Bosnia’s Past, Present and Future
In: Forum Bosnae, 2024
PAST
Minister Jan Pronk. We are sitting here at your home in The
Hague together on the 24th of August, 2023, remembering
being in Bosnia on several occasions during the war. I would
like to ask you a few questions that Professor Mahmutćehajić
of International Forum Bosnia has for you for the anniversary
volume of their journal, Forum Bosnae, due to come out
this fall. What has Bosnia meant to you in your life and
career?
My career goes back to the 1970s. That was a period in which
I – as a Dutch politician and already a minister from 1973 onwards
– was quite involved in the relationship between my country, the
Netherlands, and Yugoslavia. We had a very unique relationship
in the field of international development cooperation with
Yugoslavia, because we saw Yugoslavia as a model for many
other countries. There had been major conflicts within the state of
Yugoslavia before the Second World War and then during it, but,
at a certain moment, the Yugoslavs had been able to come together,
bringing stability to their own country, their state, a nation-state,
on the basis of sophisticated legal and political constructions that
they created themselves. Many different languages, many different
nationalities or sub-nationalities, many different religions, all
with their different histories, were brought together, I would say,
under the leadership of somebody I admired very much at the
time, Marshal Tito, in order to have peace. Now, of course, there
was still inequality, particularly economic inequality between the
northern and the southern parts of Yugoslavia. But problems were
solved at a political level, in negotiations based on national law,
and decisions were implemented. We worked together, Yugoslavia
and the Netherlands, in the 1970s, within the framework of the
United Nations too, spreading a message of peace and
development.
Yugoslavia, of course, was also a very important member of
the Non-Aligned States – President Tito, together with President
Sukarno of Indonesia and others, such as Indian Prime Minister
Nehru, had created the group of non-aligned countries. I was
thrilled by this, because my feeling was that in the Global South
– there was a different terminology at the time – what was needed
were forms of emancipation, development, and peace that had not
been dictated by the West or the North. And, in the 1970s, it turned
out that many countries were thinking in much the same direction.
Developing countries, of the non-aligned Group of 77, as it
was called within the United Nations – and Yugoslavia was one of
the leading countries of the Group of 77 – came forward with
ideas on how to build a new future, a new international economic
order in the world as a whole based not so much on Western
values as on common values. Of course, the values of the United
Nations and the Bretton Woods system, were meant to be common,
but they had a Western flavour.
Well, I still had these contacts in the 1980s, when I was
Deputy Secretary-General of one of the United Nations’ organizations,
UNCTAD, I met many Yugoslav politicians there. In
1982 we organized a major world conference in Yugoslavia,
where countries came together to discuss future financial and
trade relations. It was a difficult period economically, a worldwide
recession. Many countries were highly indebted. All countries
had to adjust their economies to the new circumstances. During
the negotiations we tried to protect the interests of developing
countries, and Yugoslavia played an important role.
Then at the end of that period, there it was, all of a sudden, but
of course you could foresee it: the end of the Cold War. I became
a Minister again in the Dutch cabinet in the same week that the
Berlin Wall fell down. We were confronted with a totally new situation.
We were thrilled because, after the end of the Cold War, it
would now be possible to bring forward a message of peace in the
world as a whole. No arms build-up anymore. Conservation of the
environment, of nature, sustainable development, and poverty
reduction, that was the essence. As a matter of fact, those were the
challenges that had already brought the Netherlands and Yugoslavia
together during the two decades before.
The euphoria did not last long. A couple of years later, that
new situation of peace between countries had changed into a situation
in which domestic conflicts were escalating within many
different countries. This was not the case only in Yugoslavia. It
also happened in many African countries, in Sudan, in Rwanda, in
Congo, in Burundi, in Liberia, and in a number of Asian and Latin
American countries. Domestic conflict – sometimes based on
national differences, sometimes religious differences, sometimes
of an ethnic character – escalated into armed conflict. Yugoslavia
was unique, however, because it was on the European continent.
All the other conflicts escalating into war were taking place on
other continents.
I became involved again, because in the Dutch cabinet I held
the position of Minister for Development Cooperation and also,
for a short period, Minister of Defence. We discussed what we
could do and we participated in UN peacekeeping operations in
Yugoslavia, bringing food, medical and other care to places where
there was a lot of violence and destruction. And there was the
United Nations peace operation, with the Dutch Blue Helmets in
Srebrenica. I went many times, together with my collaborators, of
whom you were one, Marion, to Sarajevo, where we had discussions
with members of the government and with non-governmental
organizations, trying to help a little to improve the situation in
Bosnia itself. But we failed.
