to the conclusion that after World War II, everything was covered up and silent. It was like that until it all burst into flames. Now we need to discuss everything, in detail, communicate, get everyone back and make some order, put everything in its place. All the people who left their houses should go back. Not to aspire for revenge, and return to their property. Otherwise, it is going to smoulder and burst into flames again in 20-30 years.

This is a nice and a useful discussion. I believe we should talk about everything, even though we think differently, but we can always find some solution somewhere in the middle, which is good for everyone.

Niš

June 12, 2002, Main Auditorium of the City Assembly of Niš

The second debate was held in front of about 60 people. It continued for almost three and a half hours partly due to participants’ detailed expositions and partly because of the active participation of people from the audience. The course of the discussion was very fluctuating. At first it was slower and diffuse which affected the group’s dynamics and created a relaxed atmosphere. It is interesting to mention that a few visitors were wearing OBRAZ T-shirts. OBRAZ is an extreme Serbian right-wing organization, known in Serbia for their actions of support for Radovan Karadžić, and their obstruction of panels dealing with the past on the way to building sustainable peace. The non-obstructive reactions of this group (As at other panels) may have been caused by the whole atmosphere and participants’ emotional expositions. This situation indicates to the advantages of a personal the approach of participants and their critical reflection on the community they come from. This creates space for the visitors to do the same and contributes to an atmosphere of dealing with one’s own responsibility for the past events. The second part of the discussion, in which the audience had a chance to ask questions and give comments, was more dynamic with many constructive questions and few emotional expositions from the people who were directly affected by the war. Here are some of the questions from the discussion:

-Do you have an opinion about the Sarajevo weekly magazine “Dani” and how much culture helps all that you are doing?

-What is your relation and attitude toward the Hague Tribunal? Did you personally take part in committing any crimes?

-Why do we make war, then? Were there any opinions like these, back then?

-If you had a chance to leave and go to Western Europe, would you do it?

-When was the first time you felt negative energy was diminishing (question for Gordan)?

-How much are people who write schoolbooks aware of their own responsibility (question for Nebojša)?

-Are you nationalists?

-Now that you’ve become a believer, after everything that has happened, would you take weapons again (question for Adnan)?

Novi Pazar

June 17, 2002, Main Auditorium of the City Assembly of Novi Pazar

The panel that was held in Novi Pazar in front of about 50 citizens, was perhaps the one best structured. Participants’ discussions were very well balanced with time for communication with the audience. There wasn’t any feeling of things taking too much time, as a result of a very thorough evaluation of the previous debate. In the evaluation we looked back at all the things we liked and those we had difficulties with and talked about the panel that was going to happen in Novi Pazar. The debate started half an hour later than planned. However it did not interfere with the good communication participants were having with the audience for the whole time. Part of the time left for communication with the audience passed as a friendly exchange of opinions with expressions of welcome and support from the people who wanted to ask or say something. There was a clear anti­war message articulated through some very concrete and important questions. It is necessary for empowering local people because for a long time they have been pushed away on the margins of a social process. It’s obvious that citizens have the need to build a safe space in which these issues can be discussed. One visitor’s story about his brother who was killed in the ex-Yugoslav Army in Croatia at the beginning of the war, is the reason why he “… doesn’t forget easily!” as told to one of us (organisers) privately, says enough.

The day after the panel a poll was conducted amongst the citizens of Novi Pazar, using the method of random sample. Here are some of the statements about how much people knew about the event (did they hear about it?) and what was their opinion on dealing with the past and the way it was done (at that debate):

-I watched the tape of the debate on some private TV channel. I was surprised that those who had been in war on opposite sides could sit together, but I was also glad that the time of madness is over.

-I didn’t go to the debate, neither did I watch it on TV, I just saw the posters in town. I think it’s a good move, if politicians don’t understand each other or don’t want to (understand). Common people want to talk, under the conditions that participants of the debate are common people.

-As far as I saw on TV, there weren’t any politicians in the room, and they were the ones who should hear this first.

-To me it looked like laundering war biographies. I expected much a more honest story. I don’t know, perhaps I’m wrong.

-I don’t have any particular opinion. I’m not interested in stories like these because I don’t like to be reminded of the horror. Those who like it should listen to it.

-Redemption must come once, and it must start from someone. If it won’t start from those who dragged us into the disaster, let it start from those who, for who knows what reason, participated in it.

