HCHRS President Sonja Biserko: “Edi Rama Surprised Me on Land Swap”

‘It is a long period of time behind us, very dynamic and traumatic. We were established in the midst of the war and our agenda was very much relating to the issues created by the war and the rabid nationalism of Slobodan Milosevic.” With these words the President of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCHRS), Sonja Biserko started the conversation recalling the time when the organization was established, its challenges at those testing times. She dwelt on different aspects of HCHRS’ activity related to its mandate to monitor the state human rights violations in Serbia.

In a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the situation in the Balkans Professor Biserko noted that as it is often said nowadays the Balkans are “unfinished business”. “Balkans is not only a regional issue; it is also European,” said  Ms. Biserko who noted that borders as recognized by the international community are still challenged.  In a comment on Kosovo-Serbia dialogue HCHRS’ President said Kosovo is the last phase of dissolution of Yugoslavia and thus the dialogue between them should be in the function of reconciling and normalizing relations. Answering a question on the supposition of a land swap between Kosovo and Serbia, Ms. Biserko revealed that Belgrade was always looking for the partner in Tirana for resolving Kosovo problem advocating partition and unification of Albanians and, of course, Serbs as well. “There was no such candidate to accept a role. To my surprise it came only recently through Edi Rama. I have talked to many Albanians in Tirana and they all claim that the unification would distort the balance within Albania itself.  That would certainly, encourage others to follow the same path, for example, Hungarians…,” she said.

Covid-19 was a topic of the conversation and according to her this crisis crystalized state of affairs worldwide. “We do not know how to deal with all of these.  Nothing will be the same once the crisis is over. The world is undergoing the transformation and the trends are long underway. The Western Balkans are part of that bigger picture,” said President of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia Sonja Biserko in the following interview:

Albanian Daily News: Madam Biserko it’s a pleasure to have you as a guest of Albanian Daily News and as our conversation is being held in mid-year of 2020 my mind goes back to 1994 when the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia was established. Seeing things from this perspective please can you share with ADN’s readers some of the major achievements of your organization in its almost 3-decade mission?

HCHRS’s President Sonja Biserko: It is a long period of time behind us, very dynamic and traumatic. We were established in the midst of the war and our agenda was very much relating to the issues created by the war and the rabid nationalism of Slobodan Milosevic. Ever since the Committee has been trying to expose Serbia’s prevalent ideology – nationalism – and, inasmuch as possible, alleviate its fatal effects on the entire scope of human rights, the country’s economy, the rule of law, regional and global relations and international standing, but, above all, on younger generations and attitude towards modernity and demands of the modern time, vs. deep-rooted patriarchalism, gender bias, etc.

Refugees and minorities – ethnic, religious, political – were the first targets of Serbian nationalism in action. The Committee was the only NGO engaged on the return of refugees to their hometowns. Thousands of refugees went through our office seeking help – from getting documents to providing legal help.  The Committee was also a pioneer in monitoring and reporting on the situation of other vulnerable groups such as national minorities (exploring the situation of some 30 minority communities), prisoners – especially confined women victims of family abuse and inmates of reformatories – psychiatric patients, institutionalized persons with disabilities, children in the first place.

From the very beginning we were focused on documenting causes and consequences of the Serbian imperial policy with the aim to help people, especially young generations, understand why Serbia ended up in isolation (at point she was qualified as a pariah state). We developed extensive publishing activities – we published 160 books including a comprehensive annual human rights reports and by-monthly magazine Helsinki Charter, Helsinki Bulletins dissecting ongoing trends in Serbia.

We also have ongoing education outreach programs, including schools of human rights, addressing nationalistic prejudice and the culture of violence, regional reconciliation and cooperation.

As revisionism gained grounds (I would say in the whole region) we started an important project YU- History (as of 2015) with an aim to sensitize young generations for what Yugoslavia really was.

A Multi-Perspective historical account was finalized in 2017. In tandem with over 50 researches from the region, the project has thrown light on seven decades of a life together from all perspectives: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Slovenian, Serbian, Kosovo-Albanian and that of residents of Vojvodina. As a result we published a volume under the title “Yugoslavia from a Historical Perspective” (also in English) and a bilingual portal offering far more multi-perspective and topic-specific studies than the book itself (available at www.yuhistorija.com. Among other things, the project includes summer schools (master classes), debates at all ex-Yugoslav university centers. We are now preparing the second volume which covers the period from 80s to 90s, the period which in fact is the introduction in the dissolution of Yugoslavia and brutal wars.

–As a follow up, which are some aspects of your platform that might have created friction with the government, and how have you been able to go on with your mission?

