FRI, 08 JUN 2001 19:17:39 GMT

Confronting the Past

In Search for the Truth

In the past ten years the citizens of Serbia were both witnesses and participants in the production of all kinds of "truths". Some of them were forgeries, some were extremely selective, and the rhetoric often became aggressive hate speech in which to this day "our" party has always been the victim and the other the "culprit" and the "perpetrator". Has the moment come to put an end to such an attitude to the truth on everything that was happening on the territory of former Yugoslavia.

AIM Belgrade, May 25, 2001

Confronting the truth about the past, with considerable agitation, disapproval and bitterness - either through the debate on extradition of former president Milosevic to the Hague Tribunal or on the establishment of the state commission for the truth – has preoccupied the public in the past several months or more precisely ever since the change of the regime in Belgrade. And while majority of ordinary citizens of Serbia believe that the culprits for the crimes committed in the past wars on the territory of former Yugoslavia are somewhere else, the last week's conference titled "In Search for the Truth and Responsibility - Towards Democratic Future" which was organised by B92 radio and television station showed from an expert angle of vision that it would be a tedious and extensive job.

To what extent the process of confronting the truth and responsibility would be difficult was predicted by Veran Matic, editor-in-chief of B92 RTV, who spoke about the experience of this media which recently, when it began broadcasting the serial on the truth and reconciliation with the film on Srebrenica, infuriated many spectators. Apart from the protests sent directly to B92 television station, reactions in "letters of the readers" appeared in newspapers in which the suppressed hate speech got wings again : "How come you broadcast a film with so many lies in it without having been there?", "Why do you broadcast everything that the Americans and other rascals lay in your lap?", "Not even at the time of Pavelic and Hitler had there been such propaganda against the Serbs", "With such a serial you are just spreading hatred against the Serbs". Some people were more reconciled: "I don't deny the responsibility of the Serb party for crimes, but only as one of the three parties involved. When did the Croats or the Muslims ever publish or show even a trace of self-criticism and readiness to be objective?", "I want to hear information", a Serb from Canada writes by e-mail. "I have heard of every Alija and Mujo (Muslims) that were killed. But what happened to Darko, Nenad and Predrag (Serb names) from Srebrenica? I want you to write everything about that criminal Naser Oric..."

Others are simply not at all ready to bear the truth: "If that really happened, all I can do is take a gun and shoot myself!" a spectator reacted after the first two parts of the film on crimes in Srebrenica. After mentioning this reaction, Veran Matic added that before uttering this sentence the spectator spoke in a very civilised manner that this was just propaganda, defamation of the Serb people. To the question why he was against presentation of a version of the developments that differed from the one he had had an opportunity to see, he declared that he would not be able to bear such a truth.

Production of war frenzy has obviously left deep traces. Lies, fabrications, passing over in silence or glorification of victims made the people insensitive to war crimes and influenced them to find pretext for what the members of the army or paramilitary of their ethnic origin had done to others. The affirmation that "everybody who wanted to could know" does not mean that there are many of those who wished to know. It was evidently easier not to know. In other words it was easier to believe and accept what propaganda had to offer: that the Serbs were just victims, that they did nothing wrong, that everybody hated them.

The recent investigation of Strategic Marketing Agency titled "The View of the Truth in Serbia" presented at the conference made a deep impression on the participants. Some were surprised, some were disappointed, but there were also those who believed that it was a normal consequence of decade-long effects of destructive propaganda spread over here. In any case, it is a fact that more than half of the citizens of Serbia cannot list a single crime committed by Serb military forces in the wars on the territory of former Yugoslavia. The results of the investigation show that most of the questioned citizens were well informed about the crimes committed against the Serbs, while more than half of them did not know to say what crimes were committed by Serb forces, and a large number of them denied that such crimes were committed. To the question whether they had heard, for instance, " that many civilians in Sarajevo were killed by sniper bullets" 91.5 per cent said that they had heard that, but just 54.7 per cent believe it is true. However, to the question whether they had heard that "the Muslims held Serbs in prisoner camps around B&H", 91.5 said they had, but 96.1 per cent believe it.

How necessary it is to talk on confronting the past and determining the truth is illustrated by other findings of this investigation which speak of the stands of the citizens concerning the crimes committed in the wars on the territory of former Yugoslavia and responsibility of the politicians and the citizens who supported them.

One of the questions in the poll was "who are the greatest culprits, and who are the greatest defenders of Serbdom". For the majority of subjects, for 62.7 per cent of them, the USA and the international community and its economic interests are responsible for NATO intervention, but a large number of them estimated that the cause was the policy of Slobodan Milosevic. The investigation on how the people see the truth about Serbia showed that the pollees still see the guilt for the misfortune brought about by war on the "other side". Out of two thousand subjects 77.8 per cent think that the main cause of dissolution of SFRY is Croat nationalism, the interest of America and the West, and the most important factor for the beginning of dissolution of former Yugoslavia according to them is the existence of the USA as the only super power, and then Milosevic's coming to power.

Srdjan Bogosavljevic, head of the agency that conducted the poll says that the participants in the investigation believe that the greatest culprits for all the wars on the territory of SFRY are Franjo Tudjman, Slobodan Milosevic and Alija Izetbegovic, in that order. On the other hand, as the greatest defenders of Serbdom the pollees listed Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan and Slobodan Milosevic.

