Click here to return to our Home Page at ru.org

A special report                      

What's Next  for the Balkans?

Now that the bombing has stopped,  
can  real peace  be attained in Kosovo and the  surrounding  region? 

Below  we  present  two different  viewpoints on the issue. Read them and, if you wish, let  us know  what you think by  e-mail, or through the RU Forum.


The  NATO War and 
Ethnic Cleansing


by Johan Galtung

Another View on the  Conflict in Yugoslavia

 by Anton Ljutic

"Where do I stand: very simply, I am against the NATO bombing, I am against ethnic cleansing, whether by Serbs or anybody else -- for instance by the immigrants to North America who in the period 1600-1900 cleansed away about 10,000,000 American Indians. I find nothing original in my position. The  only original position would be to be in favor of both, a view probably  only entertained by arms dealers.

There are those who try to make us believe that you have to make a  choice between NATO and Milosevic; if you are against one for sure you are in  favor of the other. Nonsense. Early on in this horrible decade many of   the same people tried to make us believe that you had to make a choice between the Gulf war and Saddam Hussein;  again, perfectly possible to be against  both.

Then, the second example of this terrible dualism, the terror of the false dichotomy as we academics say: there was no alternative, if you do not accept the NATO bombing it means that you are co-responsible for ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Nonsense.

There was an alternative and even a very good one: step up the number of  observers in the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) from 1,200 to, say, 6,000, 12,000. Handies and binoculars, living in the villages, bringing in  volunteers.  But at the same time there was a civil war going on from February 1998, and one US ambassador had done what the US did in  connection with the Gulf war: he (Gelbard) told Beograd that the USA was of the  view that KLA were terrorists - certainly also the Beograd position. The alternative would have been to close the border by extending the UN  mandate  on the Macedonian-Kosovo border, step up OSCE, and then call a major conference on South East Europe.

Nothing like this happened; as we know the war was decided early last fall; only a question of preparing the public through the media, and presenting  Milosevic with an ultimatum he could not accept.  The   Rambouillet charade  was about this.  People started getting suspicious when they discovered  that the media did not bring the text; it had to be dug out from obscure  sites on the Internet.  I asked some journalists to make an inquiry in one of these 19 democracies, my own, Norway: no parliamentarian had read the  text.

 Democracy is about informed participation.


The Serbs knew: loss   of  sovereignty and territorial integrity, unlimited NATO access to Serbia. No  state signs itself into occupation and dismemberment. The Kosovars also knew: this was not the independence they wanted; it looked more like a protectorate under NATO.  So they voted no.  In some way or another they  were made to change their vote well knowing that the combination No-Yes would release the bombing of the Serbs.  It did, on 24 March, also releasing more hatred than ever of the Kosovars, among Serbs.  Fresh in their memory was how the Croats have driven them out; with the help of  USA and Germany.

Anyone could have told in advance; that the Kosovars would escape  everybody knew. To claim the opposite is only possible if you live an isolated existence in some boys' club in a war room, capable of whipping the media  into obedience so that dissenting voices are not hear.  There is a difference between now and last time in the Gulf, however: on the Internet  anybody can read some of the most brilliant people of our time as a  counterweight to lobotomized media who bring important information, like what Rambouillet was about, two month later. Too late for democracy,  good  enough for democratic totalitarianism (Zinoviev.)

Did NATO bombing bring about the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars in  addition to producing close to one million refugees, or would the Serbs  have engaged in ethnic cleansing anyhow? Again, the alternative to NATO  bombing was never to do nothing, as pointed out above.  There are  fascist  forces among the Serbs, the chetniki, Arkan's tigers, Sesel's Eagles it is almost unbelievable that the media and the tribunal have not focused  more on them.  Why not - because Milosevic is the symbol of the Serbian  nation and the Republic of Yugoslavia, he is the one they want to hit,  not  the key architects of the cleansing.  But leaving that aside: this is  one more case of a false dichotomy.

Of course the NATO bombing was stimulated, among other factors, by  Serbian  ethnic cleansing in Croatia and Bosnia - regardless of complex causes  and  others who did the same these were facts and the West (calling itself  "the  international community") was frustrated, aggressive, "never again".

