RegionalADD

About RegionalADD

https://regionaladd.org

Posts by :

DSC00693

Novi Sad plenum Quo vadis, Balkan?

, 0

DIFFERENT ANSWERS AND METHODS SHOULD BE RESPONSE TO FASCIZATION OF SOCIETY

With the panel “Activism against the fascism of society” at which spoke Daliborka Uljarević, Executive director of the Centre for Civic Education (CCE), Aleksej Kišjuhas, sociologist and associate professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad, Bojana Selaković, programme director of Civic Initiatives, Aleksandar Jovanović, founder of Progressive Vojvodina Actions, and Goran Miletić, Director for Europe and MENA countries of Civil Rights Defenders and organizer of Euro Pride 2022, moderated by Balša Božović, Executive Director of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development (ADD), the Novi Sad Plenum QUO VADIS BALKAN? was opened yesterday, organized by ADD, CCE and the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB).

Welcoming the participants of the Plenum, Aleksandra Tomanić, director of the EFB, pointed out that “the challenges before us in the region are only increasing, and we have not even managed to get rid of the quicksand that constantly drags us back”, expressing the expectation that through constructive discussion some different answers will be illuminated in a different manner.

“I see these plenums as a regional tour of free speech, civic and civilizational values against the growing narratives that systematically, in an organized manner, perfidiously try to stifle not only critical thinking but also common sense. To what extent do we manage to preserve healthy values when making key decisions and did we perhaps make a mistake when we got into a situation where, after so much time and so many, what seemed to us, battles won, we have so many open questions? That is why it is important to gather progressive forces and to find a road map at that value level, which will give a more European image and spirit to the region, which in recent years has started not only to stagnate, but also to regress”, assessed Daliborka Uljarević. She also referred to the situation in Montenegro, including the recent incidents during the celebration of Statehood Day in Nikšić, which is also an anti-fascist holiday in Montenegro.

“The dominant responsibility for what happened in Nikšić is borne by the politicians, who in our country cultivate popular religious nationalism and professional patriotism. We have to talk about the causes, not just the consequences, so that such incidents do not happen again, and there is a high probability that they will, because they were, first of all, induced by the irresponsible opening of identity topics by politicians of a modest format”, she stated. When asked about how Montenegro came from a stable situation to such instability, she said that “it seems that we did not have real stability, but that it was somehow simulated. Genuine stability should rest on clearly established values, on strong institutions and a developed political culture. We didn’t have all that and that led us to this instability”.

“Fascist, extremist, deeply reactionary ideologies fundamentally attack the fundamental values of the French Revolution: freedom, equality and fraternity, and not only here in the Balkans, but everywhere in the world”, pointed out Aleksej Kišjuhas, pointing to the symbolism of the opening of the Novi Sad Plenum with this topic on Bastille Day.

“It is a story about the moral foundations of man and the elaboration of those values in the political sphere. It seems to me, and I’m sorry that this is the case, that Serbian society in that context is extremely conservative, clerical, right-wing,… This was nurtured and nourished in a feedback system and now we have what we have. Politicians who are populists invest themselves in the citizens and pump that kind of story that is very identarian, very conservative and that strikes the shallowest feelings. And then we have a problem to get out of this vicious circle. And if we don’t stop investing, we will become more and more right-wing and more and more conservative” Kišjuhas underlined. 

Kišjuhas also answered the “million-dollar question”, i.e. where is the resistance of citizens, and assessed that there is a lack of political organizations that have “guts”.

„Citizens can be dissatisfied for a variety of reasons. However, for me, the main question is where is the articulation of that dissatisfaction, where is the political organization that would propagate that type of value and that type of politics. Then the citizens would “stick” to it, and it doesn’t matter if they are five or fifty percent. Because then you work, propagate, agitate for your ideas, enter the Parliament… There are no opposition parties, because they follow the line of least resistance and it’s easier to deceive. Thus, we get a complete crowd on the right, where the competition is who will be “more right”, Kišjuhas explained.

Bojana Selaković believes that it is much more difficult to promote European values today than before, for example, in the nineties.

“We must be aware that we have missed an entire decade. It was a decade of missed opportunities. We constantly fall into the trap of comparing the situation with the nineties, and that comparison is not possible because then things were clearer, they were black and white, and now we are in a gray zone”, Selaković stated.

She also referred to the position of civil society. “All those attempts to build institutions to a certain extent, attempts to have civil society doing a part of the work that the state could not do at that moment, and to build trust with citizens and be a potential dam in the future, failed. Now we have a party that is not determined by values ​​and ideology, which is an interest group that literally people who share beliefs from the left to the right can fit into. That should be a very important lesson for us, that now, in some further struggle, we have to find some other methods. We cannot work as we have done so far because, not only does it not produce results, but it also exhausts people and all existing resources,” Selaković indicated.

Aleksandar Jovanović, who is also the former president of the Assembly of Novi Sad, said that “Novi Sad and Vojvodina have always been a hotbed of right-wing filth.” Jovanović also commented on the protest that was held a few days ago at Liman in Novi Sad against the erection of a monument to all the innocent victims killed after the Second World War and underlined the importance of precision when doing such sensitive things. “In fact, the list of victims now really includes criminals who also participated in the Novi Sad raid. On the other hand, society is obliged to remember those who were innocent victims because there really was injustice and crime against them,” he warned.

Goran Miletić pointed out that Serbia has returned to the year 2009.

“We got graffiti and threats again, because of which some people were prosecuted. With us, it’s okay for Serbia to go back a hundred years, and it’s progressive if you’re in favour of the status quo, if you’re in favour of nothing changing. If you happen to be advocating for something to change for the better and for there to be changes in society for the better, you will get the label of an extremist”, Miletić pointed out and pointed out that things have changed over the last two decades.

