Northern Friends Peace Board

Peace in the Balkans: Current Challenges, Future Prospects

The first of two Northern Friends Peace Board day conferences on this theme took place at Lancaster Meeting House on 19 June, with Friends and attenders present from several monthly meetings. We were reminded at the beginning of the day of the various actions and discussions in which Friends had been involved over recent weeks. In particular the deep distress expressed at Britain Yearly Meeting in May, coupled with a determination from Friends to seek positive long- term peaceful alternatives.

The first speaker of the day was Bob Jiggins, from the Research Unit in South East European Studies at the University of Bradford, and a member of Huddersfield Meeting. Bob sought to set the wider historical and geo-political context in which the Kosovo conflict has arisen. He challenged the myth of the Balkans as 'The Powder Keg of Europe', highlighting the centuries-old experience of outside intervention which former Yugoslavia has suffered, with one invading force after another exacerbating tensions and setting one group against another. It is far from clear which, if any group, actually 'belongs' in Kosovo, with several coming from common ancestry.

Bob saw the Rambouillet agreement (so-called) as an ultimatum not very different from that of the Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum of 1914. He suggested that the Serb's greatest interests over the past ten years has been to hold together the Yugoslav Federation. Whilst acknowledging the extremely oppressive measures of the Serb authorities before March 24th, Bob did not buy the humanitarian arguments for Nato intervention. But the economic, environmental and humanitarian consequences have been tragic. The newest 'peace accord' and approach to reconstruction bears more resemblance to the Versailles settlement after WWI , in its punitive approach to Serbia, than the post WWII ‘Marshall Plan’. For the future Bob hoped that there would be a massive visible relief operation throughout the region, that we would all seek to educate ourselves more, and that the roles of Nato and of the UN should be debated. He also wanted to consider the indictment of Nato's political leaders for war crimes.

Nigel Chamberlain, of Cumbria and North Lancashire CND, began by explaining that he had been a "slow-starter" on this issue, having been at least partially convinced by Nato's humanitarian arguments. He had moved to a position, however, of being convinced that Nato has no right to claim that it has been acting on behalf of the international community. At the end of the cold war there was an ideal opportunity to put more energy and resources into the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) rather than Nato. Nato has instead used the time and space to reorganise and to develop a new strategic concept, which has deliberately sidelined the UN.

In Kosovo, Nigel believed, the OSCE monitors had been sent in far too belatedly. He shared Bob's view of the Rambouillet agreement as an ultimatum, which, some sources now suggest, was deliberately arranged to have the 'bar too high', so that the Serbs could never agree to it. And inadequate account was taken of the likely response of the Russians. Relations with Russia have been severely damaged, and Nigel pointed out that Russia had withdrawn from millenium bug conmpliance discussions, had withdrawn from its policy of no-first use of nuclear weapons, and that START II negotiations were off the agenda. There was also deadlock at the disarmament conference in Geneva. Nigel felt that we should challenge the legality of Nato's action, and explore the possible future role of the UN.

Hugh Miall, of Lancaster's Richardson Institute for peace studies, and from Lancaster Meeting, urged that, as Friends, we should not avoid the complexity of the issues. He acknowledged that the past few months had been a time in which it was hard to be a pacifist. Slobodan Milosevic must be held accountable for his actions, but violence begets violence, and Nato's action had intensified the violence. Hugh recognised that there could be a strong case made for the valid use of 'instrumental force', but believed it set a dangerous precedent.

Violence in the region is far from over; the answer to this is not to do nothing. Hugh described a project of the Richardson Institute which over the past year or so had brought together young Serbians and Kosovo Albanians. After initial tensions, there had been a breakthrough in their workshops, when people spoke of their fears and began to develop practical proposals. There was a strong willingness to maintain a multi-ethnic community. The atmosphere since then has changed dramatically, with young Kosovo Albanians no longer seeing the value in meeting with Serbs. There are no easy answers, Hugh concluded, and we must be alive to the ethical dilemmas.

In the latter part of the meeting, we tried to identify issues of most concern to the group, and then worked in smaller groups to identify priorities for future action. In doing so we recognised that major issues of reconstruction and war-crimes were not within our control as Friends.

It was felt that there could be opportunities for and benefits from contacts and communication between the peoples of Britain and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - bridge-building in a similar spirit to earlier Quaker East-West work. We could make an effort to learn more of the history, culture and language of the region. Links between children might be particuarly valuable, as might twinning. Was there a way in which Friends could play a useful role in helping others to get accurate information - both in this country and in the Balkans - perhaps by setting up a web- site, or regular succinct information digests? Could we establish contact with the Serbian Orthodox Church in this country as a way of making links with the church and people in Serbia itself?

At the same time, we should not forget the rest of former Yugoslavia, which is still recovering from earlier conflicts as well suffering repercussions of this latest one.

It was suggested that it would be very timely for peace-organisations to seek more ways of working together and of working with voluntary organisations from other sectors. Of particular concern was the OSCE which has at its core a concept of security based on cooperation rather than coercion. Could we promote this more vigorously and challenge the new role which Nato has invented for itself?

We recognised that the process of building peace from here is going to long and hard. We discussed briefly whether there might be a value in such processes as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and in doing so realised that we also had to confront the darkness in our own society and political establishment. The challenge was how to help light grow. As Friends we seek not just political solutions, but to answer that of God in all people.

Notes written by Philip Austin June 1999