And of course the NATO bombing led to ethnic cleansing as pointed out  above: just imagine the post-Rambouillet hatred and the comparison with  August 1995.  Three times have the Serbs been maneuvered into a minority positions exposed to their old enemies without the federal protection  that  was basic to Tito's Yugoslavia: in Croatia, in Bosnia, in Kosovo.  Three  times have they overreacted, inexcusably, but not unexplainably.

Ethnic cleansing brought about the NATO bombing, the NATO bombing  brought about more ethnic cleansing in a vicious circle of mutual causation.  Murder, killing, destruction, hatred. trauma; NATO torturing the Serbs, the Serbs torturing the Kosovars, soon the time will come to the Kosovars.


How do we get out of this?   Here is one set of ideas:

Peace, if wanted, could be near; guided by former UN General Secretary  Perez de Cuellar's advice to Genscher December 1991: be sure that any  recognition is acceptable to minorities, that parts of Yugoslavia are dealt  with symmetrically, and that there is a policy for Yugoslavia as a  whole.  But first a basic assumption that holds the key to a peace beyond ceasefire:

[0]  Equal recognition of the suffering and rights of all: They are all  victims, most of them more innocent than others, of a situation most  nations would have found impossible.  They need compassion, help; not guns and bombs. Divide them into "worthy" and "unworthy" victims, and peace  becomes unattainable. They have all the same right to recognition and  self-determination.

[1] Build on the symmetry Croatia-Bosnia/1995 and Serbia/1999: The 650,000 Serbian refugees in Serbia were in part driven out by the Croats/USA  from Krajina/Slavonia August 1995.  Serbian ultra-reactions included total condemnation of the international community, and "we can do the same".  The  Western media found little or no space for their suffering. Hence, both must be recognized as basic problems, they must all be guaranteed their  safe return.  And then upgrade the status of Krajina/Slavonia in  Croatia,
and Kosovo/a in Serbia, possibly to republic status.

[2]  A possible quadrilateral deal: A (Croats) gives return and status to B (Serbs), B gives return/status to C (Kosovars), C gives access to mineral resources/harbors to D (Slavic Muslims) and D inclusion of the Croat
part of Bosnia/Herzegovina to A.

[3]  A Yugoslav confederation: If some autonomy is given to all minorities  in Yugoslavia we end up with close to 15 parts. "Jedinstvo", a unitary or  federal state, is out.  But "bratstvo" as confederation of human rights respecting countries, is not.

So much for a peace outcome.  For that to happen there has to be a peace  process.  Here are elements of a peace process:

[4]  The killing on all sides stops, NATO/Serbia/KLA forces are withdrawn, NATO from the Balkans; Serbian and Kosovar forces from Kosova, UN forces with OSCE observers, with a composition acceptable to all parties, and in  big numbers, take over.

[5]  The UN Secretary General appoints a board of mediators known for  wisdom and autonomy, like Jimmy Carter, Perez de Cuellar, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Julius Nyerere, Mary Robinson, Richard von Weizsaecker for one-on-one dialogues with all parties to identify acceptable and sustainable outcome.

[6]  The UN Secretary General convenes a Conference for the Security and  Cooperation in South East Europe (CSCSEE), with all parts of Yugoslavia,  and all SE European countries as members, with points like [1]-[3] on the  agenda, pending the report from the team mentioned in [5] above.

[7]  The Presidents of Slovenia and Macedonia convene a civil society  conference, using expertise in all parts of Yugoslavia, to project images of future relations within ex-Yugoslavia, and does the same for future  relations within South East Europe (in cooperation with, say, Hungary  and Greece).

[8]  The peoples of Yugoslavia are invited to participate in the peace process, forming multi-national dialogue groups all over, coming forward with concrete ideas based on local dialogues.

[9]  Reconstruction is systematically used for reconciliation by having  belligerent groups cooperating, doing the task together, not giving that  enormous task away to outside entrepreneurs.

[10]  If any border has to be drawn or redrawn the principles of the  Danish-German 1920 Schleswig-Holstein partition are used.

However, however.  I started by saying that I am against both NATO bombing  and ethnic cleansing.  Like most people in the world, I assume, perhaps not in belligerent Western Europe, filled with the self-righteousness of their  interpretation of how  society should be governed.  Nine hundred years  ago, when they launched the Crusades, it used to be their special interpretation  of God and Jesus Christ, not Jewish, not Orthodox, not Muslim. They  killed  as many as they could lay hands on, limited only by their more artisanal killing technology those days.

