Thus, should the parties – all of them – be able to voluntarily agree on Kosovo becoming an independent state, fine with us. However, it does deserve a more or less philosophical consideration: Will the world be a better place for all if the 50-100 more or less secessionist movements are granted their own states? If Kosovo is, why not most of the rest where similar, sometimes much worse, repression and war has gone on for decades? Is it wise to promote particularistic solutions to humanity’s problems or should we at least try to meet the general challenge of human civilisation with a somewhat larger and more generous vision than one based on exclusivity and nationalism, on ethnically cleaner rather than mixed societies?

We would argue, philosophically, that it is a defeat for humanism and for a global civilisation whenever some people slam the door and say that they can only live with similarity and want not to deal with difference.

An independent Kosovo looks to us as such a defeat for both the Serbs (yesterday), the Albanians (today and tomorrow) and for the international community. Or to put it otherwise, there have been enough special splitting done in the former Yugoslav space. The agenda of today and tomorrow is integration into Europe and the global, diverse community; the agenda of yesterday was nationalism and parochialism with a veneer of human rights endorsed by Europe.

Of utmost importance in any conflict-resolution process is the change of vision. One of the most respected and experienced peacemakers, Adam Curle, wrote in 1986 that:

“In the slow move towards negotiation, settlement and the eventual restoration of fully peaceful relations, the significant stages are the changes of vision rather than the signing of agreements that result from them, the gradual erosion of fear, antipathy and suspicion, and the slow shift of public opinion.”

When at negotiations representatives of the different parties change from being just that to becoming human beings in the eyes of each other, new possibilities emerge. The turning point at the Camp David talks is said to have happened when Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachim Begin of Israel exchanged photos of their grandchildren. Furthermore, it is well-known throughout the history of conflict-resolution that new visions and possibilities open up to the parties when they focus – together – on issues and not on each other – that is, when they get “soft” on people and “hard” on solving the problems that stand between them.

Finally, Buddhists tend to see suffering and violence as fundamentally rooted in compartmentalisation of reality. Liberation from the war-mentality becomes possible when we see each other and our problems as part of a much larger, common whole. Thus, the famous Buddhist monk, Nhat Hanh, is convinced that “the two sides in a conflict are not really opposing, but two aspects of the same reality.”

In summary, the parties in the Kosovo conflict and the international community would do wise to reflect a little less on themselves and a little more on their common conflict as well as on the common European reality and larger world of which they are a part. With a movement away from the present history-based “only-one-solution” thinking by all sides – from which all will lose something – towards a future-based “many-possibilities” philosophy, everyone can win something.

Difference is not a threat. It’s a strength.

Reduce fear and provide a future with socio-economic development

Most secessionist movements work for an independent state because they have a history filled with repression and humiliation; in many cases they have experienced economic deprivation too. It’s humanly very understandable to want protection from that – “we are fearful and the only protection we see is a homeland where we are protected by borders, walls and weapons so we shall never again have to fear.” So too the Kosovo Albanians up to 1999 and the Serbs, Roma and other minorities in Kosovo since 1999.

Thus, the question is: how do we reduce fear and increase mutual trust and reconciliation? The answers are: by changing structures that lead to fear and, equally important, help rebuild the soul, the mind and the human communities and promote peace education and non-violence for present and future generations – all to enable a new peace culture to take root.

Thus, status talks are necessary but by no means sufficient. No status decision for any place will work if, for any side, fear continues to dominate everyday life – and fear never comes alone, it thrives together with its partners: hate, wish for revenge, images of the neighbour as enemy and stockpiling of violent means for protection.

We believe that most people living in Kosovo and the wider region are trapped in the old thinking because of what they have experienced for decades. Undoubtedly, they would benefit – and peace be given a chance – by a positive vision that effectively combats fear. Unfortunately, the international community has very few professionally educated and trained conflict-managers and no organisations fully devoted to handling conflicts with professionalism and impartiality. Be this as it may, it must provide opportunities, models, meeting places and facilitation for a broad-based societal dialogue about possible futures for Kosovo and the region that increase hope and diminishes fear.

The economics of peace-making

As mentioned in PressInfo 214, it is very unlikely that any status decision will be a solution if the pervasive economic misery of both Kosovo and Serbia proper continues. It would be a gesture of quite some importance if the same international community that punished the ordinary citizens and rewarded the mafia with ten years of sanctions and then did a 78-day bombing that also hit the people but strengthened the Serb and Albanian extremist leaderships, decided to implement a kind of Marshall Plan for the region and thereby secured welfare and social security for all. It should encompass the neighbours such as Macedonia that had its identity and economy shaken from these thoughtless policies.

This would be important in and of itself, but it would also be psycho-politically important for the citizens of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. They need recognition of the fact that they suffered from the consequences of international politics and the power games between their own leaders and the very same international community.

If something like this was done, people would likely put their grievances with each other and with the international community behind them. Will the international community that is now cutting down various types of assistance to the region change its policies and show a bit of generosity?

And there is one more fundamentally important aspect to be taken into account: a status decision for Kosovo must aim to – also – make it possible for the international community to withdraw, or heavily reduce, the presence of the UN, NATO, OSCE and the EU; many NGOs are likely to leave too. For six years the Kosovo province has benefited from thousands of foreigners with high salaries renting, spending, employing and consuming. Prices have skyrocketed, young locals gave up their education to be employed by international organisations, the social structure has changed and many depend on the internationals for their living. On the untold effects and local viability of this presence, see PressInfo 162 from 2002.

The problems facing Kosovo the day the international community departs should not be underestimated. It could well plunge the province into even deeper economic misery.

In summary, we are convinced that everything will depend on fear reduction and genuinely positive socio-economic prospects. Ignoring these two main aspects will doom any final settlement of this conflict.

The parties may, for understandable reasons, not be up to it yet. Is the international community?

The TFF Kosovo Solution Series

# 1
Why the solution in Kosovo matters to the world

# 2
The media – strategic considerations

# 3
The main preconditions for a sustainable solution to the Kosovo conflict

# 4
The situation as seen from Serbia

# 5
The arguments for quick and total independence are not credible

# 6
What must be Belgrade’s minimum conditions and its media strategy

# 7
Nations and states, sovereignty and self-determination

# 8
Positive scenarios: Turn to the future, look at the broader perspectives

# 9
Many thinkable models for future Kosovo

# 10
Summary: From “Only one solution” towards democracy and peace

NOTE
Relevant background links for this series.

© TFF and the author 2005

Tell a friend about this article

Send to:

From:

Message and your name