Kragujevac

June 24, 2002, Main Auditorium of Dom Sindikata building in Kragujevac

The fourth and the last in the series of debates was characterised with several difficulties and specifics but also with some new questions that were raised during analysis and preparations for further work on this project. One of the participants (Saša Dujović) ended up in hospital, due to some health problems and therefore wasn’t able to attend the debate. Besides, The Disabled Veterans’ Association (DVA) of Kragujevac tried to stop the event without any clear explanation. These created some sort of pressure at the beginning. That was the reason for an intensive police presence inside and around the auditorium, where the panel was taking place. We must mention that it was one of the hottest days of the year.

Such aggravating circumstances had created some kind of discomfort, which disappeared shortly after the beginning of the discussion. People from the Disabled Veterans’ Association (DVA) listened to the discussion carefully and participated in it, with only a few provocations and interruptions of others. Another difficulty we had was the reaction of a journalist from the audience who expressed her indignation with Katarina Katanić, the facilitator of the debate, to whom she denied credibility due to her past employment in the newspaper close to the previous regime. About thirty reporters of both local and global media came to the debate. Our aim was to reach as many people as possible, so it was very useful to get this kind of media attention, especially since there weren’t many visitors (about 70, altogether). Participants’ personal stories draw a lot of attention from both those visitors from the DVA and other citizens, too. Our concept of the debate made it possible to have an honest discussion even about the most urgent issues visitors wanted to discuss. The contact with the audience was very emotional throughout the debate. Many people needed to ask a question or say something. People asked all kinds of questions: about war experiences, participants’ personal attitudes about the future, if they would carry a weapon again under given circumstances, about crimes on all sides, about their opinion on the Hague Tribunal and who else should be prosecuted… Many people wanted to become acquainted and talk to participants afterwards. One person from the audience was very upset and angry while asking questions, expressing his disapproval all the time. After the debate he approached the participant from Bosnia and Herzegovina and asked him, in tears, to help him find the grave of his son who had been killed in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so that he could take it back and bury him in Serbia. This story testifies very stirringly about people’s need to talk about past events.

Here are some of the statements taken from the poll, conducted the next day in the main street in Kragujevac:

-I’ve heard about the debate. On one hand, I think it is very good. On the other hand, from a human point of view, I think we should reconcile, because it’s good for some human cooperation. Some things we should overcome, but never forget, or forgive, but I don’t know. I guess we’ve always been a fertile soil for everything. To start both good and bad things. It’s good that it’s happening here first. I don’t know if people in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina will have this much patience to listen to all of this.

-I think it’s an excellent thing. Not only for Kragujevac, but everywhere, in every local community. People who went through the fear and terror of war should take part, and we need to talk about reconciliation, the future, and problems in a normal and parliamentary way. I didn’t go, but I saw a TV report on TV Kragujevac afterwards.

-I saw the announcement in the newspapers and on TV. I would have come if it hadn’t been so hot.

-I think we need more panels and more participants.

-I had lived in Sarajevo for four years and participated in that war people talked about. People complained about the temperature, but even if it were 1390C I would definitely come. My hands were shaking the whole time, and this feeling of anguish, I hadn’t felt that for a long time, perhaps from ’91, 92’. I listened to all those stories. Of course I found myself in it and I wished that the fourth chair was mine, so that I could sit there and tell the people everything that I had seen and experienced there, how I had experienced it.

Results and Conclusions

Working to create a foundation for the citizens of Serbia to deal with their own responsibility for past events almost certainly means a very long and painful process, which is going to continue for decades. The project “Speaking Tour: Dealing with the Past” at this moment represents a small but a very important step towards creating preconditions to move in that direction. For the past year only a few debates have been implemented, with a subject similar to ours, due to obstruction and difficulties in establishing communication with the audience (it seems that in some cases extreme groups planned obstruction in advance). Apart from some minor difficulties at the beginning of the debate in Kragujevac, there were no cases of obstruction in these four debates. This indicates that the concept was created in the right direction. The situation in Kragujevac speaks for itself: activists of the Disabled Veterans Association switched from the position of disruption and obstruction to participation in the discussion. Participants’ personal stories, their experiences and views of past events were very much filled with emotions thus creating an atmosphere free of accusations, but with openness for communication. As a result of this, they (veterans) took part in the discussion. It is an indication that there’s a need to re-examine the approach formulated as “cleaning one’s own yard, first” or “Serbs should admit they’re guilty, first”. Several organisations in Serbia that are dealing with these issues adopt such an approach, and it brings huge difficulties and obstacles because it leaves people who participated in the war (that’s a large section of the population in Serbia), buried in their own position. It is the group that is very interested in this subject, therefore it is very important to find the right approach to encouraging and supporting the process of their re-examination. Opening up stories from different sides, through the personal views of several people, and through their critical review on the communities they come from. This creates preconditions for the same process within the audience, which is a very important step towards discussion about past events.