As indicated above, I feel the problems of Yugoslavia can be solved, with  more good will, more creativity, a little time and less dualism, less  demonization.  Milosevic is very far from a new Hitler.  He does not have a  new concept of world order, run from above.  He is essentially an  administrator of very unfortunate traits in the Serbian psyche, a  megalomania and paranoia almost as high as that of the USA, about at the same level as can be found in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  In addition there  are  elements of the mafia boss, but they are ubiquitous in these globalizing  days.

The other problem, NATO bombing, is more problematic.  But the bombers have  one good question to which they have the wrong answer. The question is:  what do we do when the doctrine of national sovereignty protects the  state  that insults the human rights of its own population?  The answer cannot possibly to insult these human rights even more.  Rather, we could learn  from the USA: there are federal crimes, and there is federal police pre-stationed all over. How about pre-stationing UN observers and UN troops  all over as a preventive measure?

Human rights are universal.  They are also indivisible, a country cannot  detach the economic and social rights, accepting only the civil and  political.  Many criminals would like to do the same to the criminal code  in their country as the USA does to the International Bill of Rights,  ratifying one of the 16 December 1966 covenants, not the economic and social rights.

We are heading for a major world confrontation between the 19 NATO  countries and, probably, much of the rest of the world, particularly the part caught in the US pincer move of expanding NATO eastward at the same  time as they expand AMPO westward.  Eurasia, the home of more than half  of  humanity is watching what happens with great anxiety.  Who is next in  line to be bombed?  Or, could it be in Latin America, like Colombia, the USA  not  using NATO but using TIAP, the Latin American military system?

The world today has a major problem.  That problem has a name.  The name  is  not Milosevic, he is the small town villain.  


The name of the problem is
 
United States of America.


Their sense of exceptionalism, being above ordinary states and nations,  is  attractive. To break that many international law paragraphs can only be  justified if you are above the law, in a direct relation to a God of the  universe who "created America to bring order to the world" (Colin  Powell) or, in more secular terms, "a global nation with global interests" (Shalikashvili).  Smaller states flock to the Exceptional one to reflect, like the cold moon, some of the light, not to mention the heat, burning the  non-believers.  An old Western tradition.

Let us hope that this intoxicating frenzy of violence to torture the  Serbs  into capitulation will be followed by some soberness.  Preferably in  time  to prevent a Third world war.


Johan Galtung is a  Professor of Peace Studies and the director of  TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network.

TRANSCEND, Johan Galtung & TFF 1999

You are welcome to reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item,  but  please retain the source.

Dr. Jan Oberg
Director, head of the TFF Conflict-Mitigation team
to the Balkans and Georgia

T F F
Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Vegagatan 25, S - 224 57 Lund, Sweden
Phone +46-46-145909 (0900-1100)
Fax +46-46-144512
Email
tff@transnational.org
http://www.transnational.org/



Click here to return to the top of this page.

Prof. Galtung's article presents the reader with two levels of analysis and argument.  In simplified terms, one level deals with the NATO onslaught on  Serbia and the other with "what next?". 

The former has been somewhat dated by events.  Nonetheless, portions of it  require comment, especially passages which liberally mix Prof. Galtung's  personal preferences with his analysis.

The article's title "The NATO War..." sets the stage, the implication being  that the war began with the NATO bombing and not nearly a decade ago.  Galtung's readiness to assign blame to, and his distaste for, the NATO  intervention is not a simple reaction against violence, but runs deeper and  reveals his anxiety about the role of the Americans in the new global  order.  It would be fair to say that this anxiety is shared widely and is certainly a concern of this author.  The unfortunate aspect of Galtung's  anxiety is that in order to condemn the Americans, he finds it necessary to diminish the magnitude of crimes committed by the Serbian war machine, as  when he writes, "Milosevic is ... essentially an administrator of very  unfortunate traits in the Serbian psyche".  Not so according to the
independent International War Crimes Tribunal.  Or, "(T)here are elements  of the mafia boss, but they are ubiquitous in these globalizing days". Does that mean that they are justifiable and should not be punished? 

