To condemn and (or) to accept

Recent events in Banja Luka and Trebinje, regarding the violent obstruction of rebuilding
the destroyed mosques while people were stoned, were not at all unexpected, but on
the contrary, gave an overall picture of the situation in BiH. Human rights violation of all
kinds is dominant over the past several years in post-Dayton BiH. Minority groups and
people with different political opinion are exposed to direct violence, like throwing
grenades at returnees, setting explosive in cars, etc. It happens often enough, so it’s no
surprise to the public and it makes no headlines in media. It’s enough to watch the news
and look at the local papers that resemble to war bulletins and still use the language of
hatred. The list of single cases of violence and discrimination with political background
would certainly be very long, in case someone cares to make one. It doesn’t seem to be
very productive to treat each end every one of them, for the sake of public reaction or
the appeal.
The Dayton Agreement, which represents some sort of constitution of BiH, as someone
has already said, did stop the war, but nevertheless did not bring the peace. The absence
of war is additionally complicated with the dual understanding of The Agreement from
different political factors and inconsistency when it comes to implementation of single
decisions. Victims of war and post-war violence are being manipulated for the sake of
politics, in many regions, authorities secretly support radical nationalistic violent
groups, different political views of situation in BiH are being ignored, and decisions
agreed on legal and executive organs are being obstructed. These are just some of many
consequences of unclear articulation and shallowness in the approach to establishment
of sustainable peace and building of stable and democratic society.
Responsible for these difficulties, however, are not only local actors, but also the international community. It seems that international community, despite its presence in
BiH with many instruments to act, does not manage (except for imposing some laws and
occasionally arrest war criminals), to set some long-term directives and create a system
that is fair and represents a precondition for development of civil society in BiH.
General cause for this situation, in my opinion, is the wrong approach from the very beginning, to
the peace building, civil society, reconciliation, and, if I may say so, facing of the truth about the
violence in this region. Before all, there is an absence of an analysis and reconsidering factors
that led to violent resolving of social conflicts after disintegration of Yugoslavia. This was never
completed thoroughly. Moreover, although we did to a certain point, analyse social systems
created after the disintegration of former Yugoslavia, like those of Milosevic and Tudjman and
labelled them as totalitarian and responsible for violence, we never defined what were their
historical, political or economic causes. On the other hand, when it comes to responsibility for
war, ethnic communities have each their own media enrooted images. Even today, although these
regimes are gone, political turmoil, discrimination and violence continue, especially in BiH.
One of the big mistakes in BiH, is also the lack of strategy to build NGO sector, a core of
civil society. There was an attempt to establish NGO sector after the war, with a lot of
money for their registration, without their previously articulated goals derived from
relevant social demands. Consequently, today there is a huge number of organisations
with a frequent changes of their mission, with no prior need analysis, in search for
money, or just disappearing because there’s no money. If the end of the war had to be imposed, that should never be a principle of civil society.
On the contrary, it has to be built slowly and thoroughly, while insisting on development
of civil and political activism among local people, in order to create the basis for selfreexamination and local initiatives for changes and reconciliation.
All of that, indicates that the end of the war in Bosnia, unfortunately, is still a result of
heavy military presence of SFOR and international community, but not the result of
reconciliation and actual confronting with violence that has happened and is still
happening. One might say that for many people, intimately, war has not yet ended,
because of the unsettled political situation or transformation of present social conflicts
of all kinds, especially ethnical.
Local individuals, political and civil groups and organisations have primary responsibility  different social groups to reconsider their own and other’s views of the problem.
One should certainly put emphasis on education in nonviolent conflict transformation
and nonviolence in general, because it’s flexible and multi-purposed, and represents a
good method to create critical mass of groups and individuals capable to deal with
difficulties of reconciliation. It is important to offer programs for work on refining
mutual communication, sensitising toward structural and other kinds of violence,
popularise nonviolence and philanthropy, and empower people to take more
responsibility for social issues in general. Making education on peace and civil society a
part of educational system on each level can be very important.
Also, lot more should be done on organising as many conferences and lectures, with the
subject of reconciliation, forming multiethnic expert teams to work on analysis of
historical elements of the present conflicts, and analysis and reconsidering of the Balkan
history, because it’s been manipulated a lot. Our experience tells us it is necessary to
have a regional approach to work on these problems, including countries of former
Yugoslavia.
It is recommended to analyse possibilities to start political and civil lobbying for total
demilitarisation of Balkans and to begin working toward that goal, and create
preconditions for it.
At the end, although there are many problems, there is also optimism to face all the
difficulties, because there is an increasing number of mostly young people from all
around of former Yugoslavia. They have the capacities and capabilities to deal with
the situation through social activism and promotion for their own values and society
to deal with these problems. First of all, responsibility means, to condemn and inflict
penalty upon actors of violence from one’s own national collective. Right now, that is the
jurisdiction of The Hague Tribunal – role of The Tribunal in this particular context
requires separate analysis, still however worthwhile it may be, we will leave it for some
other occasion. Responsibility also means to re-question one’s political visions and
needs. It is especially important to try and look at the facts about the enormous victims
of war and accept responsibility for that, whether or not we were active or passive
participants of the war and violence. It’s only then that we open some actual possibilities
for constructive reconciliation and transformation of conflicts that caused the violence.
Institutional changes, such as an introduction of the state of law and protection of
minority rights should accompany and enable this process, but cannot alone accomplish
the goal of reconciliation.
In order to make such a thing possible, a lot has to be done on empowering and
education, and also de-traumatization of people from this region. The important thing is
to popularise different types of peace education, through both NGO activities and
institutions and structures within the system, and to offer space for individuals from different social groups to reconsider their own and other’s views of the problem.
One should certainly put emphasis on education in nonviolent conflict transformation
and nonviolence in general, because it’s flexible and multi-purposed, and represents a
good method to create critical mass of groups and individuals capable to deal with
difficulties of reconciliation. It is important to offer programs for work on refining
mutual communication, sensitising toward structural and other kinds of violence,
popularise nonviolence and philanthropy, and empower people to take more
responsibility for social issues in general. Making education on peace and civil society a
part of educational system on each level can be very important.
Also, lot more should be done on organising as many conferences and lectures, with the
subject of reconciliation, forming multiethnic expert teams to work on analysis of
historical elements of the present conflicts, and analysis and reconsidering of the Balkan
history, because it’s been manipulated a lot. Our experience tells us it is necessary to
have a regional approach to work on these problems, including countries of former
Yugoslavia.
It is recommended to analyse possibilities to start political and civil lobbying for total
demilitarisation of Balkans and to begin working toward that goal, and create
preconditions for it.
At the end, although there are many problems, there is also optimism to face all the
difficulties, because there is an increasing number of mostly young people from all
around of former Yugoslavia. They have the capacities and capabilities to deal with
the situation through social activism and promotion for their own values and society
they live in.