| Contents: Kosovo Statments |
 |
| Contents: Kosovo Statments |
|
Introductory Words, Discussion Lines, Position Papers, Action Drafts
U. Albrecht , E. Altvater , U. Beck , M. Corrigan-Maguire , P.V. Dastoli , J. Delpy, M. Gorbachev, F.W. De Klerk , Y. Du Pont , H. Elsenhans , E.L. Ehrlich , I. Fetscher , J. Galtung / R. Lopez-Reyes / K. Mushakoji , S. Loren , R. Muller , R. Panikkar , J. Sadat , K. Sorsa , J. Steinberger , M. Stoppacher , J.B. Taylor , M.-B. Theorin , L. Vonnegut jr , B. Vallestad / S. Rajagopalan, J. Williams
Possibilities of solving the Kosovo crisis
No war has ever been won from the air. Even after the bombardment in the Gulf war, which compared to that of Yugoslavia was much more extensive, ground troops had to be deployed to liberate Kuwait. Especially in view of the hardship Albanian refugees are suffering, the quest for alternatives to continuing and expanding the war becomes more pressing.
Politics are responsible for ensuring alternative means of action to avoid being driven into a dead-end street. And of course a political solution to the Balkan crisis is possible. The question however is, on what conditions. NATO is struggling to push through a solution based on its own ideas. There is growing uncertainty as to whether the peace plan drawn up in Washington really was the most sensible. The public has hardly taken notice of the details, especially the unusual provisions for stationing NATO in former Yugoslavia. In case of some non-military option, NATO would also have to backtrack.
The possibilities of the armistice offered by Milosevic have not really been carefully investigated. The offer may have been inadequate. However, such opportunities must be thoroughly examined, even if the army generals object. A joint Russian/German initiative could re-establish talks. When Germany was reunified, the two countries pledged to pursue close political co-operation in the future. As president of the European Council, the chancellor is summoned to act. In other capital cities, a joint Russian/German initiative could not simply be pushed aside. For instance, the EU could agree to warrant the autonomy status of the Albanians on an international level.
A mediator will be needed, the UN Secretary General for instance. Washington hardly takes to this idea, the organisation is considered incompetent there. Especially if the mediator were not simply equipped with a whip, i.e. the threat of further air raids or even a NATO invasion, but with a carrot, too, i.e. extensive promises on the part of the EU to assist in reconstruction, then he may stand a fair chance of succeeding.
Ulrich Albrecht Political Scientist, Peace Researcher, Free University Berlin
The Kosovo-conflict cannot be excluded from the deliberations of the Vienna peace meeting. I do hope that until then the war in and on Kosovo already is over and the political negotiations again have begun with the central objective of finding a political solution for a sustainable peace order in the Balkan region. This said my basic position is the following one: It was a mistake to divide old Yugoslavia following ethnic borders and to enforce ethnic coexistence within the smaller republics such as Bosnia and (new) Yugoslavia. Only Slovenia and Croatia today do not display ethnic conflicts because Slovenia always was mostly monoethnic and Croatia performed a brutal ethnic cleansing as did the Serbs. But Croatia insofar was better off as it always had political and (in the case of the cleansing of the Krajina) military support by Western states.The Nato bombing has aggravated not only the since long a time precarious humanitarian situation in Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia and even worse - it has no convincing political objective. So NATO has become the airforce of UCK and thus preventing that UCK and Albanian leaders would have been enforced to make compromises as the Serbs should make them. The Rambouillet-treaty was - as only later became known to a broader public - a document of capitulation of the Serbs, which no Serbian politician (not only Milosevic) could sign. Therefore the first request or advice is: stop NATO bombing now!It must stop because of death and destruction which it brings to innocent peoples. But moreover it must stop because it has only one objective: the capitulation of Milosevic. But this objective is not very rational, since the bombing unites the Serbian political class, even those who oppose the Milosevic regime. Who should be the Serbian negotiator who also is backed by public opinion? The bombing therefore is above all an attack on the Serbian opposition. It must stop because it is against international law, the charta of the United Nations and - in Germany – violating the fundamental law which forbids waging an aggression. The bombing therefore also is an attack on the international architecture of an emerging peace order. This peace order must rely on the institutional framework and the spirit of the UNO and it has to take into account that the former "Eastern" countries have to be involved in the establishment of an International and European peace order. It is necessary to prepare a series of conferences with the objective to establish a peace order on the Balkan. Economic co-operation supported by the "Western" states has to be fostered. The civil societies of the Balkan nations have to be included in such a process. Demilitarisation of the region is necessary, of course controlled by surveillance mechanisms - which must be just and not unilateral.
Prof. Elmar Altvater Political Scientist, Free University Berlin
Military humanismLike a flash of light NATO action against the killings in Kosovo illuminates the contours and ambivalence of the postnational era of the political. The borders of nation states are no longer sacred. Internationally, a new understanding of politics, values and society has emerged, according to which the state is no longer sole ruler over its territory and people.Instrumental for this development (apart from many other factors) is the hitherto little understood key role human rights policies play in matters concerning the identity and cohesion of the West after the end of the Cold War. Whoever believes that the global cop, U.S.A., is only pretending to play this role in order to box through primal American economic and geo-strategic power interests in the Balkan has not simply completely misunderstood the situation, but has forgotten to what great extent the unequal unit comprising human rights and the "free market economy" has come to be America's civil religion and thus the religious belief of the United States as such.The Kosovo conflict is revealing a situation that has long been smouldering, the fact that the brilliant notion of human rights can lead to a military humanism. Until recently, nobody would have imagined the extent to which the belief in the civilising effect of human rights can shift bounds. NATO believes it is "defending" human rights in the territory of a foreign state and German soldiers are participating in putting a stop to genocide outside of their own country. Although laws are being violated with the punitory bombing of Yugoslavia, the big parties of democratic Germany have reluctantly agreed to this first-time German military deployment under the banner of humanism.How can that be?Firstly, a humanitarian NATO is the greatest possible refutation of the cultural pessimists' lamenting over the decline of values. More likely, one might suddenly dread the humanitarian glitter in the eyes of the world improvers. As it were, NATO is acting as the military arm of amnesty international: bombs are being dropped to induce reason. "We will not escape this conflict by looking the other way", Green Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer says to justify the deployment of German soldiers, "instead, as in Bosnia, the drama – the killings, the destruction, and the refugees – will force us to look and take action." In reply to a journalist's question: don't you have an scruples? a spokeswoman of the Greens answers: don't you have any scruples?Whoever asks how it came that of all political constellations the socialist/green government succeeded in dissipating its qualms about armed humanitarian action, is referred to the parallel debate on the holocaust monument in Berlin. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill", engraved into stone, is to be Germany's official commemoration of the National Socialist state terror of more than 50 years ago. It is – or is it not - precisely the fulfilled obligation of this "Gründungsverbrechen" (founding crime) (Helmut Dubiel) of democratic Germany that in the balance between the two terrors – watching or acting – has been and is still crucial for the agreement beyond all party bounds to military action. On the same line, Rudolf Scharping, who is no longer only minister of defence, said we don't want to "look into the ugly face of our own past".Even before the dispute over the commemorative words has been settled, they have disproved themselves like an explosion. Following the Kosovo decision, shouldn't it say: You must accept the killing, if you wish to enforce the words "Thou shalt not kill"? But nobody will want to engrave this message, a permanent dilemma, into the holocaust monument."The things we are made to listen to from these German know-it-all" complained a commentator of the Belgrade broadcasting company. The same ones "who once invented concentration camps want to teach us how to capitulate."NATO humanism in Kosovo, however, presupposes the military/political hegemony of the USA as global cop, i.e. the end of the East-West confrontation, the Soviet Union, and the bipolar global order. Only in this hegemonic constellation can the new morals of global citizens abolish national borders and sovereignty rights to unfold their own. In the conflict of values between the authority of the sovereign state, which hitherto was considered inviolable, and the protection of human rights, defending human rights in foreign state territory is gaining precedence. As legal basis, the human right of transnational self-defence, providing justification for actions, takes priority over valid international law. All of this reveals the power of cosmopolitan human rights morals to alter limits and laws. And not least, a new field for shaping internal European policy is emerging in their horizon.In a manner of speaking, with the bombs of reason against Milosevic the military euro is being introduced. After the negotiation fiasco (through its own fault) Europe had no choice but to prove its capacity to take action or to give itself up. And as with the introduction of the euro, the political community of Europe was compelled to act, this joint military action against genocide in Kosovo is creating and forcing a piece of Europe's political identity into being. The language paradoxically also spoken by the bombs is saying: Kosovo is part of Europe. If you have Europeans killing Europeans here, then this constitutes European domestic affairs. In anticipation of a European policy, this military deployment is shifting the boundaries of domestic and foreign policies. Ultimately, a claim is even being laid, against the tattered monopoly of nation state power, to the internal pacification of Europe and thus to a European monopoly of power.All this reveals what great confusion the global age has caused in society and politics. The limitless empowerment of a military humanism of human rights is extremely dangerous. The right to invade another country on moral grounds can, from a general vantage point, give rise to a new Crusaderdom of human rights. In a world full of dictators this is an invitation to never-ending war. It is a licence to engage in abuse. And this in an age of technicist military surgery which feigns the operational controllability of war in a global risk society.In this military action, the dangerous and the cogent lie close by each other: precisely because a democratic Germany, which feels obliged to commemorate the Nazi terror, must also actively express its indignation over genocide outside its own borders, the constitutional court must set the strictest of limits to any military action.
Prof. Ulrich Beck Institute of Sociology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University,Munich
„NATO bombings of Yugoslavia will not solve the deep ethnic/political problems of that region no more than President Milosevic´s military aggression against Albanian villagers will. It will not be solved by military, or paramilitary means, but only through dialogue and negotiations by all concerned parties to this violent, historical conflict.
Violence and bombings from whatever source, as the people of Northern Ireland know so well, only increase fear, hatred, and polarisation on all sides.
Although NATO´s bombing of Yugoslavia has been justified by President Bill Clinton, the EU, and other Western leaders on the grounds of humanitarian concerns, these air strikes will only serve to increase the suffering on the ground of the civilian populations of both Kosovo and Serbia. Air strikes have now made humanitarian work almost impossible as many humanitarian organisations have withdrawn to protect their staff, and refugees continue to flee over the border to Macedonia. With fewer humanitarian organisations on the ground, it leaves all sides – including NATO – free to continue military aggression, the main victims of which will inevitably be the civilian populations.
The NATO air strikes therefore do not serve the stated goal of protecting civilians since the people of Kosovo who have been forced from their homes and villages are being further isolated from relief efforts or harmed directly by air strikes. Bombing will further strengthen extremists in Serbia and Kosovo and weaken the forces of moderation and compromise in the Albanian and Serbian communities.
It is of further concern that this action by NATO was taken without debate in sovereign parliaments or at the United Nations. Therefore, these bombings are not only counter-productive but, under international law, are also illegal.
It is hoped that NATO bombings and military and paramilitary aggression from all sides will halt immediately, and all parties will enter into dialogue and negotiations.“
Mairead Corrigan - Maguire Nobel Peace Laureate, Founder of the Peace People, Belfast
It is my opinion that one of the main issues to be tackled is the evolution of international law in terms of the protection of the Human Rights, fundamental rights and the fight against all forms of discrimination.
As far as the situation in Kosovo is concerned, I consider that an emphasis should first of all be put on the effects of exacerbated and ethno-centered nationalism, in the region; and on the lack of a real common foreign and security policy of the Union.
I personally consider that from the very beginning of the crisis in Kosovo, the European Union, and more generally speaking the United Nations, should have intervened by sending military forces and civilian interposition aid in the region. The air strikes decided by NATO brought to light their whole ineffectiveness and the lack of a political strategy, not to mention the dramatic consequences on the civil population. The European Union should take the initiative of calling a Peace Conference involving all the actors who bear responsibility in the region. The only lasting solution to establishing and maintaining peace in Yugoslavia, just like in all other parts of the continent, lies in the building of a democratic European federation. The Union must become involved by establishing economic support in order to help the populations. This support must stress the respect of Peace agreements and enable a real civic and social development.
Pier Virgilio Dastoli Spokesman of the European Movement, Brussels Patron of the Society of Founders of the International Peace University
To be honest I have no real declaration on the Kosovo crisis. Like anybody else, what I know I have read in the papers - some French, some American and not even every day. But what I do know for sure is that - and perhaps this is the case with all wars, perhaps more so with this one - the situation is an ambiguous one, giving rise to more questions than answers.
What are we to make of a conflagration that in hindsight we realize might have been avoided?
We know the result of years of neglecting an impoverished European country, yet still it seems we have allowed the Yugoslavian war, its atrocities not unlike those of fifty years ago, to transpire. Perhaps, we see now how we might have actually allowed this dictator and his methods of ethnic cleansing to reign over a precarious state of peace and a third world economy in this region. All this in the middle of our "glorious" E.U. And now we know that bombing a country doesn't bring peace but just more dead civilians - as Prof. Morin stated in his declaration.
Is anyone making money in this war? Who benefits from the bombing? Anyone? I honestly don't know.
What is the answer to a better, more peaceful world? Are our international peace keeping organizations strong enough? Could NATO's illegal bombing have been possible if we had a stronger organization for peace - on an international or more specifically on a European level? It seems that for the moment various peace organizations haven't been as effectual as they might be. Too often, in some cases, they seem to arrive too late or without quite enough strength. I say this all simply as a civilian, in an attempt to make sense of almost ten years of war and concentration camps and ethnic cleansing and horrific mass murder .....
Do we really have any organization capable of stopping a war without using violence? The danger might be that we allow ourselves to believe that we do.
Don't we need a stronger peace organization?
Maybe this peace university could help.
Is it the job of peace keepers to lead the men of a village in buses, whether they like it or not, when one out of three of those buses will be stopped within two kilometers and all the men in that bus will be executed by their own neigbors who happen to not believe in the same god or leader or whatever - executed in the same field where they once watched their sheep graze not so long ago. Is that the job of those peace keepers?
Is it really peace when we leave a man like Milosevic in power? Or is ist just not quite war, for now?
What do we expect, after ten years of atrocity and interethnic hate, leaving the Balkans with little scattered states and a standard of living much lower that in the rest of Europe, and with dangerous leaders at the head of some of those states. Do we expect peace?
How do we find solutioins to conflicts non-violently when we face such extreme violence and injustice?
How did we arrive at such an extreme in the first place?
Why the Kosovo crisis?
Before the Kosovo crisis there was the Yugoslavian war: ten years of atrocities that no one was able to resolve, a long conflict that eventually seemed to have bored and confounded the public. "Who is bad? The Serbs? But the Croats used to be with the Nazis. Who are those Muslims? Are they Muslims like in Iraq? Do they burn the American flag? Who is the victim?" The Kosovo crisis finally exploded before anybody knew what really happened during the decade that begot it.
And before the war? A weak unstable country emerging from 50 years of communism; and before communism the Second World War; before that the First World War; before that ... what? Orthodox, Muslim, Christian invasions here and there, leaving a land full of different ethnic groups, tribes and so forth. Well, every country has had a complex past full of invasions and unstable phases. Now the question is how to make this part of the world (which happens to be in the middle of "our" world) more stable, more like Western Europe - with a relatively stable economy, a true democratic leader, and NO ETHNIC CLEANSING.
If I said to a kid in Lyon "The people from Brittany have decided to be independent and they began cleansing, and all citizens who are not 'Bretons' - Auvergnats, Parisians etc. - are expelled or killed," this kid would think I'm nuts. To begin with, they wouldn't survive economically at all. I'm sure some people in a state of independent nationalistic madness would like it, but in general, in reality, the situation wouldn't be viable. No offense to the "Bretons" (I'm a "Bretonne" myself).