We insisted on having people (speakers of the discussions) with their own names and their personal stories, instead of representatives of nations or communities they were coming from. That approach was very important to us and it resulted with success of all panels, especially with the aspect of seeing the “other side” as individuals.

It is a very difficult and slow process, but also an important one on the way towards recognising individual responsibility instead of the responsibility of the whole nation, where the nation is perceived as a group of people who are totally identical, whether they are labelled as bullies or victims. Such personalisation is a good way to identify crime as an individual act instead of as the collective guilt of a nation. Questions from people in the audience to participants often started with: “How do you Adnan (Gordan, Nebojša, Saša) see…?”, “What do you think …?” or “What do (all of) you think …?” which shows that the panel were seen as individuals, not as Bosniaks/Croats/Serbs that are the same.

The situation in which visitors have a chance to hear about what some people from the “other side” went through and the possibility to recognize and admit some common suffering, brings us another step further to opening up discussions about war events. This is a good way to step out of the role of the victim, present in the region of former Yugoslavia where many people (in some cases whole nations), bury themselves in it, identifying others as criminals who need to be punished to “serve justice”. Listening to a participants’ whole exposition and the discussion with visitors one might hear that this role brought many dangers and that it must be abandoned. Several times participants clearly stated that crimes had happened on all sides, that people on all sides had committed them. This is a new approach to the beginning of discussions about crimes committed in the name of a nation and to opening up space to condemn them. It is opposed to the approach of “cleaning one’s own yard first” which automatically shuts down communication with many people in Serbia, because of their feeling that “we’re the only ones guilty”.

Part of the debate regarding the question “Where do we go next and how?” mostly dealt with things that were obstructing and encouraging the building of sustainable peace in the region. Participants looked back to these issues through discussion about the personal responsibility of all of us, the need for civic activism and the (un)willingness of all of us to deal with personal responsibility. One participant said that he wouldn’t do this for any money, but for his son Marko and his future. It’s an important point in discussion about responsibility for both the present and future of each individual. We’re under the impression that the matter of the future and ways to continue cooperation in the areas affected with war operations is highly neglected in the current social situation in Serbia. Discussion about issues that matter most come down to ambitions to join the EU and other state and military alliances of Western Europe and the USA, without looking back at regional integration or at least at building a life together in the Balkan region. It seems that people who came to debates are very interested to hear how participants look at the future and the certainty of building of sustainable peace, regardless of what they’ve been hearing for the past 10 years “that peacebuilding is impossible in this region”. People needed to listen to it, to hear what the “other side thinks” to tell us that this needs to be worked on, and also expand on as many levels as possible.

We’ve come to the conclusion that it is necessary to open up discussions on different social levels and with different social groups about dealing with the past, the building of sustainable peace, and individual participation in this process. The process must take place on proper foundations, created through discussions in the local community. It needs to include many parties that were involved in the conflicts as possible, and include all the social groups in the community. An approach to local community with people who are “one of us”, who do not come from intellectual or elitist circles, may open a completely new dimension and new ways of building sustainable peace and beginning the process of discussing the common future for all of us.

It wasn’t uncommon for people to ask who’s financing the debates, with comments that they were the ones who had started everything (referring to America and other members of NATO). The fact is that people in Serbia perceive Switzerland as a neutral country, as some of the people explained “because it’s neither a member of NATO nor any other military alliance, not even in the European Union”. Therefore, Switzerland was not perceived as “guilty” for the events in this region, which helped us approach local communities and all the groups in it.

Difficulties and learning points

We encountered various small and large difficulties while working on this project in Serbia. This is expected, having in mind that it was a pilot project, judging not only by its structure and approach but also the themes we started to deal with, in communities where they represented some kind of taboo. We mentioned some possible difficulties and our willingness to deal with them in our project proposal.

Difficulties we expected (as stated in the project proposal):

• Inadequate support from the local media
• Obstruction and sabotage of the debates from certain extreme nationalistic groups
• Uncooperative local authorities

 

All the difficulties expected did occur, more or less. We paid special attention to them in our project evaluation because they were important to us and other people who would continue working on this and other similar projects. We’ll look back at most of the difficulties in sections that cover learning points and recommendations for further work, but here are some that deserve special attention.

