THE conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina has never been a conflict between the Serbian people and the rest of the population. It is a conflict of principles, not of nationalities.
one side is the modern concept of an open civil society, in which people of different nationalities, ethnic roots, religions, traditions and convictions can live together and creatively co-operate. On the other side is the archaic concept of a tribal state as a community of people of the same, blood.
That is, on the one side stands a concept that has been one of the cornerstones of the current European integration process, one that represents the only hope for today's global interconnected civilisation to survive. On the other side is a concept which for millennia has stained human history with blood and brought forth lethal fruits, the most horrifying of them to date being World War II.
On the one side, a concept with its emphasis on equality and an equal dignity for all human beings, on the other side a conviction about the exclusive status of some group who through only a chance of birth were made to belong to a certain tribe. On the one side an emphasis on what brings all people together, and their respect for the otherness of others and their solidarity; on the opposing side an emphasis on what makes them different and what divides them. On the one side, a respect for the unique human being with a sense of his own responsibility, on the other, a cult of collectivism under which an affiliation to the pack is more important than a person's own qualities.
In short: on the one side the hope for an auspicious future of the human race, on the other a relapse into its darkest past.
In their attempts to work out a peaceful settlement, the international community used the term "warring parties" to describe the various peoples and their troops. But in so doing, the international community thus endorsed the purely ethnic interpretation of the conflict.
It was not because the negotiators were not skilful enough in drawing maps or devising compromises that their well-meaning efforts remained unsuccessful. When they agreed to an ethnic interpretation of the conflict and tried to reach an ethnic settlement by seeking a fair ethnic division of territory, they unwittingly followed the monstrous ideology of the instigators of the conflict. They abandoned the very values of civilisation which they were called upon to defend.
They failed to see what the conflict was all about:
What appears on the surface to be a conflict between peoples is in its very essence a conflict between two notions of society, of state and of the world in general. Isn't it obvious that the fundamental and, crucial dividing line in all of the former Yugoslavia is actually the line between the ethnic fanatics who are adherents of an authoritarian state based on national collectivism, and those who want to live in peace, in an environment of democracy, and civic co-operation? And aren't the geo-graphical boundaries between the ethnic groups of a much lesser significance than the mental and moral boundaries between the initiators of ethnic cleansing, of organised rape of women from another people, of the genocidal killings and terrorist attacks against civilians and those who simply want to be at peace with the others and to live like human beings.
What is going on is a conflict of civilised coexistence of civic-minded people - that has a specific tradition in Bosnia and Herzegovina - with inhumanity, violence and the evil of ethnic fanaticism.
It is an offence against the Serbian people and a betrayal of the civic notion of society when evil is identified with Serbian nationality. But it is equally misguided when evil is not identified at all, for fear of hurting Serbian feelings. All peoples have their Karadzics and Mladics, either real or potential. If such men do gain a greater influence than they have in other parts of the world - as a result of a mix of historical, social and cultural circumstances - it does not mean that the people they come from are a criminal people. Such individuals harm everyone, including their own people whom they usually rape first when, launching their pernicious work.
In other words, let us beware of attempts to lay the blame for evil on whole peoples. That would be the easiest way towards adopting the ideology of the ethnic fanatics. Instead, we must consistently oppose the evil perpetuated by them, in whichever people's name they may purport to act.
This dangerous conception of the "warring parties" not only has a philosophical, or moral, dimension of unwitting acceptance of the ethnic principle as the highest value while ignoring the difference between aggressor and victim. It also has a political dimension: it is clearly impossible to equate the lawful army of a state operating within borders recognised by the whole international community with undercover army units terrorising a civilian population in the name of a political entity that has never been recognised by anyone. And it is most absurd when a person who is supposed to answer to an international tribunal as a war criminal is at the same time accepted as party to negotiations about the division of an internationally recognised state.
THE hatred deliberately fomented among the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as in the larger territory of the former Yugoslavia appears to grow with every new day. The evil committed in the name of a certain people provokes hatred for that people as a whole.
Moreover, evil, as we very well know, is contagious. Hatred breeds hatred, atrocities which are perpetrated by one prompt other atrocities to be committed by another. The concepts of a tribal state and blood vengeance draw peoples into a vicious circle of reckoning with no end.
What is happening in Bosnia is a test for the whole of Europe. The Bosnians are not fighting for themselves only. They are fighting for us all: for the values of a civilisation that we share and that we must note betray by remaining indifferent to their fight.
We know from our past history the consequences of indifference turned into betrayal. The effects took a heavy toll then. The whole democratic world had to pay dearly for the restoration of its freedom. We must not allow concessions to evil in one part of Europe again pave the way for evil on a global scale.
The solution is not to join the side of one people against another people. The solution is to oppose most forcefully all those who implant and nurture hatred in the human mind and to support most forcefully those who want to break this vicious circle and restore mutual respect and commitment to co-operation.
If the concept of civic coexistence loses in Bosnia and Herzegovina it has lost all over Europe.