Macedonian weekly “PULS”
Q: The military conflict in Kosovo has been underway for three weeks. Could you give us your comment on its effects – both from NATO’s and FR Yugoslavia’s perspectives.
A: As an university professor, who has been very proud that Macedonia is the only example among the Balkan countries where there have been established peace studies as an academic discipline, as well as a person with ethical and professional attitude against any form of violence – I am free to say that the effects of Kosovo conflict have been disastrous. The “results” are ruinous for NATO Alliance, which is being preparing to celebrate its 50th anniversary with adoption of the new Strategic Concept for the next millennium. Having entered in an adventure, from which is even more difficult to get out – NATO will have to re-think its role in the next period. Definitely, FR Yugoslavia is also a loser in this conflict, regardless the manifestation of the famous unconquerable “Serbian spirit”. The current loses are huge, but in the first place I am most worried by the fact that the fragile and weak democratic potential of this country has been destroyed, the same potential the world saw during the 1996/97 protests. Without democratic Serbia and Yugoslavia there cannot be long lasting peace and prosperity in the Balkans. NATO airstikes put into action the well-known “rally around the flag” effect, i.e. it has contributed to total homogenization of the society. This result is something Milosevic has never accomplished in total. And finally, we all have to be aware that no one in the Balkans will be spared from the cataclysmic consequences of this conflict.
Q: How could you estimate Macedonia’s position in the context of the Kosovo conflict? How much is Macedonia secure and how real are the statements from the NATO Headquarters about their guarantees on Macedonian security?
A: Having been known as a “miracle in the Balkans” or a “beacon of hope”, Macedonia have been considered as an successful example of conflict prevention. Macedonia has resisted many trials and threats – the external ones (during the secession wars in former Yugoslavia) as well as the internal ones (due to its own conflict potential). Undoubtedly, Macedonia has already been heavily affected by this military conflict, or according to the Prime Minister Georgievski – it has become the only innocent victim, of course in a state level. Speaking about security, I would like to stress that there are many different ways in which one country can be insecured or be safe. Maybe NATO can provide a kind of guarantees to Macedonia’s military security. But, what is about the other aspects of security, such as: political, societal, economic and environmental? From theoretical and practical point of view, there are many cases when citizens of a certain country feel safe despite the fact that they are really endangered, and vice versa. In Macedonian case, I would say that we have a situation of a total confusion among our citizens in regard to their awareness of how endangered or how safe they really are.
Q: What are Macedonia’s chances to join NATO and EU under current circumstances?
A: I would rather pose the question in a different way: why should Macedonia consider this issue of its NATO and EU membership as a priority under these circumstances? Don’t we have more urgent problems to resolve at the moment? Our belonging and wish to join united and democratic Europe have no alternative. But, maybe it is a high time for NATO to consider its own transformation and its future mission. After this 1999, nothing will be the same in Europe and in the world, and I strongly believe that the time of changes will take place very soon. Macedonia must not be a passive observer of this process, especially regarding this very region. We have proven our ability to play a role of a factor of peace in the region in a very difficult time, not so long ago in 1991 and afterwards. Now we are facing another maturity test for our state and our citizens.
Q: How do you feel about refugee problem from Kosovo? Why this exodus happened? Which aspects of the refugee problem are specially important from Macedonian perspective?
A: An exodus like this must not and cannot leave anyone indifferent. Having in mind the proportion of the refugees, without any dilemma one must say that it is an enormous tragedy of innocent civilians. I do not want to sound cynical, but I believe that one must consider this problem in an opposite way than it is usually done and imposed by CNN and some other media in the world. One-sided explanations simply do not mirror the truth. It is true that a huge part of this tragedy has been a direct consequence of the Serb military forces terror in Kosovo. In this context, I would only like to add something else, which is usually ignored – Kosovo is a land of desperados, gangs, para-military forces of many different kinds. Therefore, I believe that even Yugoslav military and police forces do not have a control over the developments there. In fact, on one has the control there… The second reason for this exodus is the bombarding: it is absurd to expect that Kosovo population will stay in their homes in the situation when their own “protectors” are making “mistakes” occasionally. At the same time, one ought to stress that Kosovo Albanians leaders appealed to their countrymen to leave the province when it became clear that the airstrikes would start. A man who is ready to fight for a national cause, certainly feels much better when his own family is in safe place. Unfortunately, Macedonia is not able to help all these refugees, having more than 300,000 unemployed people, and many people on the edge of poverty. I would not like to talk about fears of possible ethnic (demographic) disbalance caused by the influx of a big number of Kosovo refugees. In my opinion, the sources of the internal conflicts can be usually find in scarce resources and unequal distribution of wealth and power in society.
