THERE IS NO ALIBI FOR A CRIMINAL

Professor Miklos Biro on moral obligation of a psychologist to condemn war crimes

The stance that in a psychological war, "some kind of satanization of the enemy is inevitable", unavoidably reminds of the genocidal propaganda which was abundant in our civil war.

AIM, BELGRADE, October 5, 1994.

Dr. Miklos Biro, psychology Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad, became known for his committed texts in the "Borba", "Nezavisni", and "Kosava", where he consistently propagated antiwar stances. His book (Psychology of Post-Communism) was recently published in an edition of the Belgrade Circle. The immediate cause for this conversation was an interesting debate Professor Biro started in the "Psiholoske novine" (Psychological Journal) with Dr. Petar Kostic, who is a professor of Military Psychology at the University of the Army of Yugoslavia.

J.B.: Professor Biro, in a polemical article in "Psiholoske novine", you have practically accused the military psychologists that they have provided an alibi for war criminals by their theoretical stances.

M. Biro: First of all, I am not sure whether those were the stances of one man or part of an integer military doctrine. But, if they appear as a component of teaching Military Psychology, there is no doubt that they can cause inconceivable damage.

Namely, what is the issue here? Using the results of various investigations and presenting a review of different theoretical stances, the lecturer of Military Psychology teaches future officers at the Military Academy that there is no such thing as a "clean" and "humane" war, that the Second World War could be "efficiently" terminated only after German cities had been levelled to the ground, and Japan hit by nuclear bombs, and it is even excplcitly stated: "Reprisals against the population and inhumane treatment of the fighters

• once they become the victims of war (the wounded, prisoners) have always been means for inflicting the greatest losses to the opponent: loss of morale as the human factor of war... Briefly, to require from soldiers to wage a 'clean', 'humane' war means to ask them to behave like fools"(!!). Truly, the Geneva Convention is quoted in the text and commanding officers are advised how to prevent crimes, but that part is completely unconvincing in comparison with the previous, intelligently interpreted theses that brutality and "disregarding" of humne principles are necessary for the sake of increasing military efficiency.

One would somehow squeeze all this into the category of theoretical bizzareness, if it were not for the reality of the present war which pointed out that it might be a general strategy of our army. If it were not for the ruins of Vukovar, Sarajevo, Mostar (general Momcilo Perisic who is the Chief of the General-Staff, participated in its destruction, and he is a psychologist himself), and the recently publicized "doctrine of mass retaliation" of the leading strategist of the Army of Yugoslavia, Radovan Radinovic or the strategists of "total war" Karadzic and Mladic, which are warning about the possibility that it is the fundamental military doctrine transferred from the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) to the Army of Yugoslavia and the army of the Republic of Srpska. Such a doctrine can be very convincing when it means that it is applied against our enemies, but I am not sure that it would be too pleasant if it would also mean that the enemy were to apply it against us. While the supporters of this doctrine were demolishing "enemy" cities all around ex-Yugoslavia, we wisely kept our silence, but when the NATO threatened with bombing Belgrade, we all at once remembered the Geneva Convention and humane principles.

J.B.: In the debate, you opposed the opinions that war criminals are ordinary, normal people.

M. Biro: I did not oppose the thesis that a war crime can be committed by a normal man in certain specific circumstances, primarily in a state of outstanding fear or under long-lasting strain. But, I could not remain calm to "psychological" evidence that the best fighters are most frequently perpetrators of war crimes, because they "get carried away by the ardour of battle" or "seized by the blood of war". In his lesson for future officers, my opponent says: "In order to prevent violation of humaneness... it is possibble to threaten that the crimes will be punished, and the criminals persecuted by law after the war. Why wait until then? The most important reason is that one should deprive oneself of the best fighters when they are needed the most" (!!!).

The thesis that "it could happen to anyone" implies an alibi for war crimes. Because, theft can also happen to anyone, moreover - it may even bring significant benefit to the thief, but it is sanctioned of course. The very reason why the Geneva Convention and other norms of the international war iuris prudence were adopted was to make war as "humane" as possible. After all, if we are striving towards "efficient" warfare, why not use poisonous gases and other forbidden means of mass extermination?

Such a standpoint together with the description of psychological training of commandos which includes elements of "dehumanization", i.e. abolishment of the God's commandment: "thou shalt not kill", directly reminds of the role of the para-military troops in the present civil war, and even more directly imposes the question of the role of JNA and the Army of Yugoslavia in their formation.

Just as the stance that in a psychological war "... some form of satanization of the enemy is inevitable", necessarily reminds of the genocidal propaganda which was so abundant in our civil war. It is true that war propaganda is part of every war, but the Americans satanized Saddam Husein in the War of the Gulf, and not the people of Iraq, just as they satanized members of the Vietkong and not the entire Vietnamese people. Because, when you proclaim a whole nation to be "genocidal", the only salvation and a logical defense for you lies in the - genocide of that nation. Such propaganda then becomes not only an alibi, but the initial impulse for ethnic cleansing.

The text I debated with has an upside-down, malignant initial hypothesis - that war is an appropriate human activity, that war "as a means and extension of politics" has certain sense. The other implicit hypothesis is that war is characteristic for human beings and that majority of people in Serbia approve of it. This thesis is clearly in disharmony with the fact that during the civil war about 300,000 people in Serbia (at least once) refused to respond to the call-up!

J.B.: From the very beginning of the war, together with your associates you have worked with the people who have returned from the war and with those who have suffered from stress disorders as a result of war. What are your experiences?

M.Biro: Under the auspices of the Soros Foundation, since 1991, we have offered help to people who suffer from the so-called post-trauma stress disorder. Our experiences acquired while working with them are completely contrary to the stated theses. They have pointed out to a series of cases of stress disorders in men who have often unwillingly participated in massacres and who have then been burdened by an unbearable feeling of guilt. All these fighters had previously been judged as courageous, and a large number of them had gone to war voluntarily, carried away by patriotic feelings, and later were abhorred by acts of the others in the battlefield.

Apart from these, we had cases of an outstanding feeling of guilt as a predominant symptom of a stress disorder due to participation in the war, and even, in a smaller number of cases, due to the fact that the war occurred at all (although these people did not directly participate in the war).

If there had been any enthusiasm about the war, it certainly was not typical for all the people in Serbia, and, judging by the mentioned number of deserters, it was not even the predominant stance among the population!

J.B.: What do you expect from your action? Do you believe that psychologists can change anything in the military doctrine by their influence?

M. Biro: I think that every psychologist (even a military one) has a moral obligation to employ his/her entire professional integrity in the struggle for a civilized society and control of the army by such a society. I also believe that it is a professional obligation of a military psychologist to act in favour of a defensive and not aggressive military doctrine.

Condemnation of war crimes by our military structures would carry great weight and have an enormous significance - not only because of the position the army should take in a civilized society we are constructing, but also and even more so, because of all those honourable members of the army who abided by the Geneva Convention and who were horror-stricken by the fact that the others did not!

Of course, there were crimes in every war. But all the societies who are concerned about their future had to disassociate themselves from these crimes. It is no exaggeration to say that the discovery of the crime in Mee Lay was a decisive factor for the decision to withdraw the American troops from Vietnam. By condemnation of the individuals, by condemnation of an incidence - the society is protected, and the institutions social relations are founded upon, the psychological categories (consciousness, moral values) which regulate internal control of aggressiveness, and the non-aggressive majority is protected from the aggressive minority.

Propagation of reestablishment of the fundamental social principles in our state must be the task of every psychologist. Because, this is an integral part of preventive social health.

Jan Briza