Šamac/BH, 20-22.05.2011.
Unlike the previous years, when every year we did a two-part training for the new groups of veterans from Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, this time we carried out the idea to, by gathering the participants of previous trainings, jointly discuss dilemmas related to the past, primarily within the context of the manner of remembering and materializing remembrance of the wartime past of the ‘90s in our region.
The trainings up to now aimed primarily at building trust and creating a safe space for open discussions and confrontations. This enabled us to carry out joint visits to the atrocity sites of all parties to the war over the past years. During the visits, respect was paid to victims of war, and understanding of “the enemy side”, also having war victims to claim, has been stimulated. The new concept we applied in this training was related to questioning of what we kept encountering during visits, which is, above all, a strong presence of national ideology in memorialization and overall social culture of remembrance.
This meeting was also an opportunity for considering possibilities of realization of some of the previous ideas for peace actions such as, the joint marking of unmarked atrocity places. There were 18 former fighters in the group who knew each other from previous CNA activities, and among whom already existed a level of mutual trust that enabled easier entry into the training focus. Another important topic included by the new concept was the aim and purpose of memorialization in the first place. The goal was to stimulate the group to think of new memorials of unmarked crime scenes and critical evaluation of the existing ones. The fact is that there was open discussion about possible actions for joint marking of atrocity sites from the very beginning. It is a huge step forward and a human and intellectual bravery to head towards the idea of understanding the victim and the obligation to pay it respect outside the dominant nationalistic and ideological context.
For the wider context of peacebuilding in the region, it is very important to deal with the models and ways of remembrance, as they can stimulate trans-generational deepening of the conflict and inter-ethnic tensions. This training is a step on that path, therefore it pointed to the difficulties we encounter on a personal and collective level, but also to some of the ways to overcome them. The strength of this attempt of finding alternative cultures of remembrance is to be found precisely in the credibility of the veterans as a social group. Just as they were actors of the war and carriers of the post-war ideological interpretations of the past, today they can become actors of finding a new relation towards remembering the war with the aim of reconciliation and peacebuilding.
In this regards, the training team set up a concept that demanded a prior detailed investigation of differences and dilemmas that undisputedly exist within the group, especially in the matter of national and ideological interpretations of the war events. An example of this is one of the Croat veterans who, at the mention of the idea of erecting a monument for the Serbian victims of the military action “Storm”, put forward twofold scepticism, in regard to whether it is generally viable, and secondly whether it is legitimate (“…because not only Serbs suffered”). That is one of the ways of relativization of crimes committed by which the equality of the victim is negated. It should be mentioned that the approach “our sufferings are more important than yours” was often thematized during the training. Visible difficulties and fears were being put forward by the veterans regarding the readiness to initiate something significant such as marking of the tabooed places in their own environment, because controversies and denial still exist inside of them. The veterans put forward dilemmas they are having between the ideals they fought for and a different outlook on the past, brought by the peacebuilding process. Actually, it is most difficult for the veterans themselves to confront their own group, environment and, in a wider sense, socially accepted interpretation of the past.
Still, the participants themselves spoke about the changes they experienced during their collaboration with the Centre for Nonviolent Action, in the sense of different understanding they had during and after the war of what they fought for, and what will their future will look like. One of the participants was a direct actor in the setting up of a monument with extremely nationalistic features in the period right after the war. After experiences made at this training, he said that at that time he did not even think what kind of messages may this monument send to the members of other nations. It could be said that there is a certain advance in the sense of the awareness of what kind of message is being sent by the monuments to our people, and what to others, and who are they actually designed for? It is important to note that there was mention of the fact that the monuments may assume different meanings over time and due to changes of the social context, and they may, on a symbolic level, be witnesses of shame, pride or a simple symbol of the period in which they were made.
These processes are important, because precisely this social group (the war-veterans) often actively participates in the selection of the conceptual design and the construction of the monuments. Many of the participants were stressing that they are willing to start marking the places of atrocities committed in their name and that of their armies. That is why it was our intention to look at potential obstacles in the realization of actions themselves as detailed and open as possible. There are rather opposed views and interpretations of recent past at former enemy sides, but an experience constructive handling of these differences may support build trust and strengthen the will for cooperation. It is a lesson that we learned which we tried to pass on. In a wider sense, that is crucial not only for successful realization of activities of a mixed group of former enemies, but also a respond to one of the basic questions: how to deal with a huge burden that emerged as a consequence of wars in this region. The participants speak of their personal responsibility, and that is exactly what keeps them in this story: the need to be fair, honest and good people.
Additional point the training team has insisted upon was to beware and not approach the future joint actions and cooperation superficially, and disregard possible negative consequences. It was also pointed out by some of the participants that it is very important to reassess potential dilemmas and damages that may be created by thoughtless actions while dealing with joint memorialization or a radical critique of the existing monuments. Or as one of the participants put it: “To approach it trough evolution, not revolution”.
We are happy for the fact that the participants spoke very good and relatively easy about very demanding and at some points abstract topics such as the culture of remembrance and memorialization. The crucial methodological change in comparison to previous trainings for veterans were theoretical inputs, but also analytical approach to phenomena such as collective memory, narratives, differing levels of truths, etc.
It seems that we managed to make very substantial and precise comparisons trough workshops about the social mechanisms for dealing with the past, on the examples from former Yugoslav society which practiced obviously ideological interpretation and memorialization of the events from the WWII. That dimension was significant because it very directly pointed to the similarities of today’s patterns of culture of remembrance in post-war societies within Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia.
The veterans themselves recognized that they were and still are today actors of one-sided interpretation of the past, that perceive other national groups and neighbouring states as enemies and causes of “our “ war sufferings and victims. This was most clearly heard during a workshop in which the existing monuments from the last war in the region were analyzed, when it became obvious that there are many monuments whose main intention is not paying respect to victims, but rather nationalistic marking of territories and construction of one-sided narratives connected to religion and national identity. The importance of these observations is to start revealing mythological interpretations of “our nation” as the centuries-old victims of our aggressive neighbours. This could exactly be guided according to the key factors of reconciliation that are almost “tangible” at this kind of gatherings. It is primarily meant here that the memory of war as a big warning to all, nor only strengthening of identities and preparation of the society for new wars and fear of enemies which surround us.
In the end, one could sense the will and preparedness to seriously continue with the planning of future joint actions. But with a sense of caution and insight in the seriousness of an action such as the joint setting up of commemorative points to the victims of wars on behalf of those who were a part of the armies that murdered them in the course of their mutual “liberations”. Should it come to realization, we believe that it would surely have a huge symbolic meaning and we hope would give example to our societies, communities and peoples to condemn human destruction, and decline accepting the culture of warfare as one of the foundations of our spiritual and secular practice.
This new concept in the work with the veterans was a challenge for the training team that undertook demanding preparations in the sense of adaptation of thematic contents to specific needs of the group. It was a great challenge to find a balance between an empowerment for actions which transcend existing social range of understanding the past, and intent to stress how serious and difficult such approach is.
Participants’ feedback to this training was extremely positive. It is obvious that this training stimulated a challenging process that will enable the participants, as well as the training team, to concretely think through and plan future activities.
A.H.