Q: The option of sending ground troops in Kosovo can be heard more and more often. Is this option possible? In a hypothetical situation like this do you think that Macedonia’s territory would have been used for military intervention? What is your opinion? How can you interpret the statement of the Albanian Prime Minister Majko on “Greater Albania” as well as Yugoslavia’s wish to join the union between Russia and Byelorussia? Are there any signals for global political games and neo-divisions?
A: In my opinion, NATO ground troops in Kosovo would mean only one thing – an escalation of the military conflict, and certainly not a way to achieve a political solution. It seems that NATO is in a situation when it does not have any idea how to finalize the adventure it entered without clear political goal and which was considered as a Blitzkrieg. Every military action must have a political goal, and in this case it must have been peace in Kosovo. Having in mind a range of objective indicators, for which existence NATO is deeply aware and is hesitating so long with the decision-making on sending ground troops, the re-direction of the military activities on the ground will certainly be very exhausting and long, put aside the bestiality of that clash. According to the latest comments of some military analysts in the media, one can distinguish two standpoints on this issue. The first viewpoint advocate not intervening with ground troops, and vice versa – the second one, advocate the opposite but instead of sending NATO troops it calculate with sending KLA fighters supported by NATO logistics. I am very happy that Macedonian government has an official and clear position is not to allow NATO intervention from Macedonian soil, and I really hope that it will keep that attitude in the future. Macedonia deserves to be spared of any involvement in this conflict, regardless all declarative international support for its position. Macedonia is not NATO member state, let alone the fact that there has not been adopted any decision by the UN Security Council. As for statements about “Greater Albania” or joining new pan-Slavic union, I strongly believe that any moves motivated by creating additional confrontations or divisions of spheres of interests in the Balkans – cannot bring anything good for the region.
Q: In many occasions, the airstrikes against FR Yugoslavia have been connected with possible escalation and spilling over scenario. Do you think that a new Balkan war is possible? Will the political solution prevail over the military one?
A: As a researcher of peace and conflict resolution, I have no dilemma. The highest priority at the moment is – termination of all the hostilities and armed clashes in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia. In my deep conviction, violence can only bread more violence. In the theory it is known as a spiral of violence. It is very sad that all the parties in this conflict (the Serbian, the Albanian side and NATO) speak in triumphalistic terms on “gaining the war”. Have some of them forgot that all this was started in order to stop the atrocities and to prevent the spilling over scenario? There is no alternative to a political solution, but now the question is who will survive and will be able to negotiate after all… In my view, it is never too late for negotiations, even then when everything looks hopeless…
Q: The war in our neighbourhood has provoked many protests all over the world. Such protests occurred in Macedonia too, but they are labeled as anti-American, anti-NATO or even as a result of a “Serbian plot”. Nowadays we are witnessing some rigid responses against the participants in these protests (such as purges in the school system made by the Minister of education, some police measures, etc.) What is your opinion on these events?
A: I am very glad that you have put the issue of the protests in Macedonia in the context of the other protests all over the world. Protests, even those ones in the streets – in case they are nonviolent and do not call for hatred against other people – are a democratic way of expression of a disagreement with some political decisions. In my view, the violence which occurred in some of the protests in Macedonia is an indication of a lack of a political culture in manifestation of a personal disagreement. In an emerging democracy, both the citizens and the political power have to learn how to behave in similar situations. I would like to turn your attention on a very famous case before the US Supreme Court during the protests against the war in Vietnam, when the Court made a decision that burning of the American flag had not been a criminal act, but rather a specific, symbolic way of freedom of speech and beliefs. One must not ignore the fact that today American intellectuals are among the most prominent opponents to NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Also civil societies and the public opinion in Western democracies are leading factors in this process. Therefore, I consider these manifestations as a virtue of the genuine and mature democracy.