-The mandate of the Committee is to monitor the state human rights violations. Refugee return was the first action that was counter to the state policy and strategy because the mantra was “we cannot live together”. Therefore, there is no return.  Unfortunately, at that time the international community accepted this mantra and was not truly helpful in supporting activities that related to the return of refugees. The only successful return in the region was the return of the Albanians to Kosovo. Smear campaigns were organized against the Committee because we closely cooperated with the ICTY. It was by far the most difficult period for me personally. I testified at the London Court in Ganic case (on his side), and also at the ICJ in the case Croatia vs SRJ (on the side of Croatia). That was treated as treason. Media created perception of the civic society as exponents of the imperial West, Soros funded organizations and so on. It is more or less similar in most of the transitional countries.

–Madam President in what aspects, according to you, has the Balkans, the so called ‘powder-keg’ of Europe, changed during the last 3 decades and what has been the significance of naming the space of Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia as ‘Western Balkans’?

-Since the Balkans was an arena of big-power rivalry throughout the 19th and 20th centuries its fate was bound up with the geo-strategic interests and arrangements of big powers reflecting the international constellation and the balance of forces. The key events which determined the fate of the Balkans were the Congress of Vienna in 1814, the Congress of Berlin in 1878, the Conference of Versailles in 1919, and the Conference of Yalta in 1944. Because of its backwardness, intolerance, and numerous local conflicts, the Balkans has earned a pejorative reputation in international relations. Home to many small peoples living side by side or mixed together, the Balkans saw the sprouting of liberation movements, notably in Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia, in the nineteenth century. A number of Balkan peoples such as the Albanians and other Yugoslav peoples achieved their emancipation in the 20th century. Yugoslavia served as a framework within which all her peoples – Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Serbs, and Macedonians, Albanians – became emancipated.

The last fifty years of the 20th century were specific in that the bipolar constellation divided the Balkans into two spheres of influence, an eastern or Russian, and a western or American. Yugoslavia played a very prominent part on the foreign policy plane thanks to her standing in both East and West as well as to her position in the Non-aligned Movement.

The Yugoslav crisis definitely altered the geo-strategic position of the former Yugoslavia. Ten years of destruction, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and dominance of conservative ideas relegated Balkan countries to the periphery of Europe. As of 2003, the West established mechanisms for ‘normalizing’ and ‘disciplining’ the Balkans in three directions: membership of the Council of Europe, accession to a European Union association and stabilization agreement, and partnership with NATO. Furthermore, co-operation with the Hague tribunal was imperative for the former Yugoslav republics meant as an instrument to establish accountability and rule of law. This long-term framework calls for a well-thought-out strategy, above all the creation of a cultural and intellectual elite, especially technocratic and managerial.

The West’s strategic interest in the Balkans is to pacify and stabilize it in view of its geographic location and the porosity of its borders. In other words, the Balkans still figures as a strategic issue as a gateway to Europe in Turkey’s rear, though far less than before. Being unconsolidated the Balkans poses a long-term security problem for Europe (migrants, trafficking).

As it is often said nowadays the Balkans are “unfinished business”. Western Balkans term is only one of the political terms related to the Balkans. Balkans is not only regional issue; it is also European. Balkans reflect the impotence of Europe to keep up to its own values and principles. The Dayton Accords had been a face-saving gesture on the part of the West whose credibility had been seriously shaken by its inefficiency in Bosnia. The Muslims who had suffered long were the losing side and nobody wanted to hear their grievances. The fact is that Bosnia is now a dysfunctional state because of the constitution which was imposed by the international community.

Borders as recognized by the international community are still challenged, first of all, by the Serbian imperial aspirations in Bosnia, Montengero, Kosovo and North Macedonia. Serbia did not acknowledge new reality in the region and having in mind the change of the international context, erosion of the international liberal order she is still hoping for the re-composition of the Balkans.

–Among many open issues in the region the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia stands high on the political agenda. Two formats of the resumed Pristina-Belgrade dialogue, land swap an issue on the table of the talks, Kosovo President Hashim Thaci in The Hague. How do you assess these developments and your prediction for an eventual settlement of the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo?

-Kosovo is the last phase of dissolution of Yugoslavia and thus the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia should be in the function of reconciling and normalizing relations. Kosovo is an independent state and more than 100 relevant states have recognized it in its current borders. Therefore, the dialogue should focus on the substance of future relations. Ahtisari plan covered major issues but Serbia did not accept it.

There is a lot of potential for Albanians and Serbs to develop their cooperation. We could see that tariffs imposed on the Serbian goods imported to Kosovo exposed the relevance of the exchange within the region. Serbia has larger exports to Kosovo, then, let’s say, to Russia.  Only as a consolidated region we can become a relevant factor in the European affairs. Relevant in many ways. Unfortunately, regional leaders only simulate cooperation whereas they keep their communities as hostages by reviving nationalism and continuous homogenization.