“Something that was unimaginable, that I was told was impossible to happen in Serbia, still happened. But the percentage of those who still think that being gay is a disease is extremely high. And it did move, but it is still extremely high. In the West, when you say that 56 percent of people in Serbia still think that homosexuality is a disease, they think I made a slip when I say that”, said Miletić.

The Novi Sad Plenum is being held from 14 to 15 July 2022, at the Petrovaradin Fortress in Novi Sad.

reichstag

ADD signed support to Bundestag Resolution “Supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina as it embarks to a better future”

0

The Parliamentary groups of SPD, Bündnis90/Die Grünen and FDP have proposed a resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina titled Supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina as it embarks to a better future.

We the undersigned believe that this resolution comes at truly important and challenging time for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We applaud the party groups’ initiative and welcome the resolution’s content.

The resolution is laudably comprehensive, listing numerous challenges which Bosnia and Herzegovina and its citizens face at the present moment. It draws its observations and recommendations on the basis of  comprehensive and clear analysis of the 25+ years of postwar reconstruction and peace implementation in BiH. It will also assist the latent constituency for dignity and democratic accountability in a state which functions in service of all its citizens.

We support the content of the resolution in its totality, but in this letter, as citizens of the region, we would like to underscore three elements:

We believe that Bosnia and Herzegovina can become a stable and functional democratic state based on the rule of law. Its constitution should guarantee protection and equality to all citizens and facilitate social integration rather than ethnic polarization. Serbs and Croats are integral and essential to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s social fabric, rent so viciously and wantonly beginning 30 years ago. Their agency and engagement, along with Bosniaks and citizens of all self-identification, is essential to progressing out of Dayton’s evolutionary dead-end. At present, group rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina precede individual nrights of its citizens. Politicians treat citizens as subjects, rightfully “theirs” based on their presumed (or proclaimed) ethnic identity. It is high time to proclaim that this stopgap system is unsustainable. Bosnia and Herzegovina requires a radical recalibration of its social contract, allowing it to join a now rejuvenating alignment among liberal democracies, committed to defending fundamental values.

We support the resolution’s call for Serbia and Croatia to be helpful neighbors to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It is in the interest of citizens of Serbia and Croatia to live alongside a stable Bosnia and Herzegovina. BiH’s protracted instability, which Germany and the rest of the democratic West can confront, has put wind in the sails of the most reactionary and irridentist elements in these two neighbors. These relationships were better 19 years ago than today, when the door to EU membership formally opened to the region at the Thessaloniki 2003 summit. This defies the prevailing presumption of progress. Supporting the destructive policies of Serb and Croat ethnonationalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia work against the interests of their own citizens who predominantly and overwhelmingly want peace, stability and prosperity at home and in our neighborhood.

We find the intention to promote cooperation with liberal democratic civil society extremely important.

We also hasten to add that civic actors in BiH have lessons relevant to established democracies now confronting a rise in identity-based polarization, often driven from above. European leaders wrongly focus on contacts and cooperation only with party leaders and elected officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who are often responsible for the for-profit politics that yield endemic corruption and state dysfunction, driving citizens to Germany and beyond – impoverishing BiH while contributing where they settle – and thereby reinforcing the dominance of the party leaders.

We hope that this resolution passes with wide support in the Bundestag. It should inspire more democracies – particularly in the EU and NATO – to make similarly principled and well-informed declarations by cross-party groups as wide as feasible. Principled and forward-thinking European leaders should make an effort to reach out and strengthen partnerships with actors throughout society in Bosnia and Herzegovina who take initiative to entrench the rule of law and strong accountable democratic institutions. By focusing on cooperating predominantly with corrupt ethnonationalists, European officials undercut and demotivate those envisioning and pursuing an order based on individual dignity, political  and legal accountability, and civic agency. Expanding a network of contacts and channels of support to progress-oriented actors in Bosnia and Herzegovina contributes to their capability to confront corruption and the lack of the rule of law, and aids their potential to challenge existing ethnonationalists.

You can read the Letter of support on the following link:

Pismo podrske rezoluciji Bundestaga

You can show your own support by sending email at: office@regionaladd.org

281371061_565240238454130_836442033130962525_n

Dealing with the past has no alternative when it comes to regional cooperation

0

Today, in the organisation of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development (ADD) from Novi Sad, Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past from Zagreb and Centre for Civic Education (CCE) from Podgorica, with the support of the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB), started ZAGREB PLENUM – QUO VADIS, BALKANS?

The first panel was dedicated to the most significant challenges and obstacles to the democratization of the countries in the region, and was moderated by Balša Božović, President of the Executive Board of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development from Serbia.

Vesna Teršelič, Director of Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past from Zagreb, commented on the role of Croatia and Slovenia, as EU member states, in destabilizing the region, and specifically reflected on Croatia’s attitude towards war crimes, as an important component for reconciliation in the region. She noted that war crimes are a great burden for establishing regional cooperation and that, in addition to searching for the missing, it is one of the stumbling blocks when it comes to reconciliation in the region. She also stated that, unlike the previous period, “there are no more statesmen who genuinely, sincerely and with great gestures advocate for peace, and that individual initiatives do not have political support”. Teršelič warned that “not only do we not have a clear picture of what happened during the wars of the 1990s, but we also do not have a clear picture of what happened during World War II, which again opens space for manipulation and abuse”.