How to make this part of the world stable ...? By bombing and ruining the economy of the country even more? By signing some peace treaty and leaving in power an international threat and a perpetrator of ethnic cleansing, a dictator (who is scared of the world)? Peace treaties can be more dangerous than weapons in the hand of certain people.
I don't know, I'm not sure of anything.
The bombing made a martyr of Milosevic, and part of theworld forgot who he really is, what he has really done. Milosevic said yesterday that he won this war. Yes indeed, he almost started a Third World War (I lost my sleep and reason over that for weeks) and became a victim in the eyes of many Orthodox countries and beyond. But maybe they will change their minds when the world finds out what happened to thousands of Albanians in Kosovo. I remember seeing in different countries some people wearing stickers on their chest saying "Next target", the irony being that they could be right, they could be the next targets, although not of NATO. The bombing put many people on the side of Milosevic, the same people that he might not hesitate to eliminate if they were in his path.
After the Second World War we did find a way to settle our conflicts - among France, England, Germany, Spain, etc. - and created the E.U. We live in a multiracial, multireligious, multicultural world and it is working pretty well. I think we are scared to say that certain countries in Europe are backward; it doesn't sound too social or democratic. But they are backward. Their essence is not, but economically they are so backward that the political situation has had not choice but to follow suit. No surprise that they have "tribal" wars when their economies are the same as ours fifty years ago or more.
It is not too complicated if we simply try to learn what history has tried to teach us. Poor people mean strong extreme leaders, mean international danger. It has happened before, many times, and it is not going to change until people make the effort to help countries that need help, especially considering that we have created this Community. Our interest is their interest. Their stability is ours.
Did NATO make a mistake and should they acknowledge it to the world? Could we have found a diplomatic way to stop this disaster? Dind't the bombing make Serb soldiers even more violent against Albanians? Can peace organizations make sure this doesn't happen again? Can't we learn from our mistakes? Isn't it the point of being a human being to constantly evolve toward improving ourselves?
Why did we leave the Kosovo question in a gray area after the Yugolavian war? How come no one imagined that Milosevic would do the same thing again - that he is a nationalist and that is not going to change (even less now, since part of the opposition and some of the country is behind him)? What if the opposition takes power? Will it be better? Are they as nationalistic? Will they bring peace? Are we going to make the same mistake again?
On J. Steinberger ... Aren't concessions dangerous in the hands of such a leader? Didn't the Kosovo crisis start with concessions being made?
Do the representatives of NATO know that the bombing could have destabilized the whole of Europe?
Again, does Europe have proper organizations to keep peace on its own ground? As F.W. de Klerk said, how do we live with different ethnicities and religions under the same flag? It is so hard for me to imagine fighting for a religioin or ethnic group. Maybe that's what you realize when you travel the world, that there is no religion or culture better than another: There is just people, people with whom you have the same root of interest and people with whom you don't. Look what happened when one cast had more power, as in Rwanda. Unter the same flag, shouldn't people of different ethnicities or religions or classes have the same rights? SHOULDN'T IT BE AN INTERNATIONAL LAW BY NOW?
But who created those conflicts in the first place? I remember seeing an old Time Magazine from 1992, a few months ago, and on the cover, about Yugoslavia: "Is it too late to stop the war?" Too late? Well now, is it too late for Europe to grow in peace?
Being part of working group 3 on media is more delicate than I imagined. I am not sure I know enough about the new media to really make statements regarding it. I'd like to talk about media in general - especially about misinformation around the world from the USA to China.
The physicist, Stephen Hawkins, has said: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." The illusion of knowledge has become the sociological cancer of our society. In a world where information is everywhere, what do we really know? We see and we receive so much information, so much entertainment, but what do we keep, what is true, what is partly true, what did we miss? An 8 year old child has seen something like twice as many images as Leonardo Da Vinci had absorbed by the time of his death. How do all these images affect us?
Some papers were portraying a terrible image of NATO and the Servs as victims while in other papers in another part of the world, Milosevic was a demon persecuting the Albanians. But the reality is that civilians died on both sides because the people that were entitled to make decisison decided so.
We must create a way to produce and distribute more accurate information - perhaps first by de-sensationalizing the news. We must protect the journalists seeking this truth. Today, more than ever, journalists are in danger around the world. During this conflict even Russian journalists were put in strategic bombing sites, like TV stations, not only risking being killed but potentially extending the conflict internationally even more with their deaths.
Is there a newspaper out there written by people from all over the world and translated in different languages - not only English - which seeks the truth? Like a U.N. equivalent in the press?
Why the Kosovo crisis? Yes, but why any conflict?
It is ironic, because before I decided to finish this letter today, I had a conflict with someone I care for a great deal. Somehow, I had started a mini-war. And I began to think that maybe the key to understanding global issues is to first look within ourselves, within our own relationships. To find peace within ourselves. After all, the world is made up of people. On a personal level we all know why we start a fight: pride, fear, insecurity, jealousy, frustration, neediness, etc. We don't fight in life with people because we want to grow, expand or become a better person. Each time I find myself initiating a conflict with someone I realize that it always comes from the weaker parts of myself. So it follows that a country^s instability - its low self-esteem perhaps - might lead to a conflict with another nation. I realized today, though I knew that it was necessary, how much I resented having to look inside myself and take responsibility, and how much easier it would be to merely place the blame on the other "country" in my "war". I truly believe that, like people, countries need to look inside themselves, analyze their countries' need to look inside themselves, analyze their weaknesses and insecurities and modestly allow other countries to help them figure out a plan of improvement.
Even if I am a cynic, I am hungry for belief, and I still hope a little. I hope that we can educate ourselves, learn from our past and our mistakes. I hope we can learn to love and not fear - learn to care for ourselves and others at every level in our lives. AND I hope that we can learn to do this as nations. Hate and conflict only bring pain; there are no losers or winners in war. Only blood.
Julie Delpy, Actress, Paris
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE H0STILITIES IN YUGOSLAVIA
Green Cross International is expressing its strong concern
with potential disastrous environmental impacts of the
hostilities in Yugoslavia. The massive destruction of oil
refineries, petrochemical plants chemical and fertilizer
factories, pharmaceutical plants, and other environmentally
hazardous enterprises puts both the population and natural
environment in the Balkans under clear threat. The destruction of
Pancevo petrochemical plant, attacks against targets in the
municipality of Grocka in close vicinity of the Vinca nuclear
reactor, as well as in the municipality of Baric, where a large
complex for the production of chloride is located, demonstrate
that irreversible environmental catastrophe can happen any time.
There are also some reports that depleted uranium weapons, blamed
for spiraling numbers of cancer and birth's defects in Iraq, are
being used by NATO forces. There are indications that the
pollution is crossing the Yugoslavian borders, and starts
affecting other countries in the European region. It may also
further aggravate the tragic refugee situation in the neighboring
states. Acute air pollution represents immediate danger. Release
of toxic and carcinogenic substances, and particulate matters
would seriously affect health of the people. Scientific reports
are warning about dangerous air pollution spreading to other
countries. Long range transboundary transfer of ash and benzo-a-pyrene
from Yugoslavia to a number of other countries, including Hungary,
Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine,
and Moldova is possible. Another matter of serious concern is a
significant emission of sulfur and nitrogen oxides, which could
cause acidrains thus affecting agriculture and forestry in the
region. In the short- and medium-term, heavy pollution of surface
waters may be a serious danger. Contamination of rivers would
have negative consequences on the quality of drinking water, and
badly damage fresh water ecosystems. Transboundary pollution of
the river Danube is not excluded. Experts are also concerned with
possible long-term regional impacts of environmental pollution
caused by the hostilities in Yugoslavia. One of most dangerous
consequences is pollution of underground waters. The region is
rich with underground water resources. These waters, lying at
different depths, may easily spread oil, oil products, fuel, and
chemical pollution to other countries in the region. Taking into
account that the current hostilities in Yugoslavia may lead to
far-reaching environmental consequences for many countries in
Europe, Green Cross International wants to alert both public at
large and relevant national and international agencies.