General learning points

• Media coverage is proportional to the effort invested in making contacts and establishing communication with reporters and editors. The subject itself is not attractive enough for most of the media, because there isn’t any awareness about the importance of peace building in the region.
• It is very important to establish cooperation with ex-soldiers’ and disabled veterans’ associations. Their support gives credibility to discussions with people who participated in wars, who often come to panel debates. Participation of representatives of these associations gives a special integrity to the event in front of the local community, which is very important, in our opinion.
• Local authorities are mostly not interested; therefore a lot of effort needs to be invested through partnership with local organisations in establishing contacts, holding meetings, personally inviting people to attend the events etc. Support from local authorities has a great symbolic value.
• Debates should be structured in such a way that they mostly deal with the question: How to reach sustainable peace? It would be good to dedicate part of the discussion with visitors in relation to this issue. The time schedule of the debate should be precisely determined because of both participants and visitors.

Media

Interest of the media, especially local, has exceeded our primary expectations. Even though our ambitions and expectations started to grow after the first debate in Inđija, because of very much media coverage of that event. Therefore there was certain dissatisfaction with the indifference of some media. However satisfaction with local and global media coverage generally prevails, especially with respect to Radio and TV B92, and VREME newsmagazine (although according to the agreement we paid for publishing a supplement in their anniversary 600th issue). The supplement was published in their issues for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia and Macedonia, also.

Main difficulties we encountered while working with media:

• Non-sensitivity of most media (of people who work there) for the issues concerning dealing with the past and for the complexity and importance of this subject.
• Non-recognition of both their own role and responsibility (inside editorial and executive structures) for past and future events in this region, and their role in peace building.
• Little interest for this subject in terms of professional orientation (either informative, sensational or advertising).
• An eagerness to charge quite highly for the things we want them to publish, or broadcast. This may be caused by the fact that we went to them and asked to meet them.
• High prices for advertising in electronic and printed media.
• Bad motivation for discussion about the values we stand for. For example, before we entered the office of the manager of NTV (TV Niš) he said, “I understand all of it and I agree that what you’re doing is fine, but I’m interested in how much money you have for us? “!!!
• In many cases the goals, titles, and names of the organizers were incorrectly presented by the media, which was a big difficulty.
• Establishing contacts with global media (those that cover the bigger part of Serbia) was very difficult.

Learning points

• It is necessary to organize as many meetings with representatives of local and global media as possible, and to insist on discussions about the goals of the project, the importance of their (the media) participation and their responsibility in this process. We should also have discussions on how to present participants, organisers and founders of the project. One good way was to get in touch with editors, and also journalists and presenters. These contacts made it easier for us to present values in a way that we found important.
• Lack of sensitivity and interest, as a result of non-recognition of one’s own responsibility, is not a problem that may be resolved easily. It’s also not entirely in our capacity to resolve it. What CNA has already been doing and will continue to do is invite journalists and editors to educational courses in peace building and nonviolent conflict transformation, and establish a network of individuals which have power to influence public opinion and their colleagues, in their own circle. On the other hand, it is important that many professional educational courses for journalists, often organised and paid for by foreign organisations, incorporate prejudice reduction and peace building as their elements and be available for groups from the whole region of former Yugoslavia.
• Due to many panel debates, organized in Serbia (especially before the elections), it is evident that the interest for them is diminishing. Therefore it would be better to announce them either as forums with the participation of citizens or as discussions with citizens.

Local Partners

Satisfaction with cooperation with local partners varies from full satisfaction to partial. For example our partner from Inđija conducted a whole series of promotional activities (production of a video clip and a radio jingle, recording of distribution of posters) independently and on their own initiative. They also prepared the technical aspect of the event perfectly. As opposed to that, there was a series of technical errors in Niš, while in Novi Pazar, promotion of the event was bad despite appearance on local TV programmes (thanks to the mayor of the town who responded to a request from Swiss Embassy), which resulted in bad attendance.

Difficulties

• Little interest from some partner organizations for the goals and the essence of the project they cooperate in, although these organizations declare they also work on peace building.
• Difficulties in clarifying roles and responsibilities even after several meetings with local partners.
• Very irresponsible and unprofessional attitude of some (partners) regarding had been agreed at the meeting.
• In some cases, a dependent attitude to decision making about things and responsibilities taken, which complicate the coordination from CNA.
• Little feedback and information from some local partners, about success of the debate, and how it was experienced in the local environment.

