“To understand a conflict – and, thus, help solve it –
we need to know something about at least three things:
Attitudes, Behaviour and the root Causes of the conflict.
That’s the ABC. Most media simply report on behaviour and
ignore the two other dimensions. This is why people in
general feel that they don’t understand much of it all, in
spite of watching and listening carefully to news reports.
And when media cover conflict behaviour, many seem to use
the KISS principle – Keep It Simple, Stupid. What you
have heard about human rights in Kosovo/a is a good example
of KISS journalism,” says Jan Oberg, head of TFF’s
Conflict-Mitigation team upon returning from yet another
mission to Belgrade, Prishtina and Skopje.
“I want to make it clear that I consider the Serb
government guilty of extremely serious and systematic human
rights violations in the Kosovo province. Over the years,
the Serb leadership has pursued an absolutely immoral and
self-defeating policy of repression. Having listened to
hundreds of personal accounts of human rights violations, I
know that. Numerous human rights organisations offer
overwhelming documentation.
During our missions, TFF’s team has been stopped
repeatedly on the roads, interrogated at police stations for
hours, and deprived of written Albanian materials. I have
seen the blood on the sidewalk after a young Albanian shot
dead close to the Grand Hotel one morning in peacetime
Prishtina. And, undoubtedly, when a people is this strong
and this united in its desire for freedom, repression of its
fundamental rights must be a basic explanation – however not
the only one.
This, however, can not explain” – continues Dr. Oberg –
“why so many human rights advocates, columnists, experts and
diplomats ignore the fact that the rights of all, also the
Serbs, are violated in this province. It takes two to create
a segregation such as the one in Kosovo – unique as it is in
Europe. Nationalist attitudes, expansionist ideologies,
chauvinism, stereotyping, hate, propaganda, misuse of
history, and victim psychology can be found on BOTH sides.
Furthermore, it is part of the Kosova-Albanian political
strategy to refuse to take advantage of the human rights
they have had and do have according to the constitution.
Thus, they refuse to take part in elections, in spite of the
fact that that participation could probably have changed the
political scene in all of Serbia. It is true that the
autonomous status was reduced in 1989 but contrary to what
is stated in even expert reports and serious media it was
not abolished. This type of self-repression needs to be
taken into account. And we must not forget that there are
also Montenegrins, Roma, Turks, Muslims in this province
whose human rights are violated too.
Advocates of minority rights focus almost exclusively on
the Albanian community. There is little international human
rights attention to the minorities living in the
self-proclaimed independent Republic of Kosova; they have
not voted for that independence and many will tell how they
feel abandoned even by Belgrade. The appearance and
war-fighting of the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA/UCK, will
not exactly help Serbs and other non-Albanian citizens feel
more confident about their future as minorities in the
Albanian-dominated Kosova.
There are excellent independent centres in Serbia proper,
such as the Humanitarian Law Centre in Belgrade, which
analyse and monitor human rights violations by the Serb and
the Albanian side. But there is little reporting from the
Kosovo-Albanian side on human rights violations committed by
e.g. the Kosova Liberation Army. I want to make it clear
that this is not a plea for ’50/50 guilt;’ human rights
violations must not be quantified. But what I am saying is
that people who struggle for human rights should be
concerned about ANY human rights violations and sympathise
with ANY victim irrespective of what may seem politically
correct. Which leads to my next points.
The concern of the international governmental and
non-governmental human rights community about the repression
of Albanians in Kosovo borders on “political correctness”
when compared with their lame reaction over the years to the
human rights violations against the Serb minority in
neighbouring Croatia that peaked with the military ethnic
cleansing in 1995 of some 250 000 legitimate Croatian
citizens of Serb origin.
Furthermore, according to UNHCR, Serbia today hosts 650
000 registered refugees from other ex-Yugoslav republics;
that is three times more than those who have become
internally displaced in the Kosovo province in recent
fighting. For years it’s been the largest refugee problem in
Europe, on the soil of an impoverished country whose
innocent ordinary citizens are victims of the international
community’s ill-conceived sanctions. But it makes no
headlines anywhere and does not seem to merit any major
humanitarian assistance. The negligible humanitarian and
human rights concern about Serb refugees, also victims of
war, makes one wonder whether all human being ARE considered
equal even by human rights advocates.
When between 10 000 and 15 000 Krajina Serb refugees were
settled in Kosovo, President Rugova, the Kosova government
and Albanian media called this ‘colonisation.’ Thus, the
leadership that says it is committed to give Serbs all
thinkable rights in independent Kosova missed a great
opportunity to build confidence and trust with local and
refugee Serbs by not receiving such a small number of Serb
refugees with open arms. I have mentioned this to
Kosovo-Albanian leaders and intellectuals and they don’t
seem to acknowledge that this reaction undermine their
credibility as modern democrats and their commitment to
humanity and multi-ethnicity,” says Dr. Oberg.
“I probably don’t have to tell you that the role of women
in the Kosovo-Albanian society leaves very much to be
desired in terms of human rights and democratic
participation. Neither is the constitution of the
independent Republic of Kosova genuinely multi-ethnic; it
distinguished between the Albanian people and terms all
others ‘national minorities.’ I believe it is reasonable
that all states – also self-proclaimed states – are judged
by the same criteria.
