Bewitched in a Black Hole

Is it possible to solve the problems of our community in a modern and mutually acceptable fashion, striving towards norms of civil society? This was the topic of the two day discussion, "Democratic processes and ethnic relations", organized by the Democratic Centre from Belgrade, with the help of the Project for Solving Interethnic Conflicts from Princeton, Forum for Interethnic Relations and the Soros Foundation.

"As an equal member of the political community who freely expresses his political will, the citizen must be free of all ethnic, religious, and linguistic marks which could be treated as a privilege or a handicap", said Dragoljub Micunovic from the Democratic Centre, in the opening speech emphasizing that the main barer of sovereignty in the whole concept of sovereignty of a people is the 'demos' and not the 'ethnos'.

The gathering put this approach to the most difficult of tests: the Serbo-Albanian relations.

Veton Suroi, a publicist from Pristina, objected that the discussion started off from the standpoint of a 'fait accompli', claiming that one can not expect the institutionalization of a community which was created by force, against the will of a part of its members.

Behlul Becaj, another publicist from Pristina, emphasized: "How can I be loyal to the Serbian state which abolished my autonomy? How can I respect the Serbian Constitution when Serbia abolished the Kosovo Constitution? I am being asked to be loyal to a state which generates discrimination; would you be loyal to such a state?"

Milos Macura from the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences (SANU) responded to this argument by stating that "some things were being mixed up" and that the "special conditions" which resulted in the temporary abolition of individual and collective rights were necessary in order to prevent the Albanizion of Kosovo, the exodus of Serbs from the province and a possible public revolt.

Fehmi Agani, the vice president of the Democratic Union of Kosovo, tried to explain the reasons for the boycott by claiming that if Albanians did participate in any way they would become part of a system which is unacceptable to them. He objected to the "Albanian question being formulated as a minority question", repeating the arguments developed in the 1980s, about the rights of Albanians to self-determination; and how the 1974 Constitution was not a gift from Josip Broz Tito but a response to the fact that Albanians, who were more numerous than some Yugoslav peoples, could no longer be treated as a minority. He announced that in the period between 1981 and 1989, the total number of years of imprisonment to which individual Albanians have been sentenced was 20,000, and that an annexation of Kosovo which took place between 1980 and 1990 resulted in a "monstrous system being imposed which blocked all cultural institutions within the Program for the accomplishment of rights to equality and freedom in Kosovo.

Agani also claimed that parallel institutions sprang up in Kosovo and became part of its everyday reality, and added that "a solution would be possible with a bit of good will". He pleaded for the fact that there was never a war on Kosovo to be taken into account. Adding ironically that this "may be partly thanks to the police", he emphasizes that the Albanians themselves deserve merit for not allowing the conflict to develop into open animosity.

Suroi says that until now only one side used strictly non-violent methods, and that in order for conditions to improve, both sides must confine themselves to peaceful means, which according to his interpretations, implies giving up the possibility of revolt but also the abandonment of the violent changes regarding the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia which had been imposed.

According to Agani's judgment, "return to the previous state" (1974 Constitution) is not possible, while the plan revealed by the Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Ratko Markovic "removes any possibility of a solution", because it claims that the question of autonomy is not one of quantity but "ethnic quality" and that no decision in Kosovo can be reached without the consent of the Serbs.

The opinion of Goran Percevic, vice president of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), is based on the assumption that the cause of the Yugoslav crisis lies in the violent secession of its constituent parts, and that peace in Kosovo has been established. According to him, "the problem can be solved if a different approach is adopted, not through the creation national getos, but by building the new approach around the principles of civil state".

He repeated that the institutions of Parliamentary democracy have already been established in Serbia; that elections were held four times ("those who lost denied their validity, but international monitors were present"); and that the Albanian parties would have been amongst the strongest ones, had they taken part in those elections. "Elections for the regional assembly could take place straight away, if there is such a demand", Percevic added.

He also brought up the point that the Albanian boycott of their rights was organized in order to internationalize the Kosovo question, claiming that he personally is not against internationalization "in terms of our obligation to comply with international law". However, "the solution can not be sought in the return to the 1974 Constitution, because that was a confederate Constitution".

In his reply to Veton Suroi's objection that the question of human rights is not "artificial" but that numerous governmental and non-governmental institutions established that human rights violations are quite frequent, and that if the assurance that human rights must be respected is not given, it will be interpreted as the "absence of the basic will to negotiate", Goran Percevic said that he "is ready to discuss questions concerning individual violations of human rights of any citizen, including Albanians".

Vesna Pesic from the Civil Union said that everybody agreed that the collective rights of ethnic minorities have been reduced, something that is considered undesirable by the international community; that there is a view that majority rules over the minority; and that the atmosphere is similar to that in South Africa before Nelson Mandela came into power. Micunovic later disagreed with such a comparison, claiming that describing the current state of affairs as worse than it is actually is not beneficial.

Agani, on the other hand, emphasized that the discrimination against the Albanians is institutional, repeats that the status of a minority can not be imposed on them, and said that Albanians included in FRY must be given an opportunity to "redeclare themselves".