Regardless of political considerations the international
community must act now. The high cost of environmental
degradation (not just in dollar value, but also in the damage to
our children's health) only gets more expensive when left
unattended. Green Cross international would be ready to
participate in arranging a special mission to Yugoslavia, to make
an evaluation of humanitarian and other implications of the
environmental disaster. In this framework, Green Cross
international basing on its experience in studying the
environmental consequences of wars would be ready to provide an
independent assessment of relevant environmental impacts. This
could be done as soon as the current hostilities stop, and
political conditions permit.
Michael Gorbachev, President of the International Green Cross
In the first place, I should like to make it clear that I do not possess the depth of knowledge of the history, economic and political circumstances and the personalities involved in the Kosovo crisis which is a prerequisite for making detailed recommendations. My following comments are accordingly made with the greatest circumspection and relate more to my own personal experience of politics, conflict and international relations than they do to the specific circumstances in Kosovo.
In the first place, the Kosovo crisis raises the question of the degree to which ethnic/ cultural and religious minorities that comprise a clear regional majority should have the right to secede from the states in which they find themselves. If they do have such a right, what are the implications for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states of which they are now part? If they do not have such a right, to what minority rights and degree of autonomy are they entitled? In my view, there is no automatic right to secession and each case should be judged on its merits and should be the subject of negotiations. However, I do believe that minorities should have the greatest practicable right to autonomy and to practise their religion, speak and be educated in their language and maintain their cultural traditions within the framework of the broader national entities in which they live.
The conflict in Kosovo draws our attention to a greater underlying problem which is at the root of many - if not most - of the conflicts which continue to plague the world. This is the inability of some communities with different cultures, religions or ethnic origins to live together in peace within the same societies. It is at the root of conflicts in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Turkey, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi and Angola to name but a few. Clearly, there is a need for the international community to give careful reconsideration to this question and to reach agreement on the approaches that should be adopted for the maintenance of peace and justice in such divided societies. In particular, we need an internationally accepted charter of the rights and duties of cultural, ethnic and religious minorities in complex multicultural societies.
Secondly, the Kosovo crisis raises the question of how the international community should deal with states which do not comply with basic norms of behaviour? What is the efficacy of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, isolation and military action? Or should the international community employ positive forces - such as economic growth, communication, education and integration into the international community - when striving for change in complex situations? The reality is that communities which feel that their vital interests are at stake seldom bow to international economic, political and military pressure - particularly when they have a deeply ingrained a sense of historic grievance.
Thirdly, the crisis raises the crucial question of when it is legitimate and advisable to make use of military action - or even to threaten military action. The threat or use of military action often has unintended and unpredictable consequences. Once negotiators have explicitly threatened to use force to achieve their objectives they run the risk of committing themselves to action which might not be in the best interest of any of the parties. The reality is that NATO’s action - which was intended to help the Albanian population of Kosovo - may have compounded the catastrophe initiated by the Milosevic regime. At the same time, it appears to have consolidated support for Milosevic in Serbia and to have neutralised the pro-democracy movement, which only a few years ago had the ability to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people in anti-government marches. The passions that have been unleashed and the outrages that have been committed have added yet another volume to the catalogue of hatred and recrimination which appear to characterise inter-communal relationships in the Balkans and which might well delay the prospects for permanent peace for yet another generation. Perhaps, more seriously, it has strained NATO’s relations with Russia which, objectively, are far more central to the security of Europe than is the situation in Kosovo.
I share the general sense of outrage over the manner in which the Serbs have treated the Kosovars, and I do not oppose the use of force under all circumstances. But I think that we should used armed force only when every other option has finally been exhausted; only when we have carefully assessed the likely results of our action; and only if we are prepared to use sufficient force with sufficient speed to achieve our objectives.
To sum up, the Kosovo crisis points to the need for the
international community:
Frederik Willem De Klerk Former Vice-President of South Africa, Nobel Peace Laureate Patron of the Society of Founders of the International Peace University
As the recent war in former -Yugoslavia has shown once again, the countries in the Balkans are highly inter-related.Montenegro and Macedonia are on the brink of civil war. Albania is used by the KLA as military base and training camp and might be drawn into open conflict soon. Here in Bosnia, the division between the Federation and the Serbian Republic is growing with each day. Strong public and political protests against the NATO Strikes in the Serb part of the country have been voiced, whilst politicians and people in the Federation are strongly supporting the NATO actions.The impact of this most recent war in Former-Yugoslavia is enormous on its neighbouring states, and yet, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, has no strong regional policy planning mechanism in place. The missions in the different countries are still operating mostly in, isolation , whilst the conflicts are not at all hindered by national borders. Worse still, many policy is made by international experts, without strongly (enough) involving the progressive elite from the different countries in the region and building upon existing local capacity.Finally, it is well known that the secretariat of the OSCE in Vienna is highly overburdened cannot adequately cope with the current situation.I therefore strongly advice to establish a regional (OSCE) policy planning board, consisting not only of international experts, but more important, progressive experts from the region itself. Each of the republics and regions currently effected by the crisis has its own progressive forces, united in political parties or civic movements.These have been in contact with each other throughout the recent conflicts and could offer valuable insights. Also the Vienna secretariat of the OSCE should be enormously strengthened to co-ordinate the different missions that are currently existing, and will be set up, in the region.
Yannick du Pont President of the Organisation Youth support in former Yugoslavia, University of Amsterdam
The situation in the Kosovo is a terrible one, but this is one of the inevitable results of an anarchical international system which - it should be mentioned - has also its advantages as a global state would be without checks as it is actually the case with a leading superpower as the United States.I don't think that the international community could have accepted ethnic cleansing without reaction.The theory of realism would, however, have taught that the international community should use appropriate means. Airstrikes are not appropriate means. I suppose that an intensive concentration of ground troops around the Kosovo in those countries which would have accepted an international peace-keeping operation would have impressed Yugoslavia much more than the airstrikes.If one asks the question why such an operation was not realized, one immediately reaches the conclusion that the international community did not want ethnic cleansing, but neither an intervention by ground troops. When looking into the operation of a traditional international state system, one realizes that this type of configuration of clear cleavage between the preferences of the international community and its preparedness to commit forces is one of the reasons why a power diffusion of the balance-of-power type has been looked after especially in the 19th century. Obviously, the creation of a volunteer force at the disposal of the United Nations, which might not be equipped with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, but with sufficient police-force type and armoured capacity, could be a solution to this dilemma because it would not involve the commitment of major powers to send ground troops, which is largely dependent on their public opinions. I could imagine that a diversity of multinational companies for peace-keeping could also contribute to such options.
Prof. Hartmut Elsenhans Political Scientist, University Leipzig
The Yugoslav leaders have not granted any democratic autonomy to the Albanian population of Kosovo and for a long time the Yugoslav military has acted violently against the Albanians in Kosovo. The conflict we are witnessing now could have been resolved by way of negotiations, with Kosovo remaining part of the state of Yugoslavia. In this context an independent state of Kosovo was not under consideration. But the Yugoslav president Milosevic had not only repeatedly broken guarantees, but had also not been willing to have a peaceful solution secured by protective NATO forces. With the start and subsequent continuation of the NATO air-strikes, the Yugoslav army and its henchmen began their concerted action to drive the Albanians out of Kosovo, committing the most cruel atrocities and systematically destroying Albanian homes and villages in Kosovo.
It is quite clear that air-strikes cannot solve the Kosovo problem as such, but they may induce the Yugoslav president to agree to a negotiated peace. Such a peace will, however, only be possible with the involvement of Russia, which will have to provide part of the protective forces to safeguard the autonomy of Kosovo. It is therefore very important that the protective forces consist of both NATO and Russian soldiers. As a matter of fact, Russia’s involvement and commitment to finding a peaceful solution, ending hostilities, are of the utmost importance, because excluding Russia from this process would not only represent a threat to peace in the Balkans but also to peace in Europe as a whole. Therefore NATO must not give the impression of ignoring Russia in its present politically and militarily weak position and of regarding it no longer as a superpower.