The most outrageous statement comes later in the article when Galtung  advises "Equal recognition of the suffering and rights of all: They are all  victims, most of them more innocent than others, of a situation most nations would have found impossible."  I fail to understand who are those "others" in "more innocent than others".  More importantly, the statement hinges on the ambiguity of the word "victims".  The Germans might have been victimised by the Nazi propaganda, but their divisions were the  executioners, not the victims.  Similarly, many Croatian and Bosnian Serbs  participated willingly in heinous executions and torture of their  neighbours.  Is it any surprise that they left in a hurry when their side  lost, or that they are leaving Kosovo in large numbers now that the fortunes of war have turned against them?  Many, perhaps the majority, are  indeed "innocent victims" who merely stood by in silence watching their neighbours being disinherited or massacred.  But no small number actively  participated in the aggression, as information collected by the War Crimes Tribunal readily shows.

  Indeed, the depth of indifference, if not hatred and intolerance, shown by their acts suggests beyond a doubt that a negotiated settlement was not in the cards


 The gap between the opposing Serb and Kosovar interests was far too wide, and the Serbs far too superior  in their ability (and readiness) to impose a solution.  As George Simmel pointed out, it's hard to negotiate with a lion.

My comments on the "what next?" portion will be brief and selective in view  of the limitation of space.

The key to Galtung's argument about steps to be taken to find a more permanent solution is found in the following passage, attributed to Perez de Cuellar: "be sure that any recognition is acceptable to  minorities, that  parts of Yugoslavia are dealt with symmetrically, and that there is a policy for Yugoslavia as a whole".

These are admirable principles.  But can they be implemented?  The first  problem is that demographic shifts and waves of migration tend to produce  pockets of minorities within minorities.  Any break-up of the larger entity  therefore inspires regional and sub-regional "separatist" strivings.  For example, Canada's Quebec is predominantly French.  Nonetheless, it has significant pockets of English speakers in distinct geographic regions and it also has a number of native groups who do not wish to live in a Quebec separate from Canada.  Quebec's right to separate is recognised by the rest of Canada.  Does that right to separate extend to sub-regions which have expressed a desire to separate from an independent Quebec and remain in Canada?

Early in the Yugoslav conflict the legal position that was taken was that  the 1944 internal borders, confirmed by the Helsinki agreement, must not be changed.   The result of keeping the borders intact was that pockets of relatively compact ethnic minorities remained in "wrong places": Serbs in Croatia, Croats in Vojvodina, Muslims in Serbia, and so forth.  Well reasoned arguments were put forward in the early 1990s to "swap" these people so as to minimise social tensions created by the wars.  Indeed, a  significant number of exchanges of property (and therefore people) have  been  recorded and might still be occurring.  But in certain cases the  sudden changes in the frontlines came too quickly for people to adjust other than by running away from homes they occupied for centuries.  These  are the Serbian refugees in Serbia, referred to by Galtung, who "were in  part driven out by the Croats/USA from Krajina/Slavonia August 1995". Galtung seems to believe that their plight somehow gave legitimacy to the Serb aggression in Kosovo: since the West had done nothing about their problem the Serbs felt that they could "do the same". 

But the "symmetry" which he sees in the expulsion of the Kosovars and of  the Croatian/Bosnian Serbs is an optical illusion at best.  While it is true that the wartime Croatian pro-Nazi state massacred thousands of Serbs,  Jews, and Roma, no mass graves of Serbs have been found since, no organised mass atrocities recorded, no known army dictates that the Serbs must leave.   All of these have been found and recorded with the Serbs as perpetrators, from Vukovar to Srebrenica, and from Omarska to Kosovo.  As argued above,  the Serbs left because of (well grounded) fear that they will be held responsible for their wartime actions.

But the real problem lies in the fact that although the Serb refugees can  legally return to their homes in Krajina or Slavonia, not surprisingly very few have shown the inclination.  The international conferences and  committees cannot resolve the problem.  You can legislate the refugees' right of return, but you can't legislate their neighbors' tolerance of  their presence.  This, I believe, is the "bottom line" truth in Yugoslavia. 