Learning points

• It would be good to organize a two-day meeting with all local partners before going into partnership, in order to strengthen feelings of involvement and interest. Meeting would give us a chance to discuss responsibilities of organization and goals of the project in order to give everyone a chance to influence the process instead of creating an impression with local organisations that they are only involved in technical part of the project. It would be a good thing to have two people from each organization, one of which would later be responsible for coordination of the relating part of the project inside their own organization, in order to clearly determine who’s responsible for what.
• To clearly determine the partnership (with a formal contract) in terms of who’s doing what and who’s responsible for what. Additionally, to define the actions that should be taken in case some of the obligations agreed are not fulfilled. This would additionally increase the level of responsibility for duties taken, that weren’t done thoroughly enough this time (in Novi Pazar for example, not all the leaflets were distributed). This time there were several meetings where responsibilities were determined specifically, with all the details as well as the time schedule, but the agreement was not formally confirmed and signed by those in charge.

Participants

According to the previous concept, participants of the debates came from three different sides, Serb, Croat and Bosniak, formerly in war with each other. This is a key point at which the issue of responsibility isn’t focused on just one side. The decision to have one drafted soldier of the former Yugoslav Army, one ex-volunteer and one member of the Disabled Veterans’ Association from the Serb side, was good because it presented two different views of the past. There was an imbalance between them, regarding their current engagement: participants from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are now peace activists, which is not the case with participants from Serbia. Therefore statements from peace activists were, in our opinion, a lot more self-critical of accepting and dealing with their own responsibility and with a mindful attitude to peace building, which was not the case with other participants. Therefore two views of future and peace building were offered. At the same time, the presence of a former volunteer of the Serbian army offered a chance for the audience prone to nationalism to accept discussions and to open up and listen to others, and take part in discussions as well. The connection with the Disabled Veterans’ Association, also stated as one of the co­organisers of this project, is important as a message to all ex-warriors, that there’s a place for them to take part in peace building, for the well­being of all the citizens of this region. We should mention that thanks to this connection, the organisers were less worried for the security of the events.

Difficulties

• According to our concept, it wasn’t planned to work with participants on the building of a safe space for communication, or on the basics building sustainable peace. It influenced the lack of safe space for constructive criticism of attitudes, behaviors and ways of communication. Organizers weren’t able to react to some of the participants’ statements they deeply disagreed with.
• Difficulty in finding participants from Serbia who entirely correspond to the concept of debates and the project itself, who are currently engaged in peace building.
• Plenty of work for participants in respect to participation in the project (preparations for debates, debates, evaluations, travelling etc). This sometimes caused problems for participants and organisers. Non-observance when it comes to agreements, from some participants, made it very complicated to plan our activities and the energy required.
• A lot more media appearance of participants from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina than of participants from Serbia.
• Extremely exhausting appearances in many media (especially local ones) for the participants.
• Exhaustion of participants due to the frequency of the debates (four debates in one month), which leaves less time for work on the process and offers little time for reflection after returning home.
• Too long exposure of participants in the first part of the debates, due to emotions and heavy stories about their participation in the war.
• One participant missing from the debate in Kragujevac, due to illness.
•  Little support for participation in this project, from their own community, was also a difficulty for participants (especially for the one from Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Learning points

• The first meeting between participants and organizers should happen much earlier, before the first panel. It should also be very well structured, in terms of introduction and the building of a safe space to talk. After that it would be good to have a few informal meetings (at least two), for them to get to know each other and talk about the goals of the project and debates. These meetings would give them more chance to create the whole process, but also to have feedback between participants and organizers aiming to develop better structure of debates and better approach to visitors.
• We find the process of mutual empowering between participants very important, as well as work to create conditions for such empowering. It means sensitizing participants to give feedback and building group relations between them.
• Participants and organizers stay in town where the debate is talking place, at least one day before and after the event, due to media appearance which is usually very exhausting, and because of contacts with local community, and for the purpose of “listening’ to the community in which the event is taking place. In small towns, it is very good that citizens can meet participants on the street or in the pub; while in bigger towns they can be seen on TV, in some live programme, after the event.
• After every debate, it would be a good thing to conduct an analysis of the content and the course of the debate, together with participants, in order to make changes regarding the contents and time schedule.
• The participants’ group may be combined differently, for different regions, depending on their motivation, the level of re-examination, present social engagement. For some places, it can be a group of people who are now active in civic initiatives and who work on peace building; while for other places, there should be also those who are not in this kind of activism, but whose views are also very authentic and recognizable.