I would say we failed particularly when the genocide took
place in Srebrenica. I went there with you in the days after, and
we saw the women and the children arriving in Tuzla. It was quite
clear that the men and the boys had been and were being killed,
killed by the Serbs. So, we in the Netherlands felt a certain coresponsibility,
because we had not been able to protect the people
– which was the mandate given to us by the UN Security Council
– together with a strong feeling of solidarity. We had to do everything
we could to help the people of Bosnia in particular, but also,
victims of violent conflict in other parts of the former Yugoslavia.
I, we wanted to demonstrate solidarity not just in the field of
development and humanitarian assistance, but also politically.
The question was how to assist Bosnia in particular, because
Bosnia was the main victim in Yugoslavia as a whole, how to help
keep it alive and become, once again, a model of pluriformity.
Before the war Bosnia had been such a model. a bastion of
pluriformity. In Bosnia Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks, different
religions, different cultures had been living together within one
community. Bosnia was attacked from outside rather than from
inside. When the war broke out, well, how could we help this
former nation-state, young, of course, but existing, to stand up
again as a model? I met several politicians in the country. One of
them was Rusmir Mahmutćehajić. I had many and long discussions
with him. After the war, he asked me whether I could help
him by funding a project, a forum, a platform for discussion and
thinking about the future. And that’s what we did – Forum Bosnia.
It is a Bosnian forum, not a foreign forum for Bosnia. And we
were very pleased that we could help.
PRESENT
What do you see now? What do you think of Bosnia’s right to
exist as an entity? That right is being questioned by others.
Do you do you see a role for Europe in this respect?
Bosnia was and is a small country, with different groups
within its borders. It is not a foreign construct. It is the result of
decisions made in Yugoslavia at a certain moment to have different
states, independent, within borders that existed already when
Yugoslavia was a federation. In Bosnia, Bosniaks, Croats, and
Serbs had lived together in the past peacefully. It was, as I said
before, a model of coexistence and cooperation. There were differences
– definitely – but there was a model. Maybe it was precisely
because it was a model that it was attacked by the Croats in
Croatia and the Serbs in Serbia. Maybe there was a certain jealousy.
And of course, nationalist feelings in these two other states
went back in history to before the period of stability that started
after 1945. So, if there is any nation which we should respect and
cherish, even though there are differences within that nation as an
entity, then it should be Bosnia. We must do all we can to keep it
all together. Again, it was not a foreign construct, though, of
course, the way in which it continued after the war was very much
the result of decisions taken under the Dayton Peace agreement.
But it is worth fighting for Bosnia as it is, rather than give up on
the idea of a pluriform but common nation-state as some politicians
are advocating at the moment, in particular in Srpska. So,
let’s try to keep Bosnia as it is. And, of course, within Bosnia,
political negotiations will have to take place. They will have to
reach compromise. They will have to give up some of their own
feelings and ideas and wishes. But that is true for all the parts
which together make up Bosnia. That’s my first answer.
Second, it is even more difficult at the moment than 20 years
ago, because of the new situation on the European continent.
After the end of the Cold War, we had a new major change – the
beginning of a new millennium – which resulted in a new cold
war between Russia on the one hand and the West on the other.
And you see the war in Ukraine and the many Russian efforts to
destabilise other countries in Europe. We have to stand up against
these efforts to destabilise Europe by splitting up countries,
because that would have a domino effect in many other parts of
Europe. So, it is in the interest of Europe and in the interest of
Bosnia as it is, as an entity, to withstand this tendency and so
maintain, as far as possible at the moment, peace on the European
continent as a whole. And that requires cooperation between
groups in Bosnia and Europe.
Does Europe have a role to play? I am strongly in favour of
Bosnian membership of the European Union. I think it’s important
for Bosnia. It would create prospects for young people, so
that they don’t need to leave the country to find jobs or an income
somewhere else, which is catastrophic for the economic, social,
and cultural future of the country. I think it’s also important for
Europe. Presently Europe is very reluctant as far as membership
of new states is concerned. And I understand that because many
of the potential new members of Europe bring their own risks of
domestic conflict escalating into violence. Europe wants to be a
stable group of countries, the European Union. So, why bring in
sources of instability? It is a reasonable question, but I have a
different view. The sources of instability are there anyway. At the
moment Bosnia is not stable. So, do we in Europe prefer sources
of instability within our frontiers of the European Union or at our
borders? The easy solution is to keep them away, beyond the
European frontier, but then they still exist. And, nowadays, that
offers the Russians, or others, a chance to use and manipulate
those sources of instability. They will escalate and threaten peace.
Violent conflict at the other side of European borders will bring
potential conflict to Europe itself. In my view, in order to tackle
the sources of conflict within those countries, bringing them in is
better than closing our borders to them. I say this not only so far
as Bosnia is concerned, but also with regard to a number of other
countries, potential new members of the European Union. I am
strongly in favour of an enlargement of the European Union as an
alternative to something others are advocating – enlarging NATO
by bringing new countries into NATO. In my view, that would be
risky, because it would lead to more confrontation and greater
chances of international conflict and war than offering them
membership of a stable European Union.
So, firstly, it is important for both Europe and Bosnia that
Bosnia stays together. Secondly, Europe has to integrate fragile
neighbouring countries within its own EU community and assist
them to become stable and prosperous. Thirdly, within those countries,
and Bosnia is not the only one, people have to work together.
And, I would say to the Croats and the Serbs and the Bosniaks, be
proud of your history, the history you yourselves created after
1945, when you were able to work together – you kept your differences,
politically, ideologically to a certain extent, ethnically and
religiously, but you were able to work together economically. You
could travel everywhere, you could study everywhere, you could
leave the country and come back to it. Yugoslavia was a source of
stability. It enriched Europe. So, be proud of that contribution,
which you delivered to Europe as a whole. And go back to that
state of affairs and show the world that you can live together and
that you can resolve your conflicts by political means, rather than
by splitting up completely or by fighting.
SREBRENICA, AND ELSEWHERE
We were in Tuzla when the women and children came in,
during and after the genocide in Srebrenica, and the
Netherlands tried to help in the aftermath of that terrible tragedy.
What is your view now on how things have developed
since Srebrenica and after the creation of Dayton and the
creation of Bosnia as a unitary state?
Let me first say something more about Srebrenica. I felt great
guilt. Dutchbat was there to protect. We were not able to protect,
but the mandate was to protect and we didn’t do it. Those who
slaughtered the people of Srebrenica, Mladić and his soldiers,
were fully responsible and guilty. But, the Dutch, what about us?
As a politician, I felt guilty, because I was responsible, of course,
for sending Dutch soldiers as UN peacekeepers to Srebrenica in
order to protect civilians. I felt that, as member of government I
was co-responsible for the way in which they fulfilled the mandate.
We have sent them with light arms equipment only. There are
some other excuses as well, but it does not take away the fact that
we failed to protect the people and that as a consequence nearly
eight thousand Bosniaks were massacred.
So, I felt ashamed and may other people in my country feel
the same However, many others in the Netherlands tried to forget
and deny any co-responsibility for the failure. In the Netherlands,
we tend to blame others rather than ourselves. This attitude has
led to a difficult political climate and I would say it is still difficult.
Since 2002, on the 11th of July I attend each year the commemorative
events in The Hague, where Bosnian people living in
the Netherlands think again about what happened and mention
the names of all the newly-found dead, reburied in Potočari. It is
a moving event. People in the Netherlands do not deny that genocide
took place, but they deny our having been involved in it.
Bosnian people in this country put pressure on the press, and on
political parties, to rethink, again, what happened and how they
should react to it. Some Bosnian people in the Netherlands are
active in the fields of education, theatre and art. They have been
able to bring the message, but not everyone is listening. There is,
again, no denial of genocide, but there is a denial of our involvement,
co-responsibility and failure. And there is always a risk that
people deny that a genocide even took place. That is what people
in Serbia believe, and also in Republika Serpska and elsewhere.
This is deplorable and we should not get tired telling the truth in
order to prevent that new generations will become indifferent.
However, I would like to offer a word of consolation. I have
been involved in many conflicts around the world and there have
been many genocides. I was involved at a late stage in assistance
to the people of Cambodia. In the nineteen eighties the world
didn’t even want to know that a genocide had taken place there.
Later on, I was in Mozambique, in Rwanda, in Somalia, Sudan
and in Darfur. Two years ago, genocide took place in Tigray, in
Ethiopia. Last year it started again in Darfur. Presently there is
mass slaughter in Gaza. I could continue. It’s always denial, not
only of involvement, but also of the facts themselves: “It didn’t
take place. There were no mass killings, or, anyway, it wasn’t
genocide”. However, and the world has to learn and politicians or
opinion leaders or the press or churches or whatever must learn
that the victims who say that they are being attacked, that their
brothers and their sons have been or are being killed, that their
mother or their daughter is being raped – that they speak the truth.
