Replies

Looking More Objectively At The Past?

William Montgomery (Former U.S. Ambassador to Serbia)

A couple of weeks ago I spoke to a class of about 30 university students. While the two-hour session took place in Belgrade, it more or less mirrored my experiences in other classrooms and lecture halls throughout the region. Inevitably, whatever the subject is supposed to be, we end up talking about the past decade or so in the Balkans. And I heard there, like everywhere else, a lot of passion, anger, and bitterness from the students.

While their own political leaders got some of the criticism, it was mostly directed at the United States, the international community, and the other ethnic groups. Each ethnic group inevitably sees themselves as the victims, believes that atrocities were exclusively committed against them, and feels that all of their own actions were fully justified.

It was interesting to me that the students, some of whom were barely teenagers when the violence occurred, seem to feel more passionately about the war-related issues than do older generations. Perhaps they are simply more open with their feelings. Maybe they feel like a generation that has lost its future through no fault of their own. In any case, what came abundantly clear was how little factual information any of them have about the events that have so dramatically impacted on them and their loved ones. None could give any example whatsoever as to how the actions of their own government or ethnic group in any way contributed to the escalation of violence. None seemed to have much factual knowledge at all about the former Yugoslavia...they probably are better informed about the history of other countries in other regions than their own. They all had passion but no ability to think critically. There is little sense of individual or collective responsibility for events of the past 15 years. Probably this is one of the impacts of living for decades under authoritarian rule.

This encounter continues to trouble me, for I fear that it bodes ill for the future of the region. Usually it is the young people who lead the way to the better future and who show the most flexibility and desire for positive change. I am not sure that that is the case here.

The fact is that there is clearly no shared perception of events in this region. And I don't mean simply about the violence associated with the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. The divergence started perhaps a century ago, certainly from the time of the actual forming of Yugoslavia following the end of the First World War. But the problems increased dramatically during the Second World War and its immediate aftermath.

In my conversations with people about Tito, many seem proud of his personal role on the world stage and rather nostalgic for what they sometimes call "the golden era" of the former Yugoslavia. It is rare when anyone brings up the human rights violations of that era. They have to be reminded that there was no democracy, a single -party system, no private enterprise of any consequence, religion was officially discouraged and at least for the first several years, brutal punishments and killings were commonplace. The events of World War II were seen and taught exclusively through the prism of the Partizan victors with all other groupings viewed as incarnations of the devil. Why are these realities so often overlooked? Is it because for most people at that time, all of those things were really less important than the perception of having a "good life?" Or was it because they realized that they had to stay within certain parameters in order to survive and simply did so, blocking out the rest?

The most significant damage that Tito and his system did was to punish vigorously anyone who dared to challenge Communist party rule, question events of the past, or to show any pride in being a Serb, Croat, or other nationality. Generations learned the harsh reality that these were subjects that just could not be discussed except, perhaps, with one's closest friends or family. Naturally, this brutal repression did not eliminate those thoughts, but simply drove them underground. Exactly as banning the Communist Party prior to the Second World War did not eliminate it. What it did do was ensure that when those feelings were finally released, they would be expressed in an explosive manner. Like a volcano that has slowly been simmering and building up strength. It also ensured that when the façade of good will and neighborliness between ethnic groups was no longer required, it brought forth an outpouring of suppressed grievances and hostility.

As far as I know, none of the countries, which have emerged from the former Yugoslavia, teaches a balanced history course of the Second World War and the Tito era, which followed it, let alone the past decade. Instead, each ethnic group in this region now has its own oral history of the past hundred years and dutifully passes it on to the younger generation. And they are all radically different from each other. Each group sees itself as the victims and all others as the perpetrators of atrocities. Now, because of the political sensitivity of these issues and the desire at the same time to move forward towards Euro-Atlantic integration, those subjects are in large measure ignored. I do believe that this deliberate avoidance of difficult, controversial issues of the past is and will be a major contributor to problems and misunderstandings in the future.

Perhaps it is basically a question of time. Perhaps it is too much to expect that newly emerging countries undergoing conflict, destruction, and tremendous upheaval can at the same time maintain a cool objectivity. In the United States, for example, the trauma of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has definitely radicalized our own views on major issues. I hope this is the case and that over time, passions will cool and it will be possible to have a more objective evaluation. Certainly there has been a gradual, but steady improvement in relations between Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro, for example. But I am not sure if harboring diametrically opposed views of events of the past fifty years is in the long run sustainable or healthy. I am positive that the ability to try to look objectively at a situation and to try to see all sides of a problem is healthy.

The ICTY was supposed to help bring a sense of justice to the region, as well as providing education on the events of the past. But for reasons I elaborated in an earlier column, it has failed to do so. Worse yet, it has become instead a major factor of instability in its own right. Publicized trials, such as the one of Slobodan Milosevic have not discredited him at all in Serbia. Far from it. Particularly because of the controversial nature of some of the "command responsibility" indictments, the court has lost a lot of its own credibility and also blurred, perhaps fatally, the distinction between doing your duty as a soldier and committing war crimes.

Part of the problem is also that major media outlets in the region (with some notable exceptions) rarely carry many details on war crimes committed by their own ethnic group, but focus entirely on those committed by others. This is critically important because it is also evident that outside sources of information on events here will never have the credibility, which domestic media can bring to this issue.

The real hope for the region rests with the governments and peoples here themselves. There needs to be in all school systems within this region courses in history which deal with the recent past with more objectivity and with more factual information than is currently the case. To the extent that the government identifies and prosecutes legitimate war crimes and bring the culprits to justice, they will be doing a tremendous service to their own countries. They need to work to break the link between patriotism, love of country, and war crimes. None have successfully done so. It is not only possible to be a strong patriot and love your country, while being critical of some of its actions, but perhaps necessary in a democratic society. Not only will this make for a more informed, reflective population, but also it will help the process of reconciliation in the region and increase the interest in the EU in enlargement here. How long this will take is unknown. But until it does start to happen, the countries of this region will have the sword of retribution and violence hanging over their heads as it has for the past century.