Nataša Kandić, Founder of the Humanitarian Law Center from Belgrade, stated that there has never been less support for initiatives of civil society or the academic community, and that relations between countries have never been more complicated. She emphasized that “the right to equal memory can be a good foundation for building good relations in the region and that dealing with the past has no alternative”. She also said that until 2015, there was great hope that reconciliation was possible and that public opinion influenced the political support that emerged then, but that after the change of governments in some countries it turn that political support was never stable, that there was no continuity in the policies pursued and that they depend exclusively on the leader, and that the civil sector has no mechanisms to ensure that continuity. As the only positive example, she pointed out the step made in Croatia during the commemoration of the anniversary of the military operation Storm, but noted that this was an isolated case and that since then we have witnessed a constant setback and regress, and that sometimes the situation seems even worse than in the 1990s, citing distortions, the defence of war crimes indictees and the full support they obviously enjoy in the countries of the region. Kandić concluded that the condition of all conditions for dealing with the past is to create a list of victims and document all crimes in the context of the obligations of post-Yugoslav countries towards the former common state, but that political elites are not aware of that. She added that the position that can be heard from the intellectual elite in Serbia that the citizens of Serbia best understand what it feels like when bombs fall and therefore have the same experience as the citizens of Ukraine these days shows a complete misunderstanding of facts, lack of solidarity and lack of empathy with citizens of other countries in the region that went through the hell of the war during the wars of the 1990s and were victims of war crimes committed by Serb forces themselves.

Aleksandra Tomanić, Director of the European Fund for the Balkans, referred to the events of 2000, emphasizing the importance of remembering 5 October, but also reminding that at that time it was hard to imagine that in 2022 Serbia and other countries in the region would not be EU members. She said that all the energy of the society after that was redirected to European integration, but exclusively on the process, and not to what is the essence – hence, the focus was never on dealing with the past, nor on war crimes. She added that the countries of the region, especially Serbia, are sinking into a deeper political crisis, and that even the statement that it is better now, at least because there can be no war, is no longer completely true and that our politicians are constantly calculating that possibility and that they “throw bones” in that regard. Tomanić stated that we live in the poorest, a most polluted region with the highest emigration rate in Europe and that “while our politicians constantly talk about the territories, we need to preserve the nation, they actually fail to preserve the nation in the territories they have”. She also stated that she is proud of the fact that the European Fund for the Balkans managed to revive the project of creating joint history textbooks for the entire region and made those books available again, but that the next step is to get those books back to school and to debunk the myths that threaten to stifle us.

Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director of Centre for Civic Education (CCE) from Podgorica, said that Montenegro had won two governments in the past two years, noting that “it is good to enter a period of faster change of government if it means establishing a new kind of responsibility towards the citizens, but also the state of Montenegro”. Commenting on the impact of Russian aggression on Ukraine on the state of affairs in the region, she assessed that there is still no awareness in Montenegro that the war changed the bloodstream of international relations, but also that the situation is the same in some other countries in the region. Uljarević stated that the attempts of any politician to be neutral are in fact an expression of irresponsibility and frivolity, because one must have a clear position on value issues. She also said that the previous Montenegrin government proved to be quite non-resistant to harmful external influences. She added that “one of the key problems in the region, which is insufficiently talked about is the poor quality of political elites, and that it is something that frightens our societies, causes inconsistency and interruption of continuity and institutional memory, and that there is no guarantee that something achieved will be sustainable, if it depends, at least to a lesser extent, on political decision-makers.” As part of the positive steps, she pointed out the change of certain attitudes of officials towards the process of dealing with the past in Montenegro through the example of marking 30 years since the war crime of Deportation.

Senada Šelo Šabić, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Development and International Relations in Croatia, believes that Croatia’s foreign policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina is destabilizing Bosnia and Herzegovina. She added that Croatia’s attitude towards the issue of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina stems from the fact that they are citizens of Croatia, but also of the Dayton Agreement and the Croatian Constitution, hence concluding that “it is obvious that the Dayton Agreement cannot create foundations for democratic, civil, modern Bosnia and Herzegovina and that, although it stopped the war in terms of death and killing, it did not stop the war in terms of political ideas”. She concluded that “the biggest challenge is how to change the Dayton Agreement and replace it with a different system, while preserving the peace and stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Šelo Šabić assessed that the potential for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina was greater twenty years ago than today and said that any abandonment of attempts to make Bosnia and Herzegovina a true civil society and establish a civil principle is actually avoiding responsibility and leaving problems to others.

Zagreb Plenum is the second in a series of events aimed at empowering progressive forces in the region through gatherings and talks on modalities to respond to growing right-wing extremism, the crisis of democracy, current challenges and obstacles to democratization in the region. In the next two days, the Zagreb Plenum will gather about 50 domestic, regional and international experts, officials, members of national parliaments and the European Parliament, diplomats, historians, journalists, publicists, representatives of the academic community and prominent activists.

 
DSC09729

There are no good neighborly relations in the region, Croatia and Serbia are sources of instability in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina

0

The second panel of the Zagreb Plenum was dedicated to (not)good neighborly relations in the region, gathered politicians from the countries of the region.

Vesna Pusić, former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia, assessed that political leaders in the countries of the region have a huge influence and that they are the ones who shape the public discourse in their countries. She said it is difficult to imagine foreign ministers or prime ministers sitting together and critically and analytically looking at their role and the role of their countries in the politics led and being pursued in the region, assessing that it would be an immeasurable step towards normalizing relations in the region, but also that it would have a great impact on the societies they lead. “Nationalism and the politics of emotions are the simplest, and the discourse on how injustice is done “to us” and how “everyone is against us” is the fastest is way to mobilize voters and therefore most often used”, she said. She also stated that Croatian policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina is obviously against Croatian interests, explaining that this is one of the examples when political elites in the region clearly work directly against the interests of their countries and their citizens, which they either do not recognize or deliberately ignore. She considers that small states, such as Croatia, rarely have the opportunity to prove themselves in such an important role as this one and that political leaders miss it, replacing Croatian policy towards Croats in B&H with HDZ policy in B&H. Pusić emphasized that “the supreme Croatian interest is a stable Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that Croatian policy is such that it destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina, thereby destroyed its credibility.” She concluded that the entire European project, which mobilized everyone in Croatia to start working on their own, led to the laying of the foundations for building a functional democracy and that this could be a recipe for other Western Balkan countries. Pusić added that for the countries of the region that are currently in the process of European integration, an example could be the Baltic model, which transformed the former Soviet republics into functional democracies, and said that there are six countries in Europe that can support the Western Balkans to transform. She pointed out that “the European Union must understand that the Western Balkans is its security issue, and not a problem that is far away, and that it must essentially, and not only declaratively, dedicate itself to the integration of the Western Balkans into EU membership.”