The objectives of peace in Kosovo are obvious: Withdrawal of the Serb army from Kosovo, repatriation of the displaced population, the establishment of autonomy and finally helping the people from the Albanian part of Kosovo whose homes were destroyed. It goes without saying that the world must not leave these people to their fate, either now or in the future.
The peace conference which will be convoked after the air war will have to take place under the auspices of the United Nations - and not only of NATO alone - as such a conference has to be hosted by an authority recognised by all states. Likewise, the soldiers needed for securing the peace will also have to serve under the United Nations.
It is deplorable that air-strikes were necessary in order to pave the way for peace negotiations to guarantee part of a population the right to self-determination, a home and security. Peace negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations give rise to hopes that in Kosovo, too, peace can be established in the foreseeable future and that the cruelties committed against hundreds of thousands of Kosovo-Albanians will come to an end.
Prof. Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich Religious Scientist, Basel Member of the Advisory Board of the Peace College Switzerland
Similar to other conflicts, the conflict in Kosovo erupted as a large ethnic and partly religious minority was living in a region of a state dominated by another ethnic and religious group. The Albanian Kosovars are a typical example of a compact minority, claiming autonomy within the framework of the state. In this particular case it is also a fact that this claim has been respected for many years in former Yugoslavia, even though many Kosovars would have liked to improve their position further, some even to the extent of seceding from the state.
In case of severe restrictions or even in cases of oppression of ethnic or religious minorities, the unwritten international law does not automatically recognise the sovereignty of a state in „inner affairs„ any more.
Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the United Nations in 1948, underlines understanding and tolerance as well as friendship between all nations and all ethnic or religious groups. All UN member states implicitly recognised the obligation to promote these aspects. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that many countries in our world do not or not sufficiently support this idea.
The protection of cultural autonomy and self-administration of ethnic and/or religious minorities in all countries of the world is one of the most honourable responsibilities of the UN. It is necessary that - within the framework of the UNO - a commission (or „council for the protection of the rights of ethnic and/or religious minorities„) is established solely for this purpose and whose decisions also have to be taken into account by the Security Council.
As no such institution has been set up by now and the permanent members of the Security Council - even after the end of the Cold War - mostly block drastic measures against the violation of minority rights, in the course of mediating efforts of various EU member states and of NATO military means were introduced, directed against the Serbian government, which is responsible for the course of events in Kosovo. The crisis and its consequences could have been averted, if the UN and the Security Council had succeeded to prevent the irresponsible atrocities of President Milosevic in time or at least to end them immediately, once they had started. There is no doubt that President Milosevic would have had to submit to a clear unanimous decision of all members of the Security Council.
Air strikes almost inevitably hit a large number of innocent people and they are apparently hardly suitable to stop the ethnic cleansing - a clear violation of human rights - started by the Yugoslav leader. Within the alliance, the option of ground troops which could protect the Albanian minority in Kosovo (where they actually account for the majority of the population) is out of question, in particular in view of the Russian stance. The political leaders should have listened to the warnings of their military advisers, who could have known that bombing will not prevent paramilitary divisions of the police or the tank-protected infantry from fighting against civilians and poorly equipped Albanian units in Kosovo. We can assume that for the politically responsible of both sides it is of utmost importance to end this phase of armed conflict. The Yugoslav leaders realise the detrimental effects of their unacceptable policy towards the Albanian Kosovars. The governments of the NATO member states start to realise that they cannot reach their objectives this way. But it could be third parties, statesmen of neutral countries supported by Russia, the Ukraine and Greece, who could, in the interest of both conflicting parties, draw up a proposal for settling the conflict, a proposal which could be accepted by Belgrade as well as the Security Council in New York. Highly regarded people like Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, members of the Swedish Institute for Peace Studies, or the former Federal Chancellor of Austria Vranitzky and others, could join them as advisers.
Such a proposal can only be worked out by an institution which is not taking sides, neither of NATO nor of President Milosevic. And it can only be enforced by the international community as it is represented in the UNO.
Prof. Iring Fetscher Social Scientist, University Frankfurt am Main Member of the Advisory Board of the Society of Founders of the International Peace University
Prof. Johan Galtung
Ramon Lopez-Reyes
Prof. Kinhide Mushakoji
THE CRISIS IN AND AROUND KOSOVO/A: THE TRANSCEND PERSPECTIVE
The present illegal NATO war on Serbia is not conducive to any lasting solution. The only road is through negotiation, not dictate and, pending that, an immediate cessation of the hostilities and atrocities, and agreement on a massive UN peacekeeping operation.
For a political solution consider the points made by former UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar in his correspondence with former German Minister of Foreign Affairs Hans Dietrich Genscher in December 1991: do not favour any party, develop a plan for all of ex-Yugoslavia, make sure that plans are acceptable to minorities.
In this spirit TRANSCEND suggests:
Johan Galtung Professor of Peace Studies
at several universities, Director of TRANSCEND, a Peace and
Development Network Member of the Board of Trustees of the
Society of Founders of the International Peace University
Ramon Lopez-Reyes International Centre for the Study and
Promotion of Zones of Peace in the World, Hawaii, member of
TRANSCEND
Kinhide Mushakoji Professor at the Faculty of Global and
Inter-Cultural Studies at Ferris University, Yokohama
Recently, I saw an old Kosovite on television walking in small, weary steps across a country ravaged by war. Ancient - in years and in heart. He dragged himself along with difficulty, yet relentlessly – for me this was a dramatic testimony, the most vehement outcry against what is happening in Kosovo, against the war, against the genocide, against the so-called "ethnic cleansing". The wording alone makes me shudder. How can one remain unmoved in the face of such tragedy, brought down onto the people by the new Hitlers, as if one could be (remain?) pacifist, accepting that thousands, even hundreds of thousands are being forced into a biblical exodus, which seemed all but unrepeatable at the end of the 2nd millennium. That old man moved with difficulty, that is true, but his steps will not be stopped by history, he shall walk on until the henchmen have been punished. Those of good intention, will come to meet and support him, to wipe away, if possible, the gruesome and inhuman images from his tired eyes, images we see on television every day. As an Italian woman, I am proud of my bearing in life, particularly in humanitarian matters.
Sofia Loren Actress, Geneva-Los Angeles
In the Yugoslavia conflict my answer was:I would have gone to Yugoslavia right from the beginning and would have used all my mind, heart and soul, and force of inspiration and persuasion to solve the problem between the parties concerned. I would not have resorted to the help of any colleagues, diplomats, institutions or other countries or people. I would have stayed as long as necessary until the problem was resolved and stayed as long as necessary until the problem was resolved and stayed even under the bombardment.Upon my return to New York I would have drawn certain lessons from experience, one of them being that such conflicts often arise from the purely nationalistic education the leaders have received. I would have taken more steps to reinforce the University for Peace in demilitarised Costa Rica which I always dreamt would become a school for heads of states. In this connection I am sending you a press release concerned with that preoccupation. Mr. Kofi Annan was sensitive to my appeals to him. He appointed Maurice Strong to implement a reform and strengthening of the University.
Robert Muller Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
The Kosovo conflict has laid bare, at least to the European „Community“, that the world has no effective means to solve political conflicts. Bad, if we ignore dictatorships, tyrannies and genocides; worse if we intervene militarily.
The NATO is not an instrument of peace, not even of defence; at most of punishment and retaliation. It is an insult and often a provocation to speak of defence in times of peace. We create a potential enemy. Once we have the formidable machinery of the NATO, if Europe wants (wanted) to prevent a genocide it should go to the country and there defend its inhabitants, even by force, and not start bombing.
The political institutions need the collaboration of the intellectual community in order to work out a new basis for a peaceful conviviality among the peoples of the world. Victory never leads to peace. This is an historical fact since at least six millennia. We need urgently a radical change from a „culture of war“ to a „culture of peace“.
„Conflict resolution“ its not achieved by punishing the alleged culprits. When a problem is put on wrong premises there is no logical solution. „United Nations“ is not synonymous with „United Government“, nor „United States“. The world needs a radical metanoia.
