By:
Maria Theresa Maan Besic
Programme
Manager, Žene ŽenamaNovember, 2007
The aim of this document is to critically review of processes, which caused by national ideologies; to destroy the mythology and prejudice through development of civic awareness about the problems caused by manipulation of history; and to criticize the male policies which produce national violence, negotiations about the war and peace with the use of weapons, which women clearly demonstrate their view of the main actors of the war.
Impact of gender issues to peace
building in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Public
debates about civil rights and national identities pay very little attention to gender
dimension. Women are not members of peace negotiations and they have no
opportunity to make any influence on main events related to peace building. The
lack of attention in terms of women’s and gender issues during peace
initiatives have led to inadequate care for women during and after conflict,
and thereby a lack of women’s votes in policy making processes relative to war
and peace.
Women’s
organizations about the issues of women’s human rights and gender equality in
the context of patriarchal and poor country, where they are constantly faced
with obstacles such as ethnicity, culture, religion, marital status,
socio-economic status, consequences of the armed conflict, poverty,
discrimination. Is it possible that all identities are recognized through one
affiliation only? Is this affiliation competent in the process of facing with
the past events involving the members of other affiliations? Can we encounter
our past without personal recognition of our own affiliation, origin,
relationship we have or are building with others, of the space where we live
together with one another or next to another? Is it possible to start digging
into our memories twelve years after the war in order to discover all the
paradoxes of our complex identities? Women in the women’s groups feel that the
war and impacts thereof are totally outside of their scope of work and way too
difficult topics, which are beyond their power. So far a little has been done about educating
broader public and other segments of society, especially women’s groups,
intellectuals and politicians and winning their support to initiating a process
of understanding the war and war consequences. Apart from informal networks, this process
requires an intensive facilitation, communication and coordination on both
national and regional level.
The
development of politics of resistance in Western Balkan countries, Women in Black,
Serbia
Not
in Our Name! We Won't be Fooled by Our Own! „My
feminist ethics means that always I have in mind where I come from,
emotionally, morally, and politically. I come from the capital city. I inherit
the aggressive criminal regime. I come from the capital city where crimes
committed in our name are still glorified and denied today. My decision to
oppose that ceaselessly and publicly is a component of my feminist ethics. I
have decided to know and seek accountability for the innumerable crimes
committed in my/our name“ Staša Zajović
Their
missions are: to bring visibility to women’s nonviolent resistance, create
space for women’s voices and actions, to build networks of women’s solidarity,
to build peace networks, coalitions, and associations, to demand confrontation
with the past and the application of various models of transitional justice, to
educate women on different approaches for their strengthening, to create an
alternative women’s history and to start campaigns and legislative initiatives.
•The development of alternative women’s policy through antinationalist, feminist, and antimilitarist networks.
•Alternative education (workshops, seminars, lectures, panel discussions, and trainings)
•Publishing activities (recording an alternative history/herstory, compiling educational anthologies, etc.)
•Confrontation with the past – seeking accountability for war and war crimes
•Promotion of antimilitarism, including distributing information regarding conscientious objection and different aspects of demilitarization
•Challenging the patriarchal system – the deconstruction of masculinity through work with both male and female youth
•Support for victims of war and all forms of oppression
•Initiation of legislative initiatives (advocacy, lobbying)
•Challenging all forms of religious fundamentalism.
In
such activities, they serve, work with or support women:
•Grassroots
activists (from NGOs, informal groups, and initiatives), including women with
various ethnic backgrounds, educational levels, social backgrounds, sexual
orientations, and lifestyles•Young activists (from the alterglobalist movement, squatting groups, anarchist/ antifascist groups)
•Education workers (teachers and university professors)
•Trade union activists
•Media activists
•Female activists from political parties (primarily democratic, antinationalist parties)
•Women without institutional or group affiliations who have a strong sense of civil engagement.
The
main goals in related to three thematic areas: ‘Confronting the Past: A
Feminist Approach,’ ‘Women, Peace, and Security,’ and ‘Warning Signs of
Fundamentalism and Feminist Responses.’ And the most significant relates to the
need to create a new force for a feminist approach to Transitional Justice.
On
civil society – a couple of basic remarks are the autonomous civic organizing:
a space for civic engagement in which women and men can pursue their needs and
options; beginning civic initiatives; public action for the common good; taking
control over one’s own life and future; and exerting pressure on state and
other institutions in order to change them and improve the areas of life that
concern those particular institutions. Thus, the principles of civil society
are not to take over power but to change a value system and cultural mentality;
critical relationship toward any form if government (power): questioning
authoritarian state and institutions; autonomy in relation to any government or
political party; relationship towards politics: politics is not a mere struggle
for power or higher purposes, politics is about changing the quality of life,
the possibility to make a difference in one’s own life and in the lives of
others ; and a value system based on the idea that an individual is more
important than the collective.