Bojan Glavašević, a Member of the Croatian Parliament, agrees that for most of its history, Croatia has not had a policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, but a policy of the HDZ in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that it is clear that policies based on nationalism have failed, hence it is necessary to reconsider them and look for different solutions. He assessed that, when it comes to Croatian President Zoran Milanović, there has been an incredible change in his rhetoric and policy and “the difference in the policy he led as Prime Minister and the one he leads as Croatian President is surprising”. Glavašević said that the accession process for the countries of the Western Balkans exists precisely for those countries to be transformed, but also that “we should make changes in our countries for ourselves, and not because the European Union request that from us”. He pointed out that the motor for change must come from within and that this is not the case in all Western Balkan countries, and that Serbia, led by Aleksandar Vučić, cannot have the lead in that, because Vučić’s Serbia chooses from day to day whether it will be for the “Serbian world” or for the European Union.

Saša Magazinović, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, considers that there are no good neighborly relations in the region when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the exception of Montenegro. He added that he believes that the relationship between Serbia and Croatia towards Bosnia and Herzegovina is in fact a relationship of silent aggression and that these two countries are false guarantors of the Dayton Agreement, as well as that it is the foundation of a bad neighborly relationship with B&H, for which he cited numerous examples, such as the disposal of Croatian nuclear waste in B&H or the construction of a hydropower plant by Serbia without the consent of B&H, and many others. Magazinović said that the activities of the two presidents, Vučić and Milanović, are the most glaring examples of bad neighborly relations. He added that “Vučić, although often talks about how he respects the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, never states that he respects its sovereignty”, and that he expresses his opinion on almost all internal political issues in B&H. He assessed that Zoran Milanović had the opportunity to be the Balkan Willie Brant and to offer a hand of reconciliation, but instead, he decided to chase the votes of the rights and lead a nationalist policy that will cost everything dearly. He added that the trauma that citizens of B&H did not overcome yet, even after thirty years, has numerous triggers that Milanović and Vučić are abusing and using. Magazinovic concluded that throughout history, B&H has outlived all those who did not wish it well.

Pavle Grbović, President of the Movement of Free Citizens and a Member of the Serbian Parliament, said that Serbia has open political issues with almost all its neighbors and that Serbia’s relations with other countries in the region cannot be good if Serbia does not treat them as neighbors but as parts of its territory. He said that “the government in Serbia is based on the attitude towards the enemy, either in the region or in Serbia”, and that this inevitably spills over to relations with other countries in the region. Grbovic said that until Serbia resolves its internal issues, it is difficult to expect it to build good neighborly relations with other countries, and that if someone ruins his own society, he cannot expect his neighbors to trust him to establish honest and healthy relations with them. He stated that there is room for the growth of the civic option in Serbia, although the fight is very difficult, and that he personally called in the campaign not to build walls with people who are on the other side, but to try to include as many of them as possible.

Ivan Vujović, Secretary-General of the Social Democratic Party of Montenegro, said that all these years Montenegro is recognized by all Western Balkan countries as a country without territorial disputes with its neighbors and a regional leader in European integration. “In that sense, Montenegro was a kind of signpost and an indicator of the direction in which other countries in the region that are in the process of European integration should move”, he said. Vujović said that “Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina are the most sensitive parts of the most sensitive region in Europe, precisely because of the attempts of other countries in the region to influence these two countries”. He stated that ‘’often the principle of protection of “their compatriots” in other countries is often used as a screen for toxic interference in the internal affairs of these two countries, which is the matrix that started all great-power projects and wars of the 90s, and which is still used today as a reason for interference in domestic politics of Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Vujovic also expressed concern that the West often rightly expresses concern over Russian influence and interference in Montenegro or B&H, while completely ignoring the same influences and attempts coming from neighboring countries, primarily Serbia and Croatia. Vujović warned of the danger of attitudes that can often be heard, which say that we should not be interested in the past and that we must look to the future, which are very politically acceptable, but “the fact that we never faced and dealt with the past is the reason which is still the same thing happening to us as in the past and because of which we are so lost that today we wonder who won the Second World War“.

Roman Jakić, former Minister of Defense of Slovenia, said Slovenia’s open issues with neighboring countries are numerous, and that some could not be resolved for decades, but some of them, such as Hungary’s foreign policy, threaten to escalate and cause bigger problems. Jakić assessed that “Slovenia is observing the events in the Western Balkans from a relative distance” and he believes that “the Europeanization of that Balkan area is the basic answer to all open issues and disputes“, and that the most significant problem is that it is very late. He considers that the European Union is not fulfilling its promises to the countries of the Western Balkans, as illustrated by the example of Northern Macedonia, which meets all conditions in a situation where new ones appear every day and yet no progress in European integration, or the example of Kosovo visa liberalization despite numerous promises. Jakić said that regional cooperation is excellent if it is sincere and assessed that “the concept of the Open Balkans brings more problems than solutions because cooperation already exists through the form of the Berlin Process“.

ZAGREB PLENUM – QUO VADIS, BALKANS? Is organized by the Regional Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD) from Novi Sad, the Center for Dealing with the Past Documenta from Zagreb and the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) from Podgorica, with the support of the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB).