The victims are always right. They have the right to speak out,
and others have a duty to listen. If we do not fulfil that duty to
listen to the victims, then the killings will continue. The cry of the
survivors and of the children of the dead must be heard
Now, of course, having fulfilled your duty to listen, you have
to set further steps: organise justice, establish courts and trials and
offer reparations. To a certain extent all that is taking place, but
always too little and too late. That was also the case for Bosnia
and Srebrenica. However, and this is another word of consolation,
people in Bosnia are not the only ones who are being forgotten.
The same applies to victims and survivors of injustice
elsewhere.
FUTURE
What is more, you have to think about the future, to create a
society, a national society as well as an international society, in
which the sources of conflict can be eliminated. Sometimes it’s
an economic source, sometimes it is the jealousy of one group
against another. Sometimes it is a long-standing history, whereby
groups have been fighting each other for ages, Muslims, Hindu,
Christians, Jews, or, within these religions, sub-religions and
ethnic groups. And after the end of the Cold War, the old idea of
nationalism became alive again. Nationalism had led to the world
wars – the First World War, the Second World War. In order to
halt nationalism and war the United Nations were created.
Bringing countries together, in which Yugoslavia played an
important role, included an effort to keep nations alive, stable and
safe, and to make clear, within nation-states that different
minorities should be able to live together. That was the message
of the United Nations, based on the rights of minorities and on
human rights. Nowadays, nationalism is not only rising again in
Europe, but also in the Middle East and in Africa.
Basil Davidson has written a brilliant book about nationalism
in Africa. He blames Europe because we had nations, we
were fighting each other, and, after the end of the fighting, we
created nation-states. And we exported this European idea of the
nation-state to Africa, without also bringing the message of stability
and coexistence within the nation state. This has become a
major problem for Africa, because most wars in Africa take place
within the borders of individual nation states. These countries are
not disputing each other’s borders; they are disputing the basis of
the nation-state. By applying in Africa during the period of colonisation
the model of the nation-state, model as had been developed
in European history, Europe has given the wrong example
and the wrong message. As soon as African countries became
independent, their leaders were eager to follow the example of the
colonial empires. Instead Europe should give a different example,
the present-day European Union, within which nations are staying
together, whereby problems within nations – and they do
exist, in Spain, for instance, or in Sweden, where minorities are
marginalized, or, even though it is no longer a member of European
Union, in the United Kingdom, where there are the problems of
Northern Ireland and Scotland and Wales – are being solved at the
political level. There is never a definitive solution, but there are
temporary solutions based on talks rather than fighting. This
European example is also valid for all the states in the former
Yugoslavia. Taken seriously, it would have consequences not only
for Bosnia, but also for Serbia and its relations with Kosovo. It
would also have consequences for Albania. Macedonia, Moldavia,
Hungary, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Turkey. In all these countries
within or just outside Europe we must do all we can to avoid the
escalation of the sources of conflict into violence. European integration
of nation-states together with integration of all minorities
on equal footing within individual nation-states is the only way to
establish sustainable peace.
I’m saying this as a has-been. I’m 83 and I have been politically
active for many decades, including within the framework of
the United Nations. But I’m no longer an active politician. I’m
standing aside. I’m studying what’s happening in the world. And
people like me should not preach. What we can do is openly admit
our own mistakes, so that young people, who have to carry on,
know what the possible pitfalls are. It is not up to older people to
design the future of Europe. Not in Western European countries or
in Bosnia or in the other countries of the former Yugoslavia either.
That is the task of young people – it is their future, their culture,
their employment prospects, their views on what’s going on in the
world. They are also the ones who will benefit most, because the
present situation of instability and threats and recession is making
young people in particular suffer. And it is important for all those
countries and particularly, for people in Bosnia, that they be able
to get access to good education, if possible in a multicultural
framework, so that they can learn from each other’s views.
There could lie, in my view, a task for Bosnia Forum, a task
to shape the future. You don’t have to share other people’s views,
but you do have to understand them, even if you do not share
them – the fact that you know them enriches you. Then you can
work together to make the group in which you co-exist with other
people, whatever their background, better off. Now that’s education.
That is culture. It is theatre. It is music. It is also employment.
And that is what previous, older generations have to make
possible for young people. Older generations very often think too
much in terms of their own past interests, and past interests are
not future interests. Take for instance, climate change. It is a major
threat to all people, everywhere, women, men and children.
A threat to old, young and yet unborn people. A threat to people
with different colour or belief. All will have to live together, not
to fight, but to address together the two main risks for future life
on our earth: rapidly increasing climate change and escalating violent
wars within and between countries. These are threatening
the future of all generations and of young people in particular.
When we insist on thinking along the lines of nationalism and
self-righteousness, perhaps we are making the survival of future
generations impossible.