 

Local Authorities

The support from the local authorities isn’t important just for the sake of organization and security, but because those in charge should get involved and interested in the subject and recognize their own benefit (general well being too) in having such an event in their town. It only happened in Inđija, while in other towns the support was either formal or non-existent. Local partners’ efforts seem to be the key in securing this kind of support.

Difficulties

• Many difficulties in establishing contacts with local authorities (except in Inđija).
• Indifference and absence of people from local structures for the panels (except in Inđija).
• Support reduced only to providing a city assembly auditorium and in some cases, appearing in local media founded by local government (in Novi Pazar).

 Learning points

• Meetings with local authorities should be organized together with local partners before the beginning of the project and before deciding where the discussions will take place, in order to get a clear picture about the support we can expect.

Visitors of the Debates

The audience of all the debates had a chance to ask questions and give comments, either directly or by writing messages that were later collected. Visitors’ ages and background varied, but we noticed that a number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia were present and also people who participated in the war. We were glad to have such different people in the audience because it indicated that the information on the event had reached “common” people and that they were interested in this issue, which was very encouraging.

Difficulties

• An attempt to stop the debate came from the Disabled Veterans Association’s office from Kragujevac. They had tried to gather a big group of members to prevent the event from happening, but only a few people showed up. After the police intervened, the debate started and those members of the DVA that were present took an active part in the event, listening and asking questions.
• A need to search for those who are guilty, mostly through disclosing conspiracy theories of world powers and very often adopting a role of the victim, was recognized only on one’s own side.
• Highly emotional outbursts from the audience, which sometimes made questions and opinions unclear.
• Exceptionally large number of questions on some debates.
• Several cases of heckling, coming from the audience and short interruptions in Niš and Kragujevac.
• Lower attendance in Novi Pazar.
• Feelings of those who took part in the wars (from the audience) that they have more rights to talk about it or comment on it than people who didn’t participate in it.

Coordination of the Project

We are satisfied with the things we’ve accomplished, including the coordination of the project. Due to the fact that this was a pilot project, we underestimated the amount of work necessary. Therefore people who coordinated this project were overburdened. Media coverage (see Appendix on media) is an example that we’ve done more than we planned or expected, which was possible only through the dedicated work and support of many other members of the CNA team, who had given their support in organising the project, along with working on their ongoing projects (training events).

Part of the difficulties and learning points regarding coordination of the project have already been mentioned in previous chapters, and here are some in addition to that:

Difficulties

• This year’s very tight regular work schedule of all CNA team members, which was the case during the “Speaking Tour: Dealing with the Past” project.
• Lot of traveling (several times to each of these towns) which requires a lot of time and resources.
• One of the participants of the debates is a CNA team member. He had a double role (as a co­ordinator and one of the participants), which presented difficulty.
• This has been the first big step out for CNA (both politically and in media), and sometimes it seemed that this “baptism of fire” was just too much.
• Difficulties regarding presentation of the values we support to the wider public in terms of ways we do it and expressions and terms we use.
• Less communication inside part of the team involved in this project, due to the fact that everything was happening so fast.
• Occasional inadequate distribution of duties and responsibilities and taking for granted that someone else would do something.
• Many “occasional” duties and “invisible” jobs.
• Sometimes neglecting office duties due to a complete involvement in this project, of some team members.

Learning points

• Two people should attend meetings together (with local partners, local authorities, media…). One of them should take care of logistics and make agreements while the other should make conversation. Assigning duties in such a way should secure fewer chances of over looking any important aspect of the subject, which could happen easily when these two items are interlaced.
• Make a list of things to do during preparations and regarding the debates, as well as a detailed work plan in order to foresee possible “bottlenecks” and make plans to involve other team members to avoid delays.
• Plan regular internal staff meetings of people who are involved in the organization of the project, in order to exchange information and decide on further steps. Besides those, leave some space for possible meetings and consultations if needed.
• Those team members who coordinate the project should not be engaged in other activities due to very demanding involvement in this project, which directly depends on how often the debates are taking place (and the time frame for the whole project).

Particular Difficulty

Another difficulty worth mentioning happened at the debate in Kragujevac. A correspondent to BETA news agency from Kragujevac didn’t like the fact that Katarina Katanić was facilitating the debates in Serbia. Therefore, she submitted her protest publicly to the organisers and left the room demonstratively. After the event we received a letter from her saying that the reason for her protest was the fact that Katarina had worked as an editor in one of the local TV stations in Kragujevac, controlled by the Socialist Party of Serbia, before and after the changes in October 2000. We had a conversation with Katarina about this issue, and we still stand by our decision about her engagement in this project, because we think everyone should have the right to re-examine themselves and face their past deeds and thereby open up some new possibilities for themselves. One of the values we want to live with is giving a chance to everyone who asks for it, and we refuse to judge people just by their past or by their membership in some political party. We’ve have great trust in Katarina because of her sincerity, among other things, and because of the fact that she participated in this year’s Training for Trainers Programme as one of those participants with the biggest capacity for work in peace building and dealing with the past in our region.

Recommendations for the Project continuation

We think that it takes a lot more preparation, reflection, analysis and exploratory trips to continue working on this project. We are sure it should be further developed and enriched, and we want to take part in it. We are aware of both the involvement required for it and the capacities of our organization, but the results we accomplished after the pilot-phase clearly indicated a completely new approach to peace building. Perhaps for the first time it opens up space to start working on some issues that are very important for our communities (in this moment and in the wider political and historical context) and we mustn’t give up on it. We recognize our own responsibility, to work and cooperate further on this, because there are very little capacities of those who may be expected to do it.

In our evaluation we spent a lot of time looking ahead, and in the next sections is a short preview about things we discussed and suggested.

Since we’re aware of the differences in the region of former Yugoslavia, which are obvious everywhere, especially those regarding war operations and taking part in them (regardless of the role), we clearly indicate to the need for a different approach in different countries, regions even cities where such work is needed (if there are those, at all, where it’s not the case). Therefore, we have separate proposals for every region where we want to work in this field:

Serbia and Montenegro

Ever since the first panel discussion, we’ve been hearing that in Serbia this issue needs to be worked on more intensely and more frequently. There’s a great interest in many towns and we’ve received a lot of invitations for cooperation from local organisations. An approach offering personal stories has created a more productive atmosphere for discussion. It has given us motivation to continue working on this project in Serbia.

We planned to include Montenegro in our pilot-phase, but had to give up on it due to lack of capacities in that moment.

We consider the approach used on these four panels, applicable in further work in Serbia and Montenegro. Some alterations needed to adapt the programme for Montenegro are almost inconsiderable having in mind the fact that two republics took part in almost all the military activities in a very similar way. During the evaluation we formed a work group made of our Belgrade team members, whose task was to explore possibilities and come up with a proposal for the project sequel in Serbia and Montenegro, by January 1st 2003. The proposal should contain suggestions and explanations to the following questions: where and to what extent can the debates take place; with what partner organisations/individuals; what kind of structure of participants should we have; what’s the media picture; what are the capacities needed for the implementation? It should also contain activity plan and time schedule for the common plan for these two regions.

Croatia

The project will be implemented in Croatia in partnership with the Centre for Peace Studies (CPS) from Zagreb, which is one of the few organisations from this region with whom we share many common values that we have been promoting. It’s an organization that has been working on peace building in the region of former Yugoslavia for years, and with whom we’ve had very good cooperation and mutual support.

Based on discussions between CNA and CPS, until now, it has been agreed that by August 1, 2002, a project proposal will be written in CPS, in Zagreb, concerning work in Croatia. It will be sent to CNA for feedback. Afterwards a meeting in Sarajevo should follow in which details, participation modes and distribution of responsibility between our two organisations will be discussed. It is very important for us that a local organization like CPS gets involved in this project because of the credibility in Croatia, because CNA may have a problem with it due to the fact that it has offices in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We can rely on suggestions from CPS about the approach (to work) having in mind their activities all over Croatia, and their support to empowering local community and local initiatives.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

We’ve concluded that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the most specific and most delicate area where we want to implement Dealing with the Past, due to numerous characteristics and factors one must pay attention to. Here are some of the basic specifics we want to point out to:

