Support to civil society as a strategy in conflict prevention and peace-building

Nena Skopljanac

The symposium taking place in Congress and Cultural Center in Luzern on April 27-28 - under the title "Security Policy in Europe" - was a direct cause for organising this counter-conference today.

As focusing on the topics like defence system, struggle against crime, arms issues, global economy and migration problems, the symposium leaves no doubts that it looks upon a phenomenon of security on one hand from a prospective extremely reduced on military aspects, while on the other hand it stays limited within Europocentirc point of view that leaves no space for practising true solidarity principle in international politics. It stays within a framework of attempting to discuss possible dealing with consequences, while it completely fails to even open, let alone discuss, possible strategies and means to address reasons and causes for insecurity on a proper way.

Exactly this is how I understood meaning and sense of this event we are taking part in today: to try to elaborate various insecurity factors and to look for possible strategies and concrete measures to address them in a manner of solidarity principle, cooperation, and inter-active citizen participation.

In order to avoid staying on an abstract level, I would in my further elaboration focus on one among many of in and outside insecurity factors, but one that is perceived as the biggest explicit threat to regional, European and world-wide security - armed conflicts. And I will specially refer to those that happened and are still going to happen in the Balkans, more precise on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. I used a term armed conflict and not war, not because I do not think it is a war, but to emphasise a term conflict. Exactly conflicts on individual, micro- and macro-social, as well as international level are ground for creating insecurity on all these levels. Or better to say, not conflict per se - as they are inevitable part of a normal situation - but a way how we deal with them. There is no study in the field of conflict theory, nor is there some seminar and training on conflict resolution, which does not convey the following as key-thesis: 1. Conflict is not emerging just like that, but because some factors created ground for its emerging. 2. Conflict can not disappear itself, just like that, but an active participation of conflicted sides in its resolution - i.e. dealing with reasons that enabled it and with consequences it made - is required. 3. If nothing, or not enough, or not with required means, is taken in order to resolve some conflict, it will develop further, always becoming more complex, deeper, stronger - till it escalates into an open violence, armed conflict, war.

Also, the crucial aspect is the one formulated in the thesis no.2. In all parts of the former Yugoslavia, a large majority of citizens was in times before each of the wars in the area broke out against it. Only some of them have been actively participating in a number of various civil society grassroots groups and initiatives who tried to resolve conflicts. They were small, with quite limited financial and material resources, and without needed know-how. They were either fully neglected or not enough seriously recognised by large majority of players within so called international community - both official and non-governmental - and only by a very few really concretely supported.

Who heard and reacted upon warnings coming from independent intellectuals and peace groups in former Yugoslavia during 1990 that the war would break out if nothing would be done? Who supported dozens of civic groups and initiatives throughout the country who staged daily protests and public events in spring 1991 aimed at alarming and mobilising domestic and international public to urgently act in preventing the war? I do not know if someone knew about it and how wide circles of those who knew were. But I know that absolutely none of various possible concrete support was given.

What did we do when Kosov@ Albanian students were asking during their mass protests in autumn 1997: Europe, where are you? Tens of their appeals were circulating for months per e-mail in which they were desperately seeking for urgent support in non-violent conflict resolution trainings and joint developing of strategies and means to deal with conflict which started getting components of sporadic armed clashes. According to what is known to me, only three international organisations responded and concretely supported them: Balkan Peace team, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, and Nansen Academy from Norwey.

Who knew about initiative of a several student groups in Serbia called "Anti-war Campaign Serbia" in spring 1998. While the war in Kosov@ was getting in intensity, they planned to distribute 1 million leaflets with anti-war texts, as well as stickers and posters calling on citizens not to support the regime’s war policy. They got only around 50,000 DEM support from Soros Foundation for this action. Instead in all cities throughout Serbia, they were able to carry out this action only in a quarter of them.

EDA PA III received in spring 1998 through the Embassy in Belgrade the project of ANEM (Association of Independent Electronic Media) to produce in a co-operation with Koha ditore from Kosov@, and with a support of the BBC expert team, 2 one-hour documentary movies on violation of human rights in Kosov@, to be subtitled both in Albanian and Serbian, and broadcast on ANEM stations and TV in Tirana. As ANEM has been among our partners, we strongly supported this application. However, EDA PA III decided not to approve the grant. Was 100,000 SFr. too much for the project aimed at confidence-building among Albanians and Serbs. The audience in Serbia (and we are speaking about 1.6 million audience) stayed without possibility to understand what really Kosov@ conflict was about, while Kosov@ Albanians did not have a chance to realise that there are some Serbs who did really care about what was happening to them.

These are only a few examples. There have been many more for the last decade I could list now, but, instead, I would prefer to focus on what might be useful for a future acting and use these examples as references for lessons that we learnt from the past.

Among a wide spectrum of strategies and means that acteurs from outside of a conflict area can do in order to prevent conflict’s escalation and thus a break-out of a war, a support aimed at strengthening a civil society in a conflict area has been recently gaining more and more on importance. Citizens who organise themselves in order to actively participate in resolving a conflict, who are ready to establish contacts and develop joint projects and initiatives with same-minded citizens on "other side", should be given outmost support. A hard-core of civil societies in conflict areas usually make human rights-, women-, students and youth, independent intellectuals organisations, independent trade-unions, various citizens initiatives in the field of democracy building, and independent media. Experience from the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that they are - if supported on an appropriate way - able to mobilise and articulate a certain, in some cases even impressive, amount of social energy and acting aimed at moving social and political development into a direction that contributes to a conflict resolution. I will give you a few examples to illustrate this.