 
DSC00009

Manipulating and revising history is an easy way to homogenize and mobilize voters

0

Yesterday, in the organization of the Regional Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD) from Novi Sad, the Center for Dealing with the Past Documenta from Zagreb and the Centre for Civic Education from Podgorica (CCE), with the support of the European Balkans Fund (EFB), started ZAGREB PLENUM – QUO VADIS, BALKANS? whose third panel was dedicated to the revision and misuse of history for daily political purposes. Prominent historians and university professors Ivo Goldstein from Croatia, MilIvoj Bešlin from Serbia, Husnija Kamberović from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Boban Batrićević from Montenegro and Dubravka Stojanović from Serbia spoke at the panel, moderated by Dragan Mrakovina from Croatia.

Dubravka Stojanović said that “countries in the region live from manipulating victims and traumas from the past” and that this is the main reason why they do not want to determine the number of victims or the truth about what happened, and that these issues can always serve to divert attention from other topics. She pointed out the paradox that “nationalisms in the region, instead of celebrating victories and heroes, are actually much more concerned with defeats and sufferings, victims and losses because they are more suitable for homogenization, illusion and manipulation”. Commenting on the recent proclamation of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU) on the protection of Croatian interests in negotiations with B&H, Montenegro and Serbia regarding their accession to the European Union and the polemics with the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts created on that occasion, Stojanović said it would be fair to those who started the project of war, its ideologues who produced those narratives to be now the ones to cross spears, hence it would be easier for everyone if the leaderships of the academies faced and fought on some imaginary battlefield instead of losing all innocent lives.

Historian Ivo Goldstein considers that any comparison of the HAZU memorandum with the former SANU memorandum is inappropriate, since the SANU memorandum was signed, while the HAZU memorandum is not, but it is also a document unworthy of an academy, a wish list without visible criteria and consistency. He added that these two documents cannot be compared in terms of the influence they had on society, since the SANU memorandum once determined the fate of the entire region, while this one did not resonate with the Croatian political public. Speaking about the culture of remembrance, Goldstein assessed that there are no politicians in the region who would work on bringing them closer and that “we have completely different, separate and opposing cultures of remembrance which are very important for our societies and without which are no healthy good neighborly and human relations”. He assessed that in that sense that “we continue to function as tribal communities where we are honest, correct, always right, gullible, and everyone else wants to harm us and have always done us injustice“, concluding that in our countries history is still perceived and presented in that manner.

Husnija Kamberović, a historian from Sarajevo, spoke about the Jasenovac camp. He stated that “Bosnia and Herzegovina forgets or does not know the fact that both Jasenovac and the Independent State of Croatia are largely connected to a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s past and historical heritage”, and referred to attempts to create a narrative that Jasenovac is a camp exclusively Serbs were killed and, in this manner, hence this terrible crime from the Second World War was manipulated.

Milivoj Bešlin spoke about the parallel between the wars of the 1990s and the Second World War, assessing that “in the Second World War, all nationalisms of the Yugoslav people were on one side, and the anti-fascist movement on the other”. He said that “Serbia in the culture of remembrance is moving through “four Rs”, with the first “R” meaning war, which was provoked when Serbia opened the “Serbian question” as a territorial, and not as a democratic or civil rights issue. The second “R”, according to him, means revisionism, on the example of World War II, which was necessary to attack Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, because it could not be done on the values and ideology of anti-fascism, but only on the ideology and rehabilitation of Chetniks. Further, the third “R” refers to the rehabilitation of war crimes and World War II war criminals. Bešlin noted with regret that everything that was a trend in the 1990s reached its peak after 5 October, during Kostunica’s time, and that few warned that the rehabilitation of crimes and criminals from the Second World War would lead to the rehabilitation of criminals from the 1990s. This leads to the fourth “R” – revanchism – which was best described by Ivica Dačić, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with his statement that those who think that the wars are over are wrong because the second half awaits us.

Boban Batrićević, from Montenegro, believes that “the Serbian Orthodox Church has a key role in spreading foreign influence, which since the arrival of Amfilohije to the position of metropolitan has taken on three key elements – it begins to be anti-Montenegrin, anti-state and revisionist“. He further clarified that Amfilohije begins his mission by spreading Chetnik propaganda, creating big problems in Montenegro. Batrićević stated it is also concerning that Western embassies helped Amfilohije’s politics come to power, and assessed that “the winner of the elections from two years ago in Montenegro was essentially Amfilohije and his policy of Great Serbian nationalism”. Batrićevć recognized as the big problem in the fact that “a significant part of the intellectual elite in Serbia views Montenegro in the same way, just as there is no difference between the government and the opposition when it comes to relations with Montenegro”.

281622354_565240488454105_8243241839355188320_n

Perseverance and readiness not to withdraw before attacks are key to reconciliation and confidence building

0

The second day of the ZAGREB PLENUM – QUO VADIS, BALKANS? organized by the Regional Academy for Democratic Development (ADD) from Novi Sad, Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past from Zagreb and Centre for Civic Education (CCE) from Podgorica, with the support of the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB), started with the panel dedicated to dealing with the past and peace building in the region.

Marion Kaske, a political analyst from Germany, assessed that “in the region, history has become a dangerous weapon and a way to keep the political elite in power by manipulating and distorting facts, spreading fear and completing certain plans from the war period of the 1990s”. She considers that the political climate in the region is getting worse, that political reconciliation has not even begun, that trust is at a very low level, and that there is no readiness to convict crimes and criminals, while the verdicts of the International Criminal Tribunal are perceived as hostile acts. Speaking from Germany’s perspective, she recalled that the country was forced to go through a process of denazification, not only through the Nuremberg trials, but also through all other areas of social, public and political life, such as media freedom, education, while the region of Western Balkans lacks all of this. “The main reason why political elites do not want to work on reconciliation and confidence building is that they live from the past, from provoking conflicts, and that is why the current situation suits them perfectly”, she said. Kraske also said that it is necessary to recognize and support those who are ready for different types of politics, building better relations in the region, dealing with the past and reconciliation.