• There’s almost no area where there was no armed conflict.
• In different places (sometimes only few kilometers away from each other), different armies were fighting against each other (there were several military forces that either co-operated, fighting against other ones in some areas, but that were engaged in armed conflict in other areas; sometimes these roles were superseding).
• Different approach to work in Republic of Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which has two constitutional nations that were also in war with each other, with clearly divided territories).
• There’s almost no one who’s not concerned with the war and who wasn’t affected with its consequences (in different ways).
• War traumas are still deep and there’s a very noticeable role of the victim (in every ethnic group), especially amongst the Bosniak population.
• Dangers of starting any kind of discussion about the war, due to people’s need to analyze who started it first and who’s guilty for it?
• Need to combine groups of participants of the debate differently, depending on where it’s taking place.
• Very few potential local partners who agree with the opinion that this needs to be worked on now, there’s no willingness to confront the local community they’re coming from because of their tense reactions to any kind of attempt towards reconciliation or building of sustainable peace.
• The presence of international military troops, which are under NATO command, presented in the media as a condition and a guarantee for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Panel debates should focus more on the motivation of those who participated in the war and on a way to build sustainable peace, and by no means on analysis of armed conflicts and presenting information about concrete events that most people already know a lot about, which is of no great interest for the public.
• The emphasis should be on “What now? How to go on?”
• Good contacts should be established with Disabled Veterans Associations in order to approach people who took part in the war, because there’s a great many of them.
• Organize forums on TV instead of in auditoriums, perhaps, because of easier access and/or because of security reasons.

 

When we think about working in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the results we may achieve there, we become aware of many other factors. A work group has been put together in our Sarajevo office. It is going to explore and reflect all these (and many other) factors. By January 1st 2003, it should submit a proposal about places, ways, participants, and frequency of the debates, including time schedule and activity plan, together with approaches that may be applied.

About finding a group of participants

Having in mind that there’s a great and different need for participants of the debates, which are evidently going to take place very often, and at the same time in different places, it was suggested to make one large group of potential participants. The group should include several participants of wars coming from each of the armies involved in conflicts in this area. They should come from different a social context inside their own communities and therefore (not) have had various motivations to participate in the war. The making of such a group means also working with its members on communication, identities, prejudices, discrimination, which is possible through some kind of an internal basic training (at least seven day long) on conflict transformation, peace building, civic activism and other themes important for the approach to local community. Different crews may be formed from such a group, when required, in order to participate in different places, at the same time.

In addition to this project report, there are the following appendices (that could be found on our web-page):

1. Appendix on media that includes consecutive statements/items about media support in each town and in whole Serbia (including Vojvodina):

www.nenasilje.org/aktivnosti/cetiri_pogleda/pdf/appendix1-media.pdf

2. Short reports from our local partners from Indjija, Nis, Novi Pazar and Kragujevac:

www.nenasilje.org/aktivnosti/cetiri_pogleda/pdf/appendix2-reportsbypartners.pdf

3. Messages from the guest box offered to people as a possibility to influence further development of the debate process:

www.nenasilje.org/aktivnosti/cetiri_pogleda/pdf/appendix2-reportsbypartners.pdf

Many thanks to all those who are supporting

CENTAR ZA NENASILNU AKCIJU – CENTER FOR NONVIOLENT ACTION

financially or though their engagement that made this project possible and

helped to secure its implementation an all of those who are with us in their thoughts.

SPECIAL THANKS TO:

Adnan Hasanbegović, Gordan Bodog, Nebojša Jovanović, Saša Dujović

Auswärtiges Amt – German Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Berghof Stiftung & Berghof Research Institute for Creative Conflict Management

Cara Gibney

Celia McKeon

Centar za mirovne studije Zagreb

Committee for Conflict Transformation

Conciliation Resources

Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft Vereinigte Kriegsgegner – DFG VK Bielefeld

Dokumentacioni centar “Ratovi 1991-99”

Dragan Kocić and the team of CITY Radio, Niš

Goran Božičević

Internationale Ärzte zur Verh∫tung des Atomkrieges – IPPNW Deutschland

Iva Zenzerović

Jasna Janković Sarčević and the team of KATARZA B92

Local authorities of Inđija, Niš, Novi Pazar and Kragujevac

Martina Fischer

Menschenrechtsreferat des Diakonischen Werkes

Natascha Zupan

NGO Millennium, Kragujevac

Nina Vukosavljević

Omladinski kulturni klub Inđija

Protecta, Niš

Quaker Hilfe

Quaker Peace and Social Witness London

Roland Salvisberg

Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Uno Stiftung

Urban-in, Novi Paza

VREME

All training participants

CNA will very much welcome feedback, suggestions, questions and criticism

concerning this report and our general work. Your thinking along helps us!

Thank you.

This report may be distributed freely with the acknowledgement of the source

© CNA