Positive results in the last elections in Croatia, that were welcome in Europe with an open enthusiasm, were a great deal possible thanks to a half-an-year joint campaign of a few hundreds of Croatian NGOs called "Vote 99", who managed to educate voters on importance and meaning of elections and mobilise them, especially the most marginalised social groups (youth, women, elderly, unemployed) to cast their ballots.

40 towns where the opposition won the last elections in Serbia are exactly those towns where independent local media exist. Without their professional reporting, critical analysis of the regime, and influencing citizens to think on their own and not according to what was offered by the regime’s propaganda this would certainly not happen. Also the demonstrations that took place after the results were annulled by the regime were extensively covered and encouraged by those media.

Independent media from Kosov@ managed within an astonishingly short time to revive their operation in exile in Macedonia and Albania and thus provide hundreds of thousands of refugees so much needed information on what was going on, where their family members were, what kind of support, where and from whom they could get, etc. Already in telephone contacts, while still waiting on the border to leave Kosov@ or immediately after arrival in Macedonia, all of them were expressing enormous will to re-start their operation - immediately.

In an immediate post-war situation, causes of conflicts that led into it still remain unresolved. A long-term, systematic and well-thought broad spectrum of measures and activities is needed to be carried out in order to reach a stable peace. Essence of the peace-building process represents a process of re-building a society able to deal with its conflicts on a peaceful and non-violent way. It is not about models that can be planted everywhere no matter of social, political and cultural environment. Therefore, a strategy of the international community to create own models without participation of local players and than to introduce them from above, through structures and institutions also established and run by it - which was on the international conference "Kosovo Media Development" in Pristina in October 1999 defined as "Kosovarisation" - simply can not work. As we are witnessing now in a case of Kosov@. A strategy should rather be to help creating a proper framework and then support local players to re-build their society themselves. More precisely, it should disfavour those local players who are contributing to maintenance or even new sharpening of conflicts and support those aiming at creating possibilities for their resolution.

Let me give you just one example. With a support of Swiss government (DEZA/AZO), and run by the Swiss NGO (Foundation Hirondelle), the UNMIK Radio Blue Sky was established. The editors and mangers are exclusively internationals. Also, those who decide on a concept, programme content and a way of its presenting to Kosov@ audience are people who have probably never before been in Kosov@, who do not know its society, who do not know culture and value system of its audience, who do not know causes of the conflict, how is it understood and explained by conflicted sides, what wounds it left in individual and collective memory, etc. Radio inevitably fails to make a programme a larger audience would listen to. Still after a several months, large majority of Kosov@’s population has never heard of the radio, let alone listened to it. The radio manages at present to produce only 2 hours of programme, while the rest is music. Annual costs for the project are - 2 million Swiss francs, which makes it being one of the most expensive radio programmes in the world (according to hours of produced programme and the staff number).

On the other hand, not a single franc was given to support any of local media who are our partners: the daily "Koha ditore", the weekly "Zeri" and the daily "Zeri i dites", Media Project - RTV 21 and Radio Contact. All of them are established and run by prominent professionals, people who have for years proven as open-minded, moderate, tolerant and as such have initiated or participated in projects aimed at resolving Kosov@ conflict on a peaceful way. They have been among those to first publicly rise their voice against crimes and expulsions of non-Albanian population and to appeal for tolerance and peaceful coexistence. Those media are the most listened or read, which means that they do have credibility in Kosov@’s society. It is an enormous mistake not to support them to develop faster and become even more influential. It would have long-term positive results, and it would be much cheaper too.

New war is knocking at the door. This time in Montenegro. I am sorry to say that at present MH is the only Swiss organisation who has local partners and projects in Montenegro (I exclude here those who have only humanitarian aid projects there). HEKS and MH are the only to have partners and projects in Serbia. We are at the moment working on providing a support to ANEM affiliates - 32 radio and 20 TV stations throughout Serbia - equipment needed for an ordinary work in normal conditions, but which would be essential to provide broadcasting also in a situation when Milosevic would attempt to completely disable operation of these stations. We are convinced that in a time of war preparations and war itself, enabling a public in Serbia to get professional reporting on what really is going on is extremely important. However, we do know that this is just a very small contribution, even if it comes from a small group of people engaged on a pure voluntary basis.

Time to try to do something to prevent this new war is quickly running away, and it seems that not so many are aware of it. If they are, it looks than as if they do not care about it.

People who will meet in next two days on the symposium of Europa Forum Luzern will not discuss it as political strategies and means in conflict prevention is not among their topics.

I am unpleasantly surprised with a fact that in given circumstances the most prominent activity of Mr. Josef Deiss, Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs, in regard to the Balkan region is to take part in a promotion of DJ Bobo’s concert in Sarajevo. Maybe we will have to wait for some time till Swiss authorities will do something related to Montenegro. Unfortunately, prospects that it will be some pompous announced rock concert in destroyed Podgorica (capital of Montenegro) are certain.

26.3.2003