Although majority of the questioned persons expressed readiness to learn more especially about the negotiations Milosevic conducted in the name of Serbia, on the events that preceded the dissolution of the country, less than half on the wars in Croatia and B&H, the knowledge of the facts probably would not cause the change of their stand. In fact, to the question whether a new fact they had learnt influenced their change of opinion 85.5 per cent of the pollees gave a negative answer. Nevertheless it should be stressed that regardless of how powerful prejudice, stereotypes and manipulations created by media and state policy may have been, majority of the public is ready to accept primarily testimonies of witnesses and victims.

Although the preparations for this conference (planned to be a discussion on the reasons for and the manner of confronting the past) had begun five months ago and although it was not directly connected with the recent foundation of Yugoslav Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, the biggest part of the debate was devoted to that Commission. The disagreements and doubts about the Commission present ever since it was established (on March 29 this year) when President Kostunica had decided that it should be done, but especially since the middle of April when two of its members (Vojin Dimitrijevic and Latinka Perovic) left it, were evident at this gathering, too. Some believed that it was established too hastily, without a serious debate and dialogue which would have led to a consensus. Others doubt that this is in fact a competition for making political points on the internal political scene, rather than a wish to actually initiate systematic confronting the truth.

Professor Vojin Dimitrijevic, Director of Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, after the remark that foundations of such commissions "has reached the proportions of a fashion", welcomed its foundation, but precisely also listed all the difficulties and prejudices that would prevent the efficiency of its work: "If the conflict was mainly on the territory of Yugoslavia outside Serbia, a commission formed of the citizens of Serbia would encounter two types of difficulties. First, it would not have access to documents, witnesses and other sources which are not in Serbia and it would depend on the inclination and the choice of the authorities outside Serbia. Second, in view of the accumulated prejudices, it would not have the authority if it took stands concerning the misdeeds non-Serbs are responsible for, because - whether it wants it or not - it would be recognised as ‘Serb’.

If due to the second reason it dealt only with the violations the Serbs are responsible for, it would have credibility abroad, but it would lose support of the Serbs". According to the estimate of this eminent expert, reconciliation in Serbia and among the Serbs should be reconciliation among political opponents. The paradox is that should the Serbs reconcile among themselves, their reconciliation with the others would become even more difficult. If it is easy to get over the evil done to the Serbs by other Serbs, it is even easier to disregard the evil committed against others.

One of the participants at the conference, Alex Boraine, President of the International Institute of Justice in Transition and Vice-President of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation in South-African Republic, who accepted to be the advisor of Yugoslav Commission of Truth and Reconciliation, believes that "suffering, violence and crime know no boundaries and that this commission must be regional, because you cannot have a commission for truth which stops at the borders of Serbia".

After the discussion of Svetozar Stojanovic, a member of Kostunica's Commission, who said that the objective of the Commission was to determine the causes which had led to the conflict and the dissolution of the country and assess the behavior of the international community, Biljana Kovacevic Vuco reacted by saying: "Stojanovic has just proved what I was afraid of - that this Commission would try to find a pretext for everything that has happened in Serbia and around Serbia among its neighbours but that was brought about by the developments in Serbia. It is a body which is intended to find excusing circumstances for the Serb party. This 'it's-not-my-fault' syndrome serves as a pretext for refusing to accept what has really happened here".

Doubts about the manner of operation have not been clarified after all: it remained vague what the Commission would investigate and what results it might achieve. The only thing that is clear is that it is being established for the sake of truth. But there are various kinds of truth. According to indications, the truths it would deal with could be described as academic, legal and political. As declared, the Commission will deal with "the past and search for the roots of the developments trying to reach the total truth".

The Commission can also deal with legal truth and it seems that is how the majority understands it, and this was the main stumbling block in the discussions. Some people believe that the Commission must be authorised and given the mechanisms to sanction, although the experience from the world shows that the main characteristics of such commissions is that they do not have the right of criminal investigation or punishment of transgressors and that that distinguishes it from national and international courts and prosecutors. Indeed, in a judiciary in which courts operate and work pursuant the law establishment of such a commission has no sense at all.

But in Serbian society there are few such courts. That is why establishment of a commission which would determine truth by investigating criminal responsibility for war crimes committed in the past ten years in Serbia would be justified. The only problem is that the truth established in this way would not have any legal consequences. As one of its members declares, "the commission will not be a replacement for legal or least of all criminal institutions".

It is therefore necessary to establish the truth when it is controversial and when it can lead to certain consequences. There is no doubt that great powers are involved in dissolution of Yugoslavia, just as there is no doubt that the Slovenes, the Croats, the Muslims, the Albanians and who knows who else are also involved in it. There are few citizens who would deny that. But what is at issue is what was our share in all that. And that is the great political dilemma about which there is no general agreement, and the greatest stumbling block among the citizens of Serbia. It seems that it would be meaningful to establish that type of political truth. But it seems that the Commission will deal with that type of truth least of all.

For almost a decade wars were waged and crimes committed on the territory of former and present Yugoslavia in the name of Serbdom, the Serb people and the Serb state. Committed in our name these crimes - whether we want it or not - created a new Serb identity. Therefore the only sensible purpose and aim of the foundation of this Commission would be to establish whether crimes were really committed or - not. This is the only truth our historians and courts will not be able to reach quickly. The Commission is expected to establish the truth and then make the Serbs face it. "Official truth", experts say is an important step towards more comprehensive national memory and reconciliation. Philosopher Zarko Puhovski, president of Croatian Helsinki Committee, had a somewhat different stand. He believes that the truth leads to agitation. After facing the truth, regardless of whether agitated or reconciled, we will know whether crimes were committed or not and whether we should feel guilty of having willingly or unwillingly, directly or indirectly, been accomplices in the developments.

Vesna Bjekic

(AIM)