Prof. Raimon Panikkar Professor Emeritus of the University of California, President of “Vivarium” of Cross-cultural Studies, President of the Centre for Cross-cultural Religious Studies Member of the Board of Trustees of the Society of Founders of the International Peace University
The situation in Kosovo is a tragedy of horrific proportions. The sight of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered and driven from their homes is heartbreaking. The Serbian people are also paying a high price. A visionary leader will do everything in his power to bring the people together, will take courageous steps to stop the suffering. My husband was this kind of leader. Anwar Sadat has given us the lesson of how to make peace. Where is the leader to take these steps now? As the wife of Sadat, as a woman of peace, I am always for diplomacy, but I also accept that sometimes force must be used before there can be actions taken for peace. My heart aches for the refugees who like the millions of Palestinian refugees want only a place to call their own. Peace is the only way in Kosovo, the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world where tyranny reigns. There is no other alternative.
Jehan Sadat Center for International Development, University of Maryland
In today’s situation one can ask with reason whether the air raids do not produce, direct and indirect more human losses and suffering than a non-intervention. Questions of prestige, which should have no role in the process, become more and more important. It is being argued that a full scale war would be not only more effective but also more humane. But what after it? The international troops should be prepared to stay in Kosovo for decades rather than for years because centuries old animosity will take time to heal.The ancient Romans already learned that pacification was a tricky business and generally presupposed the occupation of the area – creating hatred against the occupying forces. Today’s pacification operations (which we now call peace enforcement) face the same problems and are among the least successful of the international community.The credibility, the prestige, the effectiveness demand, I guess, that the Kosovo operation is brought to the bitter end, possibly in a full scale war. The Russian mediation efforts are most welcome but should be based on hard facts and realism. The west on its side should be prepared, after the solution has been reached, to a massive reconstruction aid, to prolonged stay of the international forces in Kosovo and to unwavering firmness in getting those who have violated the Human Rights and the international Law under impartial judgement.
Kalevi Sorsa former Prime Minister of Finland, Helsinki
My opinion regarding the Kosovo conflict: This is certainly an important event, and I am both interested and concerned, but it is not clear to me what might have been done and what to do now. On the one hand, acting without UN approval was extremely destructive to the position of the United Nations, essentially a statement by the remaining superpower and is NATO allies that it is prepared to do whatever it likes in the world, independently of UN agreement. On the other hand, the treatment of the Albanian majority in Kosovo by the Serbs was horrible, unacceptable, quite apart of the immigration difficulties this made for Western Europe, and United Nations action seemed to have been blocked by the Russians. Could Russian collaboration have been obtained if the West had been willing to make acceptable concessions? The notion of bombings by an all powerful nation, immune to reprisal, of which this is now the third example after Iraq and Sudan, is extremely destructive of the fabric of equitable international relations, and in my opinion, should be unequivocally condemned. What is more, it increased the plight of the Kosovar Albanians, perhaps predictably, and a positive effect on the outcome of the conflict is not obvious, at least at present, I agree with the NATO position that the expelled Kosovar Albanian population must be allowed to return to an autonomous Kosovo, but don't see how to achieve this.
Jack Steinberger Nobel laureate for Physics, CERN, Geneva Member of the Advisory Board of the Peace College Switzerland
Let others live as well„ Do the pictures on TV really reflect the reality on the Kosovo conflict?„ my son asked me and added,„seeing these pictures I can hardly believe them to be true.“This statement does not only express our ability to describe such cruel events, it also proves that these pictures and reports evoke dismay and compassion that has aroused a reaction even among policymakers.On the one hand supreme efforts are being made to offer humanitarian aid to victims, on the other hand reports on the human tragedy on the Balkans have increased public pressure to react to the conflict.The role of the media as a whole has to be discussed. Due to the pressure exercised by them many of us have arrived at new conclusions such as:War cannot solve conflictsWe cannot be a motivating forceWar cannot solve any humanitarian catastropheOnly common sense and reasonable approaches can lead to the solution of conflicts. Within a process of peacemaking solutions can only be reached through negotiations, mutual dialogue, understanding, acceptance and tolerance.The political intention to truly achieve a peaceful solution must be prevailing in all those bearing responsibility.Recent developments have given us hope to participate in a procedure of working out long-term perspectives and initiatives to end the war on the Balkans; the common aim being stability in the whole of Europe.
Dr. Maria Stoppacher Director of the Federal Press Agency, Vienna
1. A Failure of Diplomacy
The "ultimatum" prepared at Rambouillet with its insistence on the deployment of NATO troops pre-empted and delayed the eventual more plausible proposal for UN or OSCE forces. Threats and then execution of NATO air strikes have blocked or at least delayed chances for a process of truly international peace- and law-enforcement which gives the only long-term prospect for settlement in Kosovo. The deliberate failure by NATO to seek Security Council authorisation for its air strikes was a grievous thwarting of international principles; the sudden transformation of NATO from a defence pact into a purported humanitarian rescue operation removes credibility from all such treaty undertakings.
Warnings sent to Rambouillet from the leadership of European churches stressed the danger of unleashing incalculable violence and suffering. These warnings went unheeded as had the joint appeal for peaceful, negotiated solutions already made by Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox religious leaders from Kosovo and the wider world. When NATO air strikes began, ecumenical leaders immediately appealed to the Secretary General of the UN for his intervention. It was nearly two weeks before NATO leaders stopped insisting on NATO forces and began to speak of international intervention.
2. A Failure of Strategy
The proclaimed aim of air-strikes to forestall the uprooting
of "thousands" of refugees has so grievously
failed, leading to the displacement of hundreds of thousands, and,
at its most grotesque, to the inadvertent bombing of refugee
convoys. If there really was a ruthless Serbian strategy for
ethnic cleansing of Albanians in a state of advanced preparedness,
then a NATO strategy which had the immediate effect of removing
the lifeline of OSCE observers, however incomplete their
achievements, was extraordinarily risky. The mixed motives for
exodus from a war-zone clearly include deliberate ethnic
cleansing by military, police and para-military for whom the
departure of the OSCE provided an "open hunting season",
but the terror of guerrilla fighting and air bombing was a
further factor to spread panic. Nor can one exclude in the
context of a traditionally migrant worker population a natural
desire for family reunion, suddenly made possible by more
generous, albeit belated, asylum policies in other countries
where relatives were already established as migrant workers or
asylum seekers.
Furthermore, there was still a range of critical democratic
opposition to the centralising policies of Mr Milosevic, as for
example in the repeated appeals of the Serbian Orthodox Church in
favour of shared society in Kosovo and in condemnation of
government and para-military violence. Accordingly, a NATO
strategy which was designed to isolate Mr Milosevic, but which
has actually provoked the rallying of all opposition to support
for the government in defence of national survival, has
grievously misfired. A Serbian population, already obsessed by
memories of its 14th century defeat and of centuries of "subjugation",
as well as by living memories of massacres, expulsions and
demographic decline throughout this century, is now rallied
together in revulsion against air strikes which destroy not just
military infrastructure but, still more devastatingly, civilian
lines of communication, industry, energy, and, inevitably,
innocent human life.
The experience of Iraqi civilians should have already proved how
illusory are promises of "surgical" strikes or of
sanctions that exempt humanitarian needs.
3. A Failure of Morality
Recourse to violence is a sign of moral failure. This is true for a nationalist Serbian government which so scandalously fails to give democratic protection to all its citizens, and which either plans or acquiesces in such tragic displacement of populations. It is also true for a Kosovar liberation movement which has run out of patience and possibly lost any will to accept either local or national pluralism. It is still truer, and with fewer extenuating circumstances for an international community which discards diplomacy for hopefully humanitarian and dissuasive air-strikes. Commitment to peace and justice confront all parties with agonising decisions as to whether they can embark on a "just war". The consistent condemnation of violence on all sides made by the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church throughout the last decade has often gone unnoticed or rejected whether by secular and violent nationalists at home or by an international community confused by virulent enemy images or by misinformation. Some other European church leaders have attempted to argue for a "just war" against Serbs in Croatia, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or now in Kosovo. Such moral judgements are in danger of lack of historical perspective, lack of patience in the present and lack of commitment to costly but confidence-building reconstruction for the future.
