Waiting for the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation

AIM Banja Luka, January 28, 2001

At a meeting of the three Bosnia-Herzegovina commissions for war crimes at which representatives of the Bosniaks, the Serbs and the Croats spoke exclusively of victims from their respective ethnic groups, the leader of one delegation said that he and his counterparts "are in the process of creating three conflicting versions of the truth." If we continue like this, he added, in fifty years our children will fight over whose version is the right one.

This anecdote was used two years ago by Neil J. Kritz, director of the Rule of Law Program of the U.S. Institute for Peace, and Jakob Finci, chairman of the Jewish Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to promote a project for forming a Commission for Truth and Reconciliation. According to their idea, the Commission should focus on the experience of the victims and analyze the wider context in which the crimes and torture took place, examining those aspects of them which the courts cannot and never will examine. "In this way the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be assisted to jointly determine what in their social and cultural structures led to the latest dissolution of their society that was so brutal and inhuman, so as to avoid similar mistakes in the future," the authors say. Or to put it simply: the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina should face their painful past and free themselves from their collective trauma.

If there is political will, Bosnia and Herzegovina could get a Commission for Truth and Reconciliation this year. This is, at least, what a group of enthusiasts -- who at the beginning of last year formed a non-government organization to determine the truth and reconciliation which includes, among others, well-known public figures Jakob Finci, Srdjan Dizdarevic, Vehid Sehic and Branko Todorovic -- hopes for.

The advocates of reconciliation and the truth visited at the end of last year The Hague, where they discussed the idea of institutionalizing the Commission with representatives of the Hague tribunal. Their plan to have the Commission legally defined at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina earned the support of the international institution. A bill regulating it should be drawn up and after a public debate forwarded to the Bosnian Parliamentary Assembly for adoption. Srdjan Dizdarevic, director of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, expects the bill to be ready for the public debate as early as April, 2001.

Reconciliation is rarely and shyly discussed on the Bosnian political scene. It seems ever less as time goes by, whereas punishment is sought for members of other ethnic groups. Expert and scientific circles are little different, and rarely does an intellectual speak in a dissonant voice at round tables organized by one or the other non-government organization, but his message hardly reached anyone outside the halls where such gatherings are held.

Why is the public being silent on the issue of reconciliation? "For our politicians who win voters by their rhetoric of national homogenization, reconciliation is a dangerous subject and they are unwilling to accept it," sociologist and publicist Slobodan Nagradic explains.

Ordinary people even when they understand what the issue of reconciliation involves, cannot comprehend what the Commission's role should be. A blitz opinion poll taken by this reporter on a random sample of twenty people has shown that not one of the respondents had any idea of what purpose the Commission should serve. Of several RS politicians asked to say what they think of the idea not one really knew what the Commission for Reconciliation was supposed to do. They had only heard that similar bodies where organized and operated elsewhere.

Asked, however, whether it is possible to forgive and whether reconciliation is necessary, ordinary people show much understanding. Their most frequent answers are the following: "Without reconciliation there is no future," "We don't have to love each other, but we shouldn't hate each other either," It is humane to forgive..." All of them, of course, want crimes to be prosecuted, because "criminals have names and surnames..." A man whose son perished in the war says: "I seek neither punishment nor vengeance. I want to know what happened to him." A former soldier, wounded on two occasions, explains: "I didn't want the war to happen, but I had no choice. I see now that it was a horrible stupidity. I used to shoot and might have killed someone... We should forget all this and think of the future!"

Asked whether the time has come for reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nagradic gives a positive answer. "Spontaneous forms of reconciliation have made the best progress. It is absurd, but smugglers did more for reconciliation than politicians."

Sociologists warn that not all those who experienced the horrors of war should feel as if nothing had happened. The war has left deep wounds and scars. "This is why a Commission for Truth should spearhead talks that should be held after every war and massive violation of human rights. It is impossible to say in such conditions that 'nothing horrible happened' or 'let bygones be bygones; everybody is equally to blame'," says professor Vojin Dimitrijevic, a member of the U.N. Human Rights Committee of long standing.

Although there is a need to talk, there is still no place where talks can be held. Dizdarevic says that the idea of forming the Commission was only promoted by a coalition of non-government organizations. This, of course, is not enough, given the underdevelopment of the non-government sector and its limited social influence. The lack of public understanding, therefore, comes as no surprise.

Nagradic also blames the news media for insufficient support to the idea: "If you check newspaper reports of the past year you will see that reconciliation is not mentioned at all. You will not find a single text on this issue." We ask him how the public should be mobilized, and Nagradic responds: "An organized effort by politicians and state bodies is needed, primarily by the government, the judiciary, bar associations, associations of jurists and crime experts, all news media, artistic associations and other organizations..."

The people we talked to did not have a clear stand on institutionalizing the Commission at the level of the state. Nagradic is especially doubtful of pretensions to establish the truth, explaining the danger of delving too deep into the issue by the fact that the Serbs, for example, are still not fully certain whether they lost or won the Battle of Kosovo (in 1389). One expert with a political and scientific reputation, briefly dismissed the idea because "it means creating a spy organization for the Hague tribunal."

The silence surrounding the Commission indicates that it might sooner surface in the parliament than in the wider public. This is a well-tested way of solving a problem without actually solving anything.

Branko Peric

(AIM)