Shpetim Gashi, a human rights activist from Kosovo, said that we are facing problems that have existed for decades and that each succeeding generation has added and further complicated existing problems, while very few have actually tried to solve them. Speaking about the situation between Kosovo and Serbia, he said that it is first necessary to conclude some kind of peace agreement, and only then start the reconciliation process. Gashi warned that “as long as this problem remains open, people in border areas do not even have that kind of certainty to know in which country they will live in the near future”. He assessed that even symbolic actions, such as apologies, would contribute to building better relations, but that there is no political will for them. As an example, he cited the return of Dragica Gašić to Gjakova and the fact that no one spoke up at the time she was subjected to harassment and persecution, stood up for her and said she had the right to return, whether that’s institutions, politicians or the NGO sector.

Kurt Bassuener, from the Democratization Policy Council in Berlin, said that ten years ago the basic idea was that European integration would solve all the problems in the region. He warned that “the situation has greatly deteriorated compared to twenty years ago” and said that many things that were unthinkable then seem very possible today and that “this is a time when many unfinished agendas, unfulfilled dreams and unfulfilled plans are being revived”. Bassuener agrees with the assessments that the model of functioning of political elites is to keep people in fear and fuel conflicts. He considers that the role of the international community is sometimes confusing, and the West is inconsistent in its attitudes and demands, and that in recent years the prevailing approach is not to put too much pressure on the countries of the region so as not to create additional problems, be demotivated to cooperate with the West, turned to the other side and the like.

Tamara Zrnović, from the Centre for Nonviolent Action in Sarajevo, shared the experiences of her organization, which works with war veterans on all sides of the conflict and the difficult path of building trust between them. She cited examples of visits to commemorations and various places where war crimes were committed, and warned of how fragile the reconciliation process is and how much it rests on humanity, positive emotions, empathy and solidarity. Commenting on the Law on Prohibition of Genocide Denial, Zrnović said that many who criticize this Law have not even read what it says and that it should be viewed in a broader light – “as an attempt to sanction any glorification of crimes, criminals and humiliation of victims”. She stated that it took the Centre for Nonviolent Action ten years to enter Mostar with a group of war veterans, as well as that it took decades to build trust and that it is crucial not to give up in the face of numerous obstacles and condemnations.

Zagreb Plenum is the second in a series of events aimed at empowering progressive forces in the region through gatherings and talks on modalities to respond to growing right-wing extremism, the crisis of democracy, current challenges and obstacles to democratization in the region. In the next two days, the Zagreb Plenum will gather about 50 domestic, regional and international experts, officials, members of national parliaments and the European Parliament, diplomats, historians, journalists, publicists, representatives of the academic community and prominent activists.

281694594_565240531787434_3089641448257262848_n

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has exposed the core of relations between states and within states

0

Within the second day of the ZAGREB PLENUM – QUO VADIS, BALKANS? organized by the Regional Academy for Democratic Development (ADD) from Novi Sad, Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past from Zagreb and Centre for Civic Education (CCE) from Podgorica, with the support of the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB), one panel was devoted to the analysis of the impact of Russian aggression on Ukraine and populism on the growth of the right in the region. About this important topic spoke prominent writers, publicists and journalists from the region, while moderated by Lana Zdravković, peace activist and publicist from Ljubljana.

Dinko Gruhonjić, journalist and associate professor at the University of Novi Sad, assessed that Serbia has traditionally been a factor of instability in the Western Balkans, and that it continues its infamous role in the conditions of the war in Ukraine. He said that “it is absurd to talk about putting pressure on Serbia to impose sanctions on Russia, since it is a matter of civilization and common sense”, and that it is devastating that someone has to pressure Serbia to do the only right thing and be on the right side of history. Gruhonjić also said that the question arises as to how much patience those who put pressure on Serbia will have, noting that the situation in the region will be increasingly difficult, the longer they will endure such behaviour of the authorities in Serbia. He pointed out that it took a long time for the West to understand how much of a threat Putin actually poses to stability and peace throughout Europe, and that pragmatic attitudes, which put economic interests at the forefront, have cost him dearly. He further added that Vučić is not a problem of Serbia, but that he is the smallest common denominator of what Serbia is today and that Serbia has essentially never had anything other than authoritarianism and that democracy, except in illusion, has never existed. He considers that Vučić knows this situation very well and that radicalism in Serbia has always been very well rooted, just like pro-Russian politics. He also assessed that “society in Serbia in the 1990s, just like any other society that produces war, was contaminated in all its spheres and in 2000 it turned out that this problem could not be easily solved, and it was only just after 2000 that nationalism, with the key role played by the Serbian Orthodox Church gained momentum and strength.” He said that this is reflected in the fact that today in Serbia there is no clear position on fundamental and civilizational issues, such as genocide, the war in Ukraine and even the Second World War.

Speaking about the situation in Croatia, journalist and publicist Boris Pavelić said that “it is crucial for democracy in Croatia that the left produces a civic-oriented candidate as soon as possible.” He assessed that “Milanović deceived his voters, radically changed the attitudes he advocated and completely deinstitutionalized the institution of the president.” He added that we in the Balkans today are living in a multiplied crisis. The nationalism of the 1990s, which is a kind of crisis in itself and which sparked war, a pandemic, the coming global energy crisis, the climate crisis, the economic crisis, the nuclear threat, according to him, should indicate that the human rights movement in the Balkans should try to devise a new way of acting. He concluded that “the civil sector and all progressive forces must begin to unite and act in synchrony, first locally, regionally, and then globally”.