Lack of self-criticism, self-pity and an inability to sympathise with the victimisation of others are some of the moral failures of politicians and citizens in all sectors of the present conflict, locally, nationally and internationally. As a citizen of Western Europe I concentrate my moral judgement on my own community. An acquiescence in the political isolation and economic neglect of Eastern Europe over many years has left Kosovo as a microcosm of misery where the only future for the majority lay in availing themselves of - or circumventing – the temporary migrant labour policies of Western Europe. One cannot avoid the suspicion that the determination of Western governments to intervene in the territories of the former Yugoslavia has often been dictated by a desire to contain potential asylum seekers in "safe havens", "holding areas" or "alternative flight zones", let alone "safe third countries", let Western Europe feel the direct demographic consequences of its acts/inactions of interference, violence, exploitation and neglect throughout the present century.
4. Proposals for the Vienna Peace Summit
The wide agenda and the lofty aspirations of the Vienna Peace
Summit will be challenged at almost every point by the tragic
failures exemplified in the Kosovo crisis. Failures in diplomacy,
strategy and morality will be analysed in papers and discussions.
Yet one must challenge peace-researchers and peace-activists to
provide an "exit strategy" at a time when non-violent
methods appear to have been as disappointing - though perhaps
still not so devastating - as recourse to violence.
Dr. John Taylor Formerly Special Consultant on Ex-Yugoslavia to the Conference of European Churches and Secretary of the European Churches' Working Group on Asylum and Refugees
PGA Resolution on the Crisis in Kosovo
We, the undersigned, members of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA)
FIRMLY committed to international law and United Nations charter and convinced that United nations must have the primary responsibility to deal with the threats to international peace and security
STRONGLY believe that no nation or individual in a community governed by law, has the right to commit actions forbidden in superior law
PROFOUNDLY dismayed that the United Nations was overruled by NATO and its military actions in Yugoslavia
GRAVELY alarmed by the severe abuses of the human rights of civilians in Kosovo and by the deteriorating humanitarian conditions for refugees in the area
HEREBY make the following immediate recommendations:
DEMAND an immediate cease-fire by all parties to the conflict and cessation of all hostilities DEMAND the mediation of a Kosovo peace settlement package under the auspices of the UN Secretary General and urge the world community to support the United nations in its role to find an immediate and long term solutions in Kosovo
DEMAND the dispatch of a multinational force of UN peacekeepers in order to allow the ethnic Albanians to return to their homeland and
DEMAND allocation of major financial and human resources to both Kosovo and Serbs to assist with the reconstruction
URGES for the ratification of the Statute for an International Criminal Court as a tool to prevent future war crimes
STRENGTHEN the work of United Nations Ad Hoc Criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia, by promptly investigating into war crimes committed by major leaders.
Dr. Maj-Britt Theorin Social Democratic Politician, Member of the European Parliament and President of the International Peace Bureau in Geneva Patron for the Society of Founders of the International Peace University
NATO should have resisted the nearly irresistible temptation to be entertainers on television, to compete with movies by blowing up bridges and police stations and factories and so on. The infra-structure of the Serb tyranny should have been left unharmed, in order to support justice and sanity, should they return. All cities and even little towns are world assets. For NATO to make one unliveable is to cut off its nose to spite its face, so to speak.
Show business! The homicidal paranoia and schizophrenia of ethnic cleaning does its worst quickly now, almost instantly, like a tidal wave or vulcan or earthquake. In Rwanda and now Kosovo, and who knows where else ? the disease used to take years. One thinks of the Europeans' killing off the aborigines in the Western Hemisphere, and in Australia and Tasmania, and the Turk's elimination of the Armenians from the midst. And of course the Holocaust, which grounds on and on from 1933 to 1945. The Tasmanian genocide, incidentally, is the only one of which I've heard which was one-hundred per cent successful. Nobody on the face of the Earth has a native Tasmanian as a forebear! As is now the case with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, there is a new strain of ethnic – cleansing bacterium which makes conceivable remedies of the past seen pathetic or even absurd. In every case nowadays: Too Late! The victims are practically all dead or homeless by the time they are first mentioned on the six o'clock news. All that good people can do about the disease of ethnic cleansing, now always a fait accompli, is to rescue the survivors. A watch out for Christians !
Kurt Vonnegut jr. Writer, New York, Member of the Advisory Board of the Society of Founders of the International Peace University
Silje Marie B. Vallestad,
Divvya S. Rajagopalan
SO WHAT DO WE DO WHEN THE RULERS WAGE A WAR?
Two young people met a year ago, a young Indian girl studying international law and a young Norwegian girl, studying international relations. They met at the Student’s Forum 2000 in Prague in 1998. A few month later they met again as delegates at the Grand forum 2000 in Prague. Now, in July of 1999, they meet again as participants to the Peace Summit in Vienna. We meet here as friends, representatives of two different cultures and continents and as two young women with a common goal; aiming to create a world that works for all.
So many times we have been asked questions of how or why we have been chosen to be delegates at these prestigious events. We still are in search of an ‘intelligent’ answer. Our participation at these conferences is not to come up with intellectual approaches or solutions to any of the issues discussed here or there or anywhere. What we are aiming to do is to project the young ‘World Voices'.
The 'voices' of the young people, who do not have the opportunity to participate at events such as this, but are voicing their opinions through us because we all want to create a world of understanding and not destruction. A world of sharing and caring instead of a power struggle which results from egotism. While this is easier said than done, what happens when rulers wage a war ?
The crisis in Kosovo; each one of us here probably has similar views but experienced from various sides and perspectives. The importance lies in writing or sharing these views to create one solution instead of analysing each experience in its entirety and thereby forgetting the whole.
The jubilance over the entry into NATO was soon forgotten and overshadowed by the fact that the Czech Republic was to take up arms and fight in protecting Kosovo, days after the fiftieth year celebrations of the establishment of the NATO. The excitement that was evinced at the beginning took the shape of rallies and protests for and against the NATO intervention in Kosovo. Inevitably, sides were taken by the Czechs against one and another for supporting or believing in a certain issue. Where was the unity that manifested itself in the form of celebrations just a few weeks ago? Is it really this easy to destroy unity? And if yes, then why? The solidarity and the peace that was advertised with much zeal and zest, was relegated to the back shelves because war was easier?
As a citizen of a developing country, having lived in Prague for a third of my life, I feel European, and to an extent I think European. These mixed feelings do not mean that I am less Indian, it just means that I am European as well. The ethnic Albanians are 'Kosovites'. They have been there for hundreds of years and have as much of a right to be there as the Serbs. But the world insists on calling them 'ethnic Albanians' first and then maybe Yugoslavs. Man has delineated borders and then fought to keep them that way. These lines have been drawn without any regard to the fact that there are certain towns that will fall right in the middle and certain people who do not want to be divided. The sub-continent went through the same problem fifty years ago. Lines were drawn between India and Pakistan by Man, divided one country into two, deliberately over the years have set the two against each other, using religion as the main weapon. It is ironic, really, to think that all religions talk of the same values and morals. It is ironic that the Hindu fundamentalists manage to stir riots all over the country, when we, in India have more muslims than Pakistan.
Have we as people not learned anything from the gory and tragic wars of this century? Why have we not abandoned the thought of war and looked for another way? The truth is that today's 'talks' are a product of war and not a goal and thus war is inevitable. The definition of war either has to be re-defined or abandoned. We cannot continue using the old definition in a new paradigm, a paradigm where war is 'okay' when waged by the 'good' people and not okay when waged by the 'bad' people of the world. A war is either legitimate or illegitimate. In this sense we are in a situation where the grey must be overlooked and the picture to be seen in terms of black and white.