Percevic asked for the principle about the inviolability of borders in the Balkans to be respected, and advised that Albanians should not be instrumentalised in a course of action that could have a bloody ending. He repeated that Albanians are citizens of Serbia before anything else, and that minority rights are only an addition to all the rights that they have as citizens, and offered "an open discussion about everything regarding their entitlement to a cultural identity, education in their mother-tongue, etc.".

Last Serbo-Albanian intellectual and political meeting took place in 1988, between Albanian and Serbian writers during which Albanian intellectuals for the first time sketched out their national program, and which ended in a storm.

The fair number of foreigners of respectable authority present at the meeting last week expressed a kind of anxiety about how the talks will resume, but were clearly content that the talks took place at all.

Renzo Imbeni (vice president of the European Parliament and the former Mayor of Bologna) talked at the end of the meeting about the possible revision of the Maastricht Treaty in 1996, which is linked to the possible expansion of the union in Central and Eastern Europe, announcing that the list of potential new members includes Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Baltic States, Romania, Malta and Cyprus, while the other states, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania and Macedonia are a "black hole" and are not on the list. (After the participants from these states exchanged a few somber glances, he mentioned that some advancement, such as the recognition of Bosnia, peace, etc., may bring more than just lifting of sanctions).

Topics which used to cause hypertension were this time discussed openly in a controlled manner, though from quite a long distance - Albanians still want more than they had under the 1974 Constitution while the Serbs refuse to offer them anything more than what they are already entitled to under the 1990 Constitution.

Did at least a hint as to the possible way out of the vicious circle emerge from the last week's discussion in Belgrade? Replies to this question lie in metaphorical formulations such as the one used by Fehmi Agani, who told of a historian's description of the conversion of Muslims into Christianity in the 19th century - everybody holds hands and dances a 'kolo' (traditional dance) which is then called a 'motley kolo'. "We are ready to enter into negotiations, but we won't take part in a 'motley kolo'! "

Percevic stated that it is very unusual that the SPS made contacts with parties from Albania but not from Kosovo, claiming that "SPS's readiness is not declarative", that "SPS has members from ethnic minorities", and that it is "vitally interested in a dialogue".

During this debate, a discussion on basic constitutional and democratic principles blended with projections of possible future developments. Svetozar Stojanovic from the Democratic Centre, for example, spoke of the arrogance of the great, and the paradox in the fact that the international community is preventing the Serbs from uniting with the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs, but is allowing them to keep Albanians who do not want to remain in Serbia. Paul Shoup from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, concluded that there is not a single European state that could develop pluralistically if it held the territory it could not keep, and that a lack of democracy will be present in Serbia for as long as Kosovo is part of it. According to his analysis, the idea for Bosnia to remain under UN protection is becoming history, and there will be no peace in Bosnia until new borders are established and areas of Bosnia become part of Serbia. "Would, in that case, the issue about the adjustment of borders of Kosovo become a priority?" he asked.

From the point of view that it would be rational not to try and retain anyone trying to leave a union, Micunovic stated that leaving a state is not like leaving a restaurant and that accounts must be settled first.

Desimir Tosic (Democratic Centre) concluded that the Albanian question must be treated as a separate question and the talks with Albanian representatives must be held "without any left-overs or conditions". After the meeting he added that he saw the conduct of the Albanian representatives as civilized, that he considers them "No.1 partners" of the Serbs and reminded that unless their restraint is acknowledged, things could go wrong, like they did in Bosnia.

Allen Kasof from the Project for Ethnic Relations (Princeton) concluded that there is no global solution for relations between ethnic groups and asked himself whether there are any small steps that could be taken in such a situation and whether there is a way of achieving at least a cease-fire.

Gert Arens (deputy vice president of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia) told about the attempts made in 1992 in Geneva to set aside political discussions and do something concrete about the appalling state of education in Kosovo, but this proved to be an impossible task. In Macedonia, where Albanians accepted concessions, the situation is a somewhat better.

Fehmi Agani replied that the 1992 talks failed because the status of Kosovo was unilaterally and forcefully changed, and such changes can not be accepted. He added that the proposal made by representatives from Kosovo, according to which pupils would be allowed to study in school buildings until a permanent solution is found within a year, had been rejected.

Arens clarified this statement by saying that the last round of the talks was not even possible because the Yugoslav side failed to turn up.

"As far as education is concerned, Albanians could have the right to decide on these matters, but we could not, at the time, accept a solution which would lead to border alterations...", Arens added.

Pal Sandor of the Democratic Union of Hungarians from Vojvodina, brought out a proposal concerning Hungarian autonomy which would consist of a Hungarian Autonomous Region (MAO) with a special status and personal autonomy (PA). According to this proposal, the MAO, with its administrative headquarters in Subotica, would be incorporated in the constitutional system as an administrative region the jurisdiction of which would be decided by the Serbian Parliament, on the basis of an agreement between the Political Committee of the Parliament of Hungarians from Vojvodina and the Serbian Government. The agreement would mainly deal with issues such as education, culture, media, religion, industry, social policy, health, justice, public order, heritage, environment...According to the proposal the MAO could levy its own taxes, it could receive help from state funds or foreign sources, make contacts with other states, and would have its own flag (red-white-green).