Any reconciliation will be a matter of small steps.  It will be organic and  natural, and cannot be imposed from outside.  It is already in progress.  The Croats have been piping oil to the Serbs even during the war!  The Slovenes are eager to re-establish their eastern markets.  Macedonia,  Montenegro and Bosnia very much depend on the economies, transportation systems, and other amenities of their neighbors and ex-partners in the  federation.  Most importantly, all aspire to become part of Europe.  In the  words of a Belgrade journalist of Vreme, Roksanda Nincic:

I think the only possibility of turning Serbia into a normal country with a  normal democratic system and normal economic system will be to incorporate Serbia into the European family and bringing European standards into Serbia.

The idea of having "peace conferences" which would impose swapping of  territories and redrawing of borders (Galtung's points 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and  10) is paternalistic, pedantic, and doomed to failure.  If Galtung is sincere in his desire to open the process to the peoples of ex-Yugoslavia, then he must accept their judgment as to the right pace, timing, method,  and outcome.

The most important obstacle to the region's stability - the overwhelming  military power of Serbia and the Serb state's willingness to use it to  arbitrate disputes - has been largely removed.  I believe that if a poll was taken among most of the peoples of  ex-Yugoslavia: the Croatians, the Bosniacs and the Herzegovinians, the Muslims of Sandjak, Kosovo and  Macedonia, and even the Montenegrins - they would fault NATO in one  respect, and one respect only: that its intervention didn't come sooner.


Anton Ljutic first read Johan Galtung's works as a student of political  science at Sir George Williams University in Montreal.  Alas, the Sir
George Williams is no more, and Anton ended as a college instructor of  economics, not politics.  But he is glad to see that Prof. Galtung is still active and was thrilled when asked to write a response to the piece on NATO and the Kosovo crisis, not least because his roots are in what used to be Tito's Yugoslavia.

Click here to return to the top of this page.

 





gjakova.JPG





 

peja.JPG





unsco.JPG






tranfor.JPG



The above photos are from Kosovo are from the multi-media presentation "The Art of War"  featured on http://www.rawa.ru.org 
AMURT

 


What's Your Viewpoint on this issue? 

Express yourself  in the RU Forum 

Or send us a letter to the editor



From the mail bag.

  

...Greetings

I appreciate the contrasting pieces on your site. But I am not convinced that either author really enables us to move forward or to deal with other such conflicts in new ways.

Is it helpful to find actors to blame for a past crisis, rather than looking to opportunities for actors whose resources have not been focused on underlying issues of territorial conflict -- whether in
Kosovo, Jerusalem, Northern Ireland, Tibet or the many other such places?

It was in this spirit, whilst the bombing was going on, that I prepared an article on:
And When the Bombing Stops? -- Territorial conflict as a challenge 
to mathematicians
(http://www.uia.org/uiadocs/mathbom.htm)

This points to many ignored possibilities (with web references) and raises the question about who is to blame that these have not been followed up.

In sense I feel as frustrated by your authors' analyses as I am by the airline standard excuse for a delayed flight -- that the delay was "due to the delay of arrival of an incoming aircraft" is a way of
focusing on a proximate cause in order to disguise lack of focus on more fundamental causes and opportunities.

We should be able to do better than that.

Regards

Anthony Judge
Director, Communications and Research
Union of International Associations
Rue Washington 40
B-1050 Brussels, BELGIUM
Tel:(32 2) 640.18.08 Fax:(32 2) 643 61 99
WWW: http://www.uia.org/ E-mail: judge@uia.be



      Click here to return to the top of this page.                                      Click here to return to our Home Page at ru.org


This was a special report brought to you by 

Click here to send us an e-mail NEW RENAISSANCE
         A Journal for Social and Spiritual Awakening     
Weisenauer Weg 4, 55129 Mainz, Germany
Telephone: +49 6131 834262, Fax: +49 6131 834628
Internet: newren@ru.org    http://www.ru.org 

This page last updated on October 12, 1999.
 Please send all technical comments and questions to webmaster@ru.org

1995-1999 by Renaissance Universal, all rights reserved.

 


SURF OUR DOMAIN  Click here to get the latest news from the Renaissance WWWorldWhat's New    Click here to join our on-line forumRU Forum    Click here to learn more about Renaissance Universal More about RU     Click here to contact our offices around the worldNR Offices      Click here to visit Renaissance Artists and Writers AssociationRAWA's new site    Click here to vist other progressive and alternative sitesLinks to our friends   


Click here to return to our Home Page at ru.org