Dino Mustafić, a director from Sarajevo, said that “Russian aggression against Ukraine has exposed relations and policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina” and that it is hardly the first time that it has been shown that Bosnia does not have a common foreign policy, that it is incidental and dependent on ethnicity, officials or representatives of Bosnia in various international institutions. He assessed that “although almost all parties in Bosnia rhetorically pursue a pro-European policy, in practice these policies are anti-European and anti-democratic.” Mustafić also said that it is known that Dodik’s stories about “peaceful separation” cannot be implemented because the composition, arrangement, the way Bosnia and Herzegovina functions do not allow such a scenario. According to him, in B&H there is a conceptual division between those who advocate the prototype of ethnic democracy and those who want to achieve a balance between democratic and ethnic. Mustafić said that the matrix on the endangerment of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina is very dangerous and that, as usual, from all these stories about endangerment it is ordinary people who pay the highest price for such statements. He concluded that “Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot function without international supervision”.

Edvin Ćudić, a journalist and human rights activist from Sarajevo, said that Bosnia today is a state of ethnic apartheid and that it does not matter whether you know something and how competent you are, but only which ethnic group you belong to. Ćudić believes that some media reported as if the war had already begun, that the media were being abused and serving ethnic propaganda, and he cited the television of Republic of Srpska as a glaring example of that. He added that Western countries have recognized the Republic of Srpska, but that today it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Republic of Srpska is a problem to the West. Ćudić also stated that it is harder to speak about Srebrenica in Banja Luka today than it was twenty years ago, emphasizing that in Bosnia and Herzegovina the socialist collective has been replaced by an ethnic one.

 
282247004_565240571787430_5428094506204026612_n

Progressive forces in the region should not retreat in front of a retrograde and loud minority

0

The panel, which discussed the possibilities of politicians of civic orientation, civil society organizations and activists to influence better relations in the region, yesterday ended the ZAGREB PLENUM – QUO VADIS, BALKANS? organized by the Regional Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD) from Novi Sad, the Center for Dealing with the Past Documenta from Zagreb and the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) from Podgorica, with the support of the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB). The panel was moderated by Branka Vierda, coordinator of the justice programme at the Youth Initiative for Human Rights in Croatia.

The representative of the Možemo coalition in the Parliament of the Republic of Croatia, Sandra Benčić, spoke about the policy of remembrance and reconciliation and about the attempts to raise these issues in the Parliament in a different way. She said that “several examples from Zagreb, such as the mayor’s speech at the monument to Aleksandra Zec or the unveiling of the monument to the victims of Ustasha terror, showed that we can work on a local level on reconciliation and a culture of remembrance”.  Benčić considers that it is not true that these topics are controversial in Croatia and that they cause divisions, stating that the majority of Croatian citizens do not perceive them in that manner. She concluded that “progressive forces must stop dealing with the ideological margin that pulls society backwards“, and that they must start focusing on essential things and achieve cooperation there, especially when it comes to seemingly “small topics”. Benčić concluded that “progressive forces in the region should send a message of hope and faith in victory and that they should not retreat in front of a retrograde and very loud minority”.

Lana Prlić, representative of the House of Representatives of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Parliament, said that “young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina have very radical views despite knowing very little about what happened during the war” and that political parties do not offer them nothing but the shackles of the 1990s, sometimes even the 1940s. She added that “education on the principle of ‘two schools under one roof’ is shameful and cannot, in any way, contribute to the creation of generations whose future will be different and better”.

Councilor of the Belgrade City Assembly from the Moramo coalition, Dobrica Veselinović, said that he believes that “it is possible to reach big topics through small topics” and that is the road to achieving cooperation on issues that are essential for the future of all our citizens. “It is clear that there is a triangle of pollution in the entire Balkans caused by coal-fired power plants and that is why our cities are the most polluted in Europe, and it showed that cooperation on these topics is possible”, he explained. He said that “hope that a new political age is coming and generations of politicians who will not be afraid to stand up for true values and will not calculate for them because of daily political points”.

The European parliamentarian from Croatia, Predrag Matić, said that it is crucial for the countries of the Western Balkans to work on their own relations, and that the European Union currently has numerous priorities that do not include the countries of our region.

With the Zagreb Plenum, after the Podgorica Plenum, the work on strengthening the progressive forces in the region through gatherings and talks on modalities of response to growing right-wing extremism, the crisis of democracy, current challenges and obstacles to democratization in the region is continued.

 
DSC09691

Zagreb Plenum QUO VADIS BALKANS – proposals by Vesna Pusić for B&H

0

In Zagreb, from 26 to 28 May, organized by the Regional Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD) from Novi Sad, the Center for Dealing with the Past Documenta from Zagreb and the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) from Podgorica, with the support of the European Balkans Fund (EFB), ZAGREB PLENUM – QUO VADIS, BALKANS? was held.

The Zagreb Plenum is the second in a series of events aimed at empowering progressive forces in the region through gatherings and talks on ways to respond to growing right-wing extremism, the crisis of democracy, current challenges and obstacles to democratization in the region. Within the two days, more than 50 domestic, regional and international experts, officials, members of national parliaments and the European Parliament, diplomats, historians, journalists, publicists, academics and prominent activists from Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Slovenia and Kosovo gathered in Zagreb.

Discussions and six separate panels at the Zagreb Plenum were dedicated to current topics and problems that countries in the region face with. The most significant challenges and obstacles to democratization of the region, relations between countries and regional cooperation, the position towards war crimes and dealing with the past, abuse of history for daily political purposes, impact of Russian aggression on Ukraine on the situation in the region, attempts to confidence-building and opportunities for politicians, movements, parties and civil society activists to counter negative tendencies at the local and regional level were discussed.

Participants and panelists of the Zagreb Plenum agreed that reconciliation, confidence-building and dealing with the past have no alternative when it comes to establishing regional cooperation, but also agreed on some of the concrete steps that must be taken to achieve a better future for all citizens of the region. Most participants expressed concern over the fact that the security and political situation is worse than twenty years ago and assessed that immediately after the end of the armed conflict there was more potential for cooperation and building sustainable peace than nowadays. The assessment is that the political elites have no interest in resolving the conflicts that still exist, closing open issues, and finally overcoming the past. The same refers to the case of the registry of victims of the wars of the 1990s, which is manipulated for the sake of daily political points and needs, as well as historical facts that are twisted and changed every day to create myths and keep political elites in power throughout the region.