The SPS representative listened with restraint to this proposal which automatically minimalised the reach of Albanian demands. He did not even reject it, unless we interpret as a rejection the statement that the demand for minority question to be resolved outside the Constitution contradicts the earlier pledge to respect the law.

Margit Savovic, the Federal Minister for Human Rights, later characterized the proposal as separatist. President Milosevic, who is acquainted with the plan still hasn't stated his opinion of it.

Rasim Ljajic (President of SDA from Sandzak) reminded that the Muslims in Sandzak are faced with the problem of majorization and assimilation, they are a target of attempts to change the ethnic structure, and that in spite of the emotional solidarity with Sarajevo which many of them feel, they are loyal to the state in which they live.

Paul Kasof estimated that the question of intergroup relations will probably be the central question of the next century.

Livia Placks (Project for Interethnic Relations, Princeton) takes the view that the solution can not be introduced from outside, but must be found by the Yugoslav people themselves.

Gert Arens described the position in which he often found himself during negotiations: "Everyone looked at me as if I was a TV star, with the question: 'What has the foreigner got to offer?' ".

Tibor Varadi (SANU) said that it is difficult to continue chivalrous contest with bewitched words. He noted that the roots of the problems in Kosovo are being sought in the fact that it was once autonomous, while in Krajina the problems allegedly arose because there never was any autonomy. We live in a society which is highly ethnicated and thus witness the constant escape from one majority to another. Most problems could be solved on the level of individual rights, though for example in the domain of language, the category of collective rights is unavoidable. A considerable reduction in the scope of collective rights took place in the last five years.

In the Yugoslav context, Arens said, the word "autonomy" has negative connotations while the word "minority" is a dirty word - no one wants to be a minority which is why Lord Carrington's document mentions the "special status".

"Where does the assumption that Serbs are afraid of autonomy come from, when the Serbian Constitution allows for autonomy to be granted?", asked Percevic. Pal Sandor replied that such autonomy is an "empty shell" and that the parliament of Vojvodina has the right only to propose legislation, as if it were just a group of MPs, and that he witnessed on many occasions the sound of "growling" in the Serbian Parliament chamber when he mentioned the word "autonomy".

Harry Barnes (Carter's Centre, USA) inquired about the exact meaning of the word autonomy in Serbian, since the Serbs are so afraid of it. Janjic (Forum for Ethnic Relations) replied that it means "regional self-government", but that it also acquired the meaning of a semi-state, and became the object of political struggle between the minority who wanted to turn the autonomy into a state, and the majority who wished to abolish it. Vesna Pesic sarcastically noticed that Serbs are afraid that others will do to them what they did to others. Others will play with words such as SAO (Serbian Autonomous Region, at the first stage of this war) or MAO. During the discussion someone reminded that in the 19th century the Serbian state itself developed from an extended autonomy so the Serbs know only too well where autonomy can lead.

Among a few rules which apply to ethnic conflicts an which were mentioned by Kasof, two attracted the most interest - one which says that in an ethnic conflict both sides are always right, and the other that their timing is always wrong.

Tibor Varadi added another rule - next time the timing will be even more wrong...

Professor Stefano Biancini (coordinator of the International Network Europe and Balkan from Bologna) stated that the choice of means for dealing with differences is a question of political culture.

Professor Dr. Vojislav Stanovcic (SANU) said that the principles of democracy and majority rule which it implies can not be applied to multi-ethnic communities without certain alterations, which is evident from examples from Eastern Europe and the whole of former Yugoslavia. Literature on the subject recommends many additional institutions - for example the distribution of power in which fewer issues are dealt with by the central authorities, since in many successful consociations the principle role is played by local government.

However, he is of the opinion that the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia raised considerable doubts about federalism. Besides the role played by our domestic participants, the decision by the Badinter Commission about the disintegration of Yugoslavia did not favor the idea of federalism or autonomy.

Arens thinks that the independence of the new states on the territory of former Yugoslavia is not based on the right to self-determination, but the fact that the SFRY federation ceased to exist and that in such circumstances the question about the real location of power arose. The only available answer was: in the republics. Micunovic reminds that even before then, federal elections which would legitimize the federal government were never held, so the problem is again one of democracy.

Stanovcic tried to demonstrate how laws are silent in the presence of weapons, not only at times of war but in cases of serious conflict, and how amongst Aristotle's five types of democracy the worst is the "rule of the mob" in which most do not abide by any rules.

Without certain institutions, democracy is only an empty word. Institutions are also represented by certain principles: the right for the other side to be heard, not to judge without evidence, independent judiciary, autonomy, decentralization, local government...

There was a kind of an undivided feeling that some uncomfortable boundary has been crossed, that we "cease to be in each others way on a bridge above a precipice"(Ljubisa Mitrovic), that it was an "exceptional occasion in terms of intellectual strength, readiness for dialogue, and readiness to listen "(Sonja Liht, Soros Foundation) and that "a compromise is possible although both sides have irreconcilable goals" (Dusan Janic)