The United States of America is the world's lone super power, it dictates virtually every trend in the world, from computers to wearing Baseball hats, from the economies of the world to the intervention of the NATO in Kosovo. It is aware of the influence and the power that it has over the world. Keeping this in perspective, was is okay to wage war on Milosovic because he was Milosovic, or was it 'wrong' simply because a war is a war and it leads to losses and tragedy no matter what?
My understanding of the war in Kosovo is stripped of all the academic analysis as I am here in august company that is more than accomplished to deal with the academic issues. I now, as a citizen of this world and not an Indian or an Asian, pose a question instead of searching for an answer, "Is War worth the result ?" "Is your Past our Future?"
It was with deep sadness - and with great fear - I read the cover of the biggest newspapers in Norway that morning not too many months ago; "Norway in war" ("Norge i krig") it said in big, bold, black letters. Only once before had I seen a similar sized headline on a newspaper, and that was when the Gulf War started….
Somehow, however, it felt a bit different this time. Maybe it was because I am older now? Or maybe it was because I now know people on both sides of the conflict I am witnessing through the television screen (thanks to the United World Colleges)? Or maybe it simply was caused by that for the first time in my short life I experienced, or maybe I should say realised, that my government, my people - actively was taking part in a war!
I don't know what it was, but what I do know is that I and many other Norwegians have been living on tip-toe for the past few months. The one minute we have been living our normal lives going to our normal lectures and eating our normal dinners, and the next minute we have been listening to interviews with Norwegian soldiers stationed in Macedonia, with Kosovo-Albanians who have managed to escape the boarders, and with our Prime Minister who was telling us how important and correct it was for Norway to take an active part in this conflict.
I, myself, have been lucky enough (or maybe unfortunate enough - as it has made me question the issue even more) to have friends on both sides of this terrible conflict. I have been presented with the 'hard hitting facts' from both sides and the more I witness, the more I question both the truthfulness of the media and of the governments. Is war and conflict just created by power sick and egoistic people needing to show who they are or sell more newspapers? Is the world really becoming like the movie "Wag the dog"?
I definitely question whether this is the reality with the U.S's participation in this conflict. And I question whether this is also the case with the Norwegian government (was this just a way for the 'newly' elected Christian Democrats to show that they had some guts after all?). And I very much question the media's objectivity in this conflict.
None of them would ever admit that they have a different interest in this conflict than "serving humanity" or portraying the truth; CNN certainly wouldn't admit to it, and Financial Times would try to avoid mentioning it, and The Times would also be very reluctant to say that perhaps the NATO aggression on the Balkans (as it surely is affecting more than Belgrade and Pristina) is a very element of a media-manipulated operation to destabilise the power of the European Union, make Russia even less harmless by destroying their historical "ally" and with motives perhaps somewhat beyond the "fight for humanity".
Because, since when where bombs and war considered human help? Since when did religious texts or philosophers ever claim that the way to peace is to 'plant' a mine or drop a bomb? Doesn't that in the long run only sow seeds of more hatred? It is like taking a painkiller to ease a migraine, while you are aware that only a couple of hours later the pain will come back. It is not curing the disease, it is only relieving the pain for the moment!
Sometimes we wonder what our world has come to. Where will our role be in the future. Will it be trying to remove all the "landmines" the generation in power today has planted, while unconsciously planting new ones ourselves - that our children again will have to remove. Or will it be continuing the work that the generation in power today has started, and build on their success. We hope it is the latter, but that can only happen if you will let us and other young people around the globe take an active part in creating our world and not just living the world you are creating for us.
The only way to peace is by understanding and respecting other cultures, and the only way to reach that stage is by learning to know people from other cultures. Nationalism and struggles for power is not the way of the future. Cultural pride and identity, with mutual international understanding and respect is.
Hence, the way to further peace at the Balkans is through the young people in that area. Only through a new start with fresh ideas and a willingness to learn to know and respect each other can we reach that stage. We will end our statement with a few words a young woman from Bosnia wrote for a book the organisation World Voices is editing:
"I have lived through 5 years of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a young person I have seen a nightmare happening. It has not been my nightmare till then, nor of any young people I knew, but it became ours with the first granates, first deaths, first food-shortages.
I remember the feeling of incomprehension, of watching the first manouvres of war on television and experiencing them as just that - a bad movie, something that has nothing to do with my life, something that will go away in the morning and never happen again. My first disappointment with the world was when I perceived this joint machine of war and politics eating away on our humanity.
I still don’t know answers to many questions I care about: did this war really have to happen? Was it worth the gains for anybody? Who is guilty for what? Are they any winners, or just survivers? How do survivers learn to feel safe again, and how do they start living a normal life? Is there a normal life, when you know that other wars are destroying other people at this very moment, and our Balkan war is not stopped nor healed yet, and question is if it can be healed.
The other day, my brother has told me that his friend has seen a message on the Internet pages called "Bosnia: Broken connections" , where somebody previously from my hometown is asking if anybody knows anything about me, and where I am now. I am so excited while thinking who of my many friends is looking for me. I really don’t know since with all of them I have "broken connections". Is it Naida who, I heard, is studying music in Amsterdam, or Haris who finished up in Sweden, or Marijana who ended up studying English like me but in Serbia, or Mirna who, I heard, already had two children on the island Brac in Croatia, or ...
This is the process I am interested in - patching up our connections, restarting our discussions where we left off - in the caffees, during the schoolbreaks, somewhere between idealism and anxiety for the future.
The very same process I would like to see happening globaly - ordinary people of this world need to talk, young people have to find their visions and have to know the ways of making them come to life. We need to take our power back from the cold offices and old army chiefs. We need to stop believing in the rhetorics of war we hear from our presidents and from the media. Because force will never bring peace to anybody. Like I said, I don’t know the answers, but I know that we should not look back for them. Our answers lie forward in this new time and space of 21st century.
What I want to tell the world is that I don’t know about its gods, but I believe in its people. I believe in people who have lived through pain, and come out of it stronger. I trust people who have experienced powerlessness and anger, but keep their dignity, humor and energy alive. I admire women who become strong despite our society’s neglect of women. I support people who fight for the rights of the minority groups, for equality of all races and ethnicities, for lesbian and gay rights, for a non-sexist anti-war world.
Since I know or have heard of people who do this and more, I believe in the future of all us.
And that is why I still love the world we live in."
Silje Marie B. Vallestad,
Founder of the Youth Organization, World Voices, Bergen
Divva S. Rajagopalan, Anglo American College,
Prague
I wish I had an 'intelligent solution' - as do, I am sure, many others. Instead, I find myself asking new questions every day. I am happy to share the questions, but they will provide no reasonable 'exit strategy' from this unbelievable tragedy that we are witnessing. The questions are the same many people are asking themselves and each other, and offer no new insight.
I don't quite understand how the world got to the situation we are facing today. The problems in the former Yugoslavia keep re-emerging and it is like watching a bad movie, playing over and over again, but each time in a slightly different theatre.
This always seems accompanied by the bluff and bluster of politics and posturing with obviously little serious strategising for dealing with the underlying issues. How did the world slip down the slope to the use of military force at this particular moment in time? The actions in Kosovo had been going on for some time. Why now? Could there not have been other ways to pressure the government without the blunt edge of military force which has seemed to result in even worse ethnic cleansing than before?
Now that we are here, what next? Must NATO not find a strategy to 'prevail' over Milosevic to avoid similar situations in the future? Why did the world ever try to bargain with such a criminal? If there were to be a cease-fire today, would it be possible to bargain with him now? For what?
Certainly, it does not seem possible to return to a 'status quo ante' - refugees could not return to Kosovo and live under a Milosevic regime. Is the world going to establish an international protectorate in Kosovo – if so, will it be managed better than Northern Iraq?
As you see, as I go on, I simply come up with more questions. It would be easier to make a blanket statement such as, "All fighting should cease and negotiations should begin immediately." But there seems shallow 'wisdom' in such a statement. So much for my 'intelligent solution.'
Jody Williams Ambassador of the
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Nobel Peace
Laureate Alexandria, USA, Patron of the Society of Founders of
the International Peace University