“Postwar initiatives can help prevent future policies of
revenge, violence and outbursts of repressed traumas. It is
possible to develop policies of reconciliation and
trust-building and take initiatives which encourage citizens
to take steps toward forgiving. One such initiative could be
the setting up of history and school book commissions. A
truthful approach to history is a vital element in shaping a
future together and help the next generations live
peacefully in spite of what happened,” says TFF director Jan
Oberg.
In societies which have gone through civil wars, one or
more parties can choose to be triumphalistic, punishing or
humiliating, an option often chosen by winners. They can
also decide to be reconciliatory and tolerant and help
innocent citizens irrespective of the side to which they
belong and thus set an example for the young who will be
future leaders. Reconciliation speech can replace hate
speech.
This choice depends on the types of atrocities committed,
on the configuration between winners and losers, if any. It
depends on the personality of leaders and the character of
their government. It also depends on their understanding of
– and the availability of expertise in – what it takes to
provide future generations with the minimum conditions for
their living and prospering peacefully together in spite of
what happened. And, naturally, on the culture, norms and
traditions of the particular war-torn society.
In addition, the so-called international “community” can
decide to reward reconciliatory policies with former
adversaries or turn the blind eye to ongoing hate policies
and triumphalism.
Of particular importance is how individual citizens and
governments choose to deal with past events, hurt and
mourning – how they learn to live with what happened and
why? Trust and ultimately forgiving does not mean
forgetting; it means remembering, living with and
acknowledging grief, wrongdoings and the hurt done. By
“them” for sure, but also by “us.”
For all this, a sense of history is imperative. Our
history is part of our identity. In the worst of cases,
there will be no shared history, or it will take very long
time to develop. History is often used to justify what “we”
did and denounce what “they” did. But former adversaries can
also establish and share history to some extent: what
happened, when, where and why? No side should allow itself
to monopolise truth or repress – e.g. through media, school
books, or memorials – the versions of history that other
groups in the postwar society may have. That will do nothing
but lay the ground for future hatred.
Citizens thus have a right to a history that they see as
truthful, and a duty to acknowledge that others may see
history in a completely different perspective and believe in
a different truth.
“Let me take the example of Croatia,” says Oberg.
“Croatia should be commended for having set up last year a
National Committee for Re-Establishment of Trust throughout
the Croatian society. This being said, it has not yet
devoted enough administrative and economic resources.
Remarkably few committee members selected by the President’s
office have any expertise in the relevant
socio-psychological dynamics needed and local committee
members often have too many other roles and commitments to
devote themselves to their committee work.
However, it is also the task of the international
community to breed life and energy into this difficult
process. As part of its recent Special Report on Education
in Croatia, OSCE recently suggested a history commission of
Croat and Serb historians, presumably inspired by TFF.”
In December last year TFF suggested two initiatives at a
conference held in Budapest for teachers and principals from
Eastern Slavonia and sponsored by the Council of Europe and
UNTAES and with Croatian Ministry of Education officials
present.
Moratorium on history teaching until GOOD books exist
Last year the Ministry of Education decided on a
moratorium to the effect that the recent history (1989 to
1997) of former Yugoslavia and its constitutive republics
should not be taught in the schools of Eastern Slavonia for
the next five years. This came in response to criticism by
international organisations and the Serb minority of history
and other school books with biased, humiliating and
pejorative texts, pictures and cultural materials. These
books ought not have passed a pedagogical quality control
and in addition clearly violated the written norms
underlying the work of the National Committee for the
Re-Establishment of Trust.
“We suggested, therefore, that this moratorium be
extended to all of Croatia,” says Jan Oberg. During its
numerous missions, TFF’s conflict-mitigation team has
visited so many schools and talked with hundreds of
principals, teachers and pupils. They deserve better
materials. There is no point in withdrawing such books or
tearing out pages from them (as was suggested to repair the
damage) in one small region of the country while all other
pupils throughout the Croatia will be influenced for the
rest of their lives by this type of low-quality works full
of hate speech. It cannot possibly lead to reconciliation.
This is why we also suggested a history commission that
could provide the basis for better school books.”
History and school book commission
“We suggested that the government a) asks a small group
of the most professional and respected Croatian historians
to write the recent history (e.g. 1980 to 1998) as they see
it, and b) asks an equally eminent group of Serb historians
in Croatia (and possibly other nationalities, too) to write
the history as they see it. Next, c) gather an international
group of experts on this region and on history and conflict
to serve as advisers and consultants to these two
groups.
Their tasks should be to review the two versions of the
history and identify where the two versions of history are
compatible and where they are not. At a series of scientific
seminars and debates, the internationals should serve as
facilitators and help the historians clrify where they
agree, where they agree to disagree and identify why they do
so – be it because of different scientific approaches and
traditions, because of national belonging or, simply,
because truth is full of nuances.
Thus, Croatia would be privileged by having a Croatian
version and a Serbian version of contemporary history as
well as a mixed version identifying agreements and
disagreements. These three versions, perhaps framed or
introduced by the internationals and their different views,
could be published in an academic edition and one for
broader consumption and public dialogue.
Finally, professional pedagogues and perhaps
writers/journalists would be asked to take these three
histories and transform them into schoolbook texts for
various levels of education. When ready, the moratorium
should be lifted.
There would be several desirable outcomes of such a commission:
• Professional historians would meet across old
boundaries and co-operate as professionals; it would help
redress the misuse of history on all sides during the
war.
• Croatia would be provided with a qualified
framework for dealing with its complex and sensitive history
– essential for its birth as an independent state.
• By sparking off dialogues in public, in media and
schools, the process itself would be a step towards
reconciliation in this sadly divided country.
• Pupils and students throughout the country would
be taught history in a decent manner, without propaganda and
hate.
• They would implicitly learn that history as well
as the present can be legitimately viewed in more than one
way, that there probably is no single truth and that no one
group has the right to impose its own (legitimate)
perception on everybody else. It would, in short, be a
perfectly pedagogical learning experience.
• The process would offer an opportunity for
pluralism, trust-building and mutual understanding by
clarifying agreement and disagreement – and help each to
live together in respect. That’s what reconciliation is all
about.
Of course, such initiatives are not only for Croatia to
take. All postwar societies could benefit from such a public
history educationand learning experience,” concludes Jan
Oberg. “If not done, some people will choose triumphalism
and build a bridge not to peace but to perpetuated hate and,
eventually, a new war.
We ought to learn this lesson from the dissolution of old
Yugoslavia: talk about the past, learn to talk about it
while respecting other opinions, let no one impose a single
truth and – above all – don’t ever sweep history, memories,
and hurt under the carpet.”
