“Violence closes doors and minds. Good
conflict-resolution opens them. A principled, impartial and
innovative approach is now the only way to prevent a new
tragedy in the Balkans. A limited United Nations presence
could be one element in violence prevention, says TFF
director Jan Oberg. Below you find some examples, developed
by us during our work with the Kosovo conflict since 1991.
We’d be happy to have your comments and your suggestions.”

“Many things can still be done – but only as long as
there is no, or limited, violence. When violence is stepped
up, opportunities for genuine solutions diminish.
Governments and citizen around the world can take impartial
goodwill initiatives, for instance:

• A hearing in the United Nations General
Assembly. We need to get the facts on the table,
presented by impartial experts as well as by the parties
themselves; listen actively to them for they have
interesting arguments and question their positions,
activities and policies.

• Meetings all over Europe with various
groups of Serbs and Albanians to discuss their problems.
Governments and NGOs can provide the funds, the venues and
the facilitators.

• Send a high-level international delegation of
“citizens diplomats” to Belgrade and Kosovo and have it
listen and make proposals on the establishment of a
permanent dialogue or negotiation process but not on what
the solution should be.

• A Non-Violence Pact. Pressure must be
brought to bear on all parties to sign a document in which
they solemnly declare that they will unconditionally refrain
from the use of every kind of violence against human beings
and property as part of their policies.

• Simultaneous withdrawal of Serb police and
military from the region (with the exception of what is
needed for self-defence along the borders) and
disarmament of the Kosovo Liberation Army. This
should be combined with a “Weapons-Buy-Back” program:
citizens and paramilitary units are remunerated for handing
in their weapons to collection points controlled by the
UN.

• Monitoring of this process by UN Civil Affairs and Civil Police (200 or so are enough).

• Positive incentives. Make it known to the
parties that international organisations will help them with
things they need if they refrain from violence now and
engage in talks. As a vital element in the conflict is
underdevelopment, poverty and deepening economic crisis,
there is considerable space for economic “carrots.”

• Show respect. Tell the parties that any
solution they reach voluntarily will be accepted by the
international community. This means not treating them as
helpless, clients or inferiors.

• Get Yugoslavia back into the OSCE. Lift the
suspension of Yugoslavia in the OSCE, it was unwise from the
beginning to exclude Yugoslavia which then, naturally, did
not want to continue hosting the OSCE missions on its
territory.

• UN Civil Police mission. Get perhaps 200
United Nations Civil Police on the ground to prevent
incidents like those we have seen from exploding into
something nobody can control.

• Independent government initiatives. Don’t
wait for the European Union to find a common policy on this
issue. The Scandinavian countries and Switzerland could play
a particularly active role in this conflict.

• Arrange seminars where a lot of imaginative
longterm solutions can be suggested, analysed and
debated in a non-binding manner, almost like a brainstorm –
such as:

– various types of autonomy,
– international presence,
– protectorate or other types of transitional
administration,
– demilitarisation,
– normalisation of everyday life before an overall solution
is reached,
– conditions and modalities for remaining in
Serbia/Yugoslavia
– humanitarian presence and human rights monitoring,
– economic development, e.g. creation of a Kosovo
Co-Prosperity Region or Economic Free Zone,
– UN or OSCE peacekeeping,
– trusteeship,
– condominium (shared control of one government by two or
more states),
– “cantonisation” or a division of Kosovo,
– federalisation (i.e. Yugoslavia consisting of not only
Serbia and Montenegro but also of Kosovo)
– combinations of these ideas that the parties, citizens’
groups and others would accept.
– In summary, develop a multitude of options, don’t narrow
it all down to “Our way, or war.”

• Acknowledge that violence begins when people
see no ideas or ways out or when they are afraid of
losing face. Violence-prevention means helping parties
overcoming that feeling.

• Focus on interests, not positions. There
could be governmental and nongovernmental dialogues on
specific, concrete needs and interests – education, health,
finance, culture, etc. – with the common understanding that
the longterm status of the region will be more easily solved
if the parties have found solutions to pressing issues for
the millions of citizens involved, particularly youth.

• Establish a truth commission. The situation
is already infected with prejudice, racism, hate, propaganda
and media blackouts. The majority of foreign media cover the
violence, not the underlying conflict; they often side with
the party they sympathise with but seldom analyse the
problems that must be solved.

• Establish a reconciliation commission with
impartial international organisations and highly respected
international figures. Reconciliation is not needed only
after wars: it is much easier to heal psychological
wounds when 20 rather than 200 000 have been killed and no
material damage has happened.

• An OSCE-like process for the Balkans. There
are more than enough problems in this whole region – and in
its relations with the rest of Europe, the EU, NATO etc.
There is poverty, animosity, misery, human rights
violations. Serbia has more than 600 000 refugees, the
largest number in Europe. There are international “national
interests” in all the Balkans. It is time to develop a
compre-hensive approach through a series of conferences and
dialogues. If the OSCE, the UN, small governments and NGOs
cannot take such an initiative, who can? When is the
time, if not now?

“It is not the task of outsiders to dictate
anything. Only the parties themselves can find an
acceptable and sustainable solution. What we foreigners can
do now is to help the parties take the necessary steps back
from the abyss and prevent a tragedy that could cost
hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and spread to
Macedonia,” says Dr. Jan Oberg.

“This is why TFF facilitated a dialogue in writing
between Belgrade and Prishtina authorities between 1992 and
1996.

Our proposal emphasises the process and does not
say a word about the end result. To break the deadlock, the
best option is a combination of a new kind of UN presence
combined with non-governmental mediation. The UN is the
least biased and most conflict-resolution competent
organization we have. A UN presence should be new, limited
and entirely non-military. We call it a United Nations
Temporary Authority for a Negotiated Settlement,
UNTANS.

It aims to facilitate, in a context of order, safety and
respect for human rights, a peaceful and longterm negotiated
settlement of all conflict issues between the parties. It’s
difficult, but not impossible. To summarise, there are so
many ways to approach conflicts such as that in Kosovo.
Violence is the result of fear and lack of good ideas. The
best help governments and NGOs can bring just that – new
ideas and therefore no threats or force,” concludes TFF’s
director.

We can mail PressInfo 24 about UNTANS to you, just
ask us. You may also read it or order the full mediation
report at http://www.transnational.org. There you will find
all the relevant links to Yugoslavia and the Kosovo
province, too.

March 6, 1998