Some may correctly counter that Serbia and Yugoslavia is
not exactly a democracy either. I agree. It is deplorably
far away from being so – and it is sliding even more in a
repressive, authoritarian direction combined with increasing
poverty and apathy. Corruption, racketeering and mafia
methods is commonplace; politicians elected in so-called
democratic elections have become rich fast. And a recent
university law curtails academic freedoms to such an extent
that many look nostalgically back on the freedom they
enjoyed under Tito! So, unfortunately, it seems that this
regime does not like people who think! However, those who
call Serbia/Yugoslavia and its government ‘terrorist’,
‘dictatorship’ or compare it with Stalin’s Soviet Union or
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq may wonder about these three things –
at least:
a) How come that Yugoslavia is de jure and de facto the
most multi-ethnic society among the former Yugoslav
republics and why do other minorities not complain as much
about their situation as the Albanians do? b) How come that
hundreds of thousands of citizens and civil society
organisations demonstrated for months last year in Belgrade,
seemingly without fear? Can similar public outrage and
protests be expressed in Zagreb or Sarajevo today?
And c) How come such a regime has, for years, tacitly
tolerated what NO other government in ex-Yugoslavia, or in
Europe for that matter, would probably tolerate, namely that
an important minority has declared an independent state on
its territory, has held elections, developed a parallel
society, set up a government including (according to some
sources) a defence minister, developed an international
diplomacy headed by a President who is received worldwide as
head of state. The Kosovo province hosts a number of US
humanitarian organisations and a United States Information
Service office. The Kosova leadership under Dr. Rugova has
never been touched by the Belgrade authorities, they have
received new Yugoslav passports, never been in house arrest
or prosecuted for what elsewhere would probably be
designated anti-state activity (as it was in Tito’s
Yugoslavia but with markedly less international attention
than today). Albanians walk the streets of Belgrade
safely.
I agree that Serbia’s political system is authoritarian
but – no – it is not a dictatorship and cannot be blamed for
all evils in ex-Yugoslavia or Kosovo/a. There are not that
many minorities who struggle for secession and independence
around the world under similar conditions,” Jan Oberg points
out. “In passing one may say that that shows the tremendous
strength of a nonviolent policy as such: it is much more
difficult to clamp down on than violent action. We shall
return to that dimension in PressInfo 46.”
TFF’s director ends on a more general observation. “I
think there is reason to discuss whether the human rights
perspective threatens to monopolise the field of
interpretation in conflicts such as the one in Kosovo. My
view is that human rights violations in most cases should be
seen as a CONSEQUENCE of mismanaged or ignored conflicts
rather than a CAUSE of them. But the handy thing about the
human rights perspective is that it is so easy to (mis)use
by moralists: ‘Watch your television and it is unacceptable
what you see, isn’t it – so, let’s punish the evil
perpetrators.’
Of course we must search for effective ways to stop human
rights violations. But the underlying conflicts must be
equally addressed and this is, in most cases, where
black-and-white images become virtually useless. If, as in
the case of Kosovo, Serb governments have repressed
Kosovo-Albanians for decades my first question would be: Why
do they do that, what are the Serbs afraid of – and I would
ask the question both in Belgrade and in Kosovo.
Because it is so evident that Kosovo-Albanians ARE
discriminated against, I would simultaneously try to find
out what is real and what is exaggeration on their side.
Only a very innocent, inexperienced or completely biased
journalist, diplomat or human rights activist can overlooked
the fact that quite a few leaders of de facto victimised
people in conflicts around the world have a talent for
exploiting suffering to legitimate their struggle for less
noble or more problematic causes. Serb leaders have done it
in the process of Yugoslavia’s breakdown and Albanian have
done it in Kosovo – greatly helped precisely by Belgrade’s
repression.
To put it crudely: yes, the Albanians in Serbia struggle
for independence because they are repressed but they ALSO
have other goals and motives. My judgment is that even if
they were offered (or had been offered) all human rights
according to European standards AND these were implemented,
the Albanian nation would still desire to leave Serbia and –
sooner or later – unify with their brothers and sisters
elsewhere. If there is some truth to that hypothesis, we may
begin to understand the depths of the common tragedy called
Kosovo.
This is NOT to defend Serb POLICIES or to legitimate or
defend any human rights violations. But we will get nowhere
if media and diplomats keep on pounding that Serbia and
Serbs ARE the problem and deny that Serbs HAVE a problem,
too. Anyone interested in genuine conflict-resolution and
not only more or less superficial solidarity must know the
ABC of conflict-analysis and make an diagnosis of the
problems as well as search for ways to treat the root causes
that LEAD TO human rights violations. Good
conflict-resolution puts an end to such violations, but the
forced ending of violations, however needed, does NOT
automatically imply conflict-resolution.
Moralists to whom the world looks so simple point to
human rights violations, identify superficially that A
represses B – but seldom why – and advocate punishment of A,
including bombings, coup d’etats, war crimes tribunals and
sanctions against millions of innocent ordinary citizens.
Too many humanitarian concerns dress themselves in military
boots rather than ordinary shoes and sandals these days. We
must begin to challenge such banal advocacy and address root
causes of conflicts – before moralist action makes genuine
long-term conflict-resolution and peace an even more remote
hope” concludes Dr. Oberg.