The plenum also pointed out the disastrous influence of Russia on the situation in the region, as well as the fact that the Russian aggression on Ukraine completely changed the bloodstream of international relations, and that all countries in the region, without exception, will have to take a stance. It was assessed also that the foreign policies of Croatia and Serbia towards Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro disrupt good neighborly relations and destabilize the entire region, and that the role of the two countries that are already members of the European Union, Croatia and Slovenia, is not what it should be in terms of greater support for the Western Balkans and encouragement for reforms that are a precondition for European integration. The panelists agreed that it is necessary to nurture the common culture of remembrance, and that it is possible to do so in all communities and at all levels – from local to the highest.

The Zagreb Plenum also adopted some of the measures and conclusions, made and presented by Vesna Pusić, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs in the Government of Croatia. The conclusions concern concrete proposals for a model for the integration of the Western Balkans into the European Union and special support for Bosnia and Herzegovina in overcoming the current five-point political crisis.

  • For the integration of the so-called Western Balkans in the EU, it is needed to apply the Baltic model of integration. Back in the 1990s, when the three Baltic states began their path to EU membership, three Nordic member states entered into a partnership with them: Denmark, Sweden and Finland, with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. That partnership included training for civil servants, assistance in harmonizing laws, building institutions and introducing the necessary procedures for decision-making and implementation. Of course, they also facilitated their communication with EU institutions. To date, it is considered the most successful EU integration since 2004. Partners to aspirant countries from the Western Balkans can be neither the largest EU member states, nor, unfortunately, the countries from the region, including Austria and Hungary. The reason for this is the latent danger that the neighbouring countries have their political agendas and goals in the region and therefore there is no trust among the citizens of the Western Balkans in their bona fide The six member states, partners in the Western Balkans on their path to the EU, could be Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands. These are all stable democracies, without special political agendas in the region, and with strong EU orientation.
  • When it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina, this country already has the institution of the High Representative. In combination and partnership with one of the Nordic Member States, for example, it could focus on institution building and the introduction of procedures leading to EU membership. Additionally, in this period should:
    • Strengthen the presence/number of EUFOR throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina;
    • Start drafting a democratic B&H Constitution to replace the fourth annex to the Dayton Peace Agreement;
    • Start drafting an election law that would take into account two important components: the concept of B&H as a civic state (because modern democracies do not know other models) and at the same time introduce some mechanisms for the protection of collective ethnic rights. Given the recent past and the current political climate, it is necessary to take care of the protection and guarantee the collective rights of individual peoples. There are many examples in the world that can be used. But that cannot be instead of or to the detriment of the fundamental idea of ​​a civic state – one person, one vote. The protection of collective rights is an additional form of preventing possible ethnic discrimination, not a substitute for the equality of all citizens in their rights;
    • Insist that all changes related to EU membership take place simultaneously and throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
    • Develop political partnerships with non-ethnic political parties and leaders.

At the Novi Sad Plenum, which follows after Podgorica and Zagreb, we plan to come out with clear positions and proposals that address other current topics and practical policies for the entire region and individual countries in it, and the focus will be on dealing with the past.

 
Radni sastanak mladih lidera (11)

Balsa Bozovic: Government and opposition to talk about sanctions against Russia

0

I am inviting the pro-European opposition to use the announced conversations with the President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić about calming tensions in society and repeating the elections to initiate the most important issue for Serbia – a clear commitment to the country’s pro-European foreign policy. Vast majority of political players and actors, both the government and majority of the pro-European opposition, has been in a state of hibernation since the beginning of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and remains silent about Russia’s war crimes, crimes against humanity, murders and the danger the aggression poses to the rest of the world. It seems that they are in a state of shock from learning that Moscow, as a recent pillar of Serbian foreign policy, no longer exists in that sense. Serbia’s attitude towards sanctions against Russia will be reciprocal to the European Union’s attitude towards Serbia, and that is why Serbia has to make a decision – whether it is for a European Serbia or for an isolated Serbia. This is the most important issue for the future of our country. You can constantly repeat that you are for the continuation of Serbia’s European path, but if you do not harmonize your foreign and security policy with the foreign policy of the European Union and impose sanctions on Russia, absolutely no one will trust you or consider you a credible partner. Significantly more powerful and richer countries than Serbia had to swallow this bitter pill, Serbia also can and should do it.

 

The past elections in Serbia have shown that the future government has a historic task ahead – to decide what Serbia will be like in the years to come. Will it choose the foreign policy course of the European Union and the European future for our country, or will it continue to delude itself that it can sit on “two chairs” at the same time, not realizing that circumstances have changed and that Russia is no longer what it used to be in international relations? If Serbia does not realize that the Russian foreign policy “chair” does not exist anymore, it can easily lose the European one as well. That would mean isolation and transformation into Balkan Belarus which will be a constant source of destabilization in the region, accompanied by a very low standard of living. The citizens of Serbia do not deserve such a future. Serbia deserves to continue to develop into a democratic, economically strong and modern European state.

 

The citizens of Serbia expect certainty from the Government, which, regardless of the number of deputies in the Assembly who support it, should make a historic decision to impose sanctions on Russia, harmonize its foreign and security policy with the European Union and continue the accelerated path to full membership in the European Union. Such a decision should be supported by the part of the opposition that calls themselves pro-European, because for Serbia it means the continuation of reforms and further strengthening of the rule of law and independent institutions. It is not a collaboration of the pro-European opposition with the regime, it is a responsible, joint decision on the foreign policy of Serbia, but also the value orientation that the citizens expect.

Load More