–In the meantime, madame Biserko, much is spoken of involvement of Albania’s PM Edi Rama in the thorny issue of Kosovo-Serbia land swap. Please what can you say on this?

-Belgrade was always looking for a partner in Tirana for resolving Kosovo problem. Dobrica Cosic, writer and ideologue of the Serbian nationalism towards the end of 20th century, advocated partition and unification of Albanians and, of course, Serbs as well. There was no such candidate to accept a role. To my surprise it came only recently through Edi Rama. I have talked to many Albanians in Tirana and they all claim that the unification would distort the balance within Albania itself.  That would certainly encourage others to follow the same path, for example, Hungarians… Ethnocentric concepts are destructive, even once the ethnic state is consolidated. In our region we have three great national movements Serbian, Croatian and Albanian. Should they achieve their aspirations, they would blow the Balkans as we know. North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Kosovo would disappear. It would also mean a few more decades to pacify the region. All these newly emerged states are faced with migration problems. Young and skillful people are leaving, leaving the country without potential to transform. To stick to nationalism especially ethno nationalism would reduce potentials and prospects for development.

–The EU, US, Russia, China, Japan, Turkey etc. in a way or another are all involved in the WB and some of them with concrete platforms and initiatives like the ‘Berlin Process’, ‘17+1 initiative’, ‘Japanese Western Balkans Cooperation Initiative’ and on top of all the drive of all WB countries to join EU. What makes our region so attractive and which is the impact of such initiatives on it and its ongoing European integration?

-All these initiatives are important but the most relevant for the region is the EU strategy. The EU is not prepared for enlargement right now but has developed the strategy to help revive economies of the region by focusing on regional cooperation, rule of law, human rights… Unfortunately, local leaders are manipulating all mentioned factors as a way to avoid necessary reforms. The region is in the regression and is becoming highly authoritarian and illiberal. I did not expect these countries to become democracies overnight considering their patriarchal tradition and conservatism, but the immaturity of the local leaders is amazing. There is no feeling for the common good. Because dealings with Russia and China are not transparent, for the local leaders it is one more opportunity for corruption.

–What can you say about the cooperation of your organization at regional level, including the Albanian Helsinki Committee which was founded in 1990 when the country was embracing pluralism?

-The Committee was engaged in many regional projects, especially so in Kosovo, and still is. We have good relations with Albanian Committee as well. There are a lot of common problems, mutual contacts and exchanges are necessary and welcome.

–To conclude, Madame President, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about global uncertainty and unpredictability, and such sentiments are predominant in our region as well.  In this frame how do you see the world in the ‘post-coronavirus era’ due to its economic, political and social implications and how the ‘new normalcy’ will work?

-Covid-19 crystalized state of affairs worldwide – among many, a crisis of democratic legitimacy, international relations and global governance. We do not know how to deal with all of these.  Nothing will be the same once the crisis is over. The world is undergoing the transformation and the trends are long underway. The Western Balkans are part of that bigger picture.

In the analysis of the Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG), dedicated to the impact of the pandemic on the Western Balkan countries, it is stated that the current crisis represents a “turning point” after which nothing in the Western Balkans will be the same.

Two scenarios are possible. Further deterioration of democracy, path to autocracy, orientation towards China, economic collapse, worsening of a health and social situation, which we are already witnessing, as well as the government’s distrust in its citizens and vice versa. It is also possible to have a better scenario which implies that all weaknesses coming to light during the crisis are used to improve the relationship between citizens and government, and rectify the problems with democracy. This is less likely to happen.

Serbia was unprepared for the crisis, all of its weaknesses emerged, not only those associated with the collapse of the public health system, but also those associated with failed institutions, became evident. This is probably the reason why Serbia introduced the most rigorous measures (state of emergency) in Europe. Due to its own incompetence, the current government acted with panic, which resulted in its heightened arrogance in communication with citizens. We are now the center of the epidemic in the region mostly due to the incompetence of those who manage the crisis. Unfortunately, because of optimistic messages after the lockdown was over, citizens retreated to “normal” life, which also makes them responsible for the dramatic situation we are undergoing now. Encouraging is that the EU Summit in Zagreb (6May) is preparing the package for helping out with COVID19 consequences to all Balkan countries. The EU emerged as the most organized in dealing with the crisis and hopefully will build on this momentum. While presenting the program of the German presidency, Angela Merkel delivered an inspirational speech. Among other things, she pointed out that the cohesion is the key to the EU future. To quote her: “We need to be able to decide the future of Europe in this rapidly changing world. We need to decide whether we take Europe seriously, whether we want to. Europe’s freedom and identity to be safeguarded in times of crisis. So we need a strong European foreign and security policy.”