A short overview of civil society
initiatives before the war: What was the importance of the first women’s
autonomous initiatives in SFRY?
-the
first autonomous feminist initiatives – autonomous in relation to official
social action: Women’s conference, Communist Alliance (Communist Party),
Union... the first (female) heralds of democracy;simultaneous feminist initiatives in Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana were gathering mostly women from University circles and their (female) students;
-the Yugoslav feminist network: mostly between Belgrade-Zagreb-Ljubljana, in the form of women’s/feminist groups, joined by individuals from Sarajevo, Prishtina, etc. This network held four conferences, the last one was in June 1991 in Ljubljana, only two weeks before the JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) aggression against Slovenia;
-topics we dealt with (apart from domestic violence): reproductive rights, and some of us - antimilitarism
Activism
(for feminism, peace, human rights) during the war: The basic features of number
of women in civic initiatives is far greater than the number of men, this is
pertinent to Serbia more than anywhere else, because significant antiwar
initiatives and actions were instigated and organized by women (not just from
women’s groups but generally from civil society) ; diversity of civic
initiatives; Reactions to nationalist and militarist actions of the regime; -
actions are less proactive and more re-active
Thus,
changes/differences in relation to the pre-war period are the social basis of
feminist activism has been extended, enriched, feminist activism now involves
women from all social strata, all levels of education, sexual orientations,
ethnic backgrounds; An exchange between refugees and feminist activists – from
victims of war, refugees (the example of Jadranka Milićević is most striking
for me) women became leaders, creaters of peace; feminists are not elitists – feminist demands
are made by women from many different backgrounds; antinationalism/ pacifism: as a political
position of engaged women’s initiatives; and visibility of women (can be seen
because they are demonized in the public campaigns against civil society
activists, mostly because they are advocates of transitional justice and
processing of war criminals, etc.)
Specific
features of Serbia in the process of transitional justice. Women in Black—Belgrade
came into being in October 1991, as a reaction to the warmongering and
aggressive policy of the Serbian regime. Confronting the past and transitional
justice are among the most important segments of the peace policy of this
network and group. We have transformed our feelings of bitterness, shame, and
guilt into acts of uncompromising resistance and civil disobedience. During the
war, our activism meant confrontation while ‘history was unfolding,’ while
criminal policies were occurring. Until October 2000, we protested against
state-organized crime. They believed—and still do—that the Serbian regime, the
Serbian armed forces that committed numerous crimes, and the institutions that
supported them are most responsible for the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
These could be classified chronologically:
I phase:
State organized crimes and denial of reality: the period during the regime of Slobodan Milošević under the slogan ‘Serbia is not at war’:
•The Serbian regime is the most accountable for the wars in the area of the former Yugoslavia – it conducted several aggressions (Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo) – therefore, Serbia participated in all the wars in this area, although the wars were not waged on its territory, except for the NATO bombing in 1999.
•The anti-war resistance was the strongest in Serbia; the number of deserters was the highest in Serbia.
II
phase:
The
period after the toppling of the regime – the period of high, yet unfulfilled
expectations:•the new authorities did not create a discontinuity with the policy of the previous regime, the opportunity to make a radical cut was missed after the changes.
•After the change of the regime, the international community offered Serbia great opportunities for transition from the criminal regime toward democracy – but it did not seize it.
•In Serbia, the refusal to confront the past is a widespread phenomenon.
III
phase:
After
he assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić (March 2003), institutional
organized refusal to confront the past – denial of the criminal past, has been
at work: •the rehabilitation of the representatives of the Milošević regime , especially following the elections in December 2003;
•there in no consensus in Serbia on the civilian scene, either, concerning the accountability of the Serbian regime: the ‘soft’ stream is prevalent, insisting on the accountability of all (relativization), while the ‘hard’ stream insists on the guilt on the part of Serbia, on collective accountability (‘cleaning one’s backyard first”).
Furthermore,
the basic obstacles in the work of the civil society, internal, at the level of
state and institutions are the nationalist character of all the relevant
institutions: Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, University, Writers’
Association, etc. all serve nationalism and the project of Serbian hegemony –
they serve as an ideological pillar of this project; and the rehabilitation of
the representatives of the Milošević regime, especially following the elections
of 2003 – the Law on Lustration and the Files on Secret Service associates was
never passed. Even these laws had been passed, it would not be possible for
such people to still work in police, judiciary and other public institutions.
There
is a climate of impunity on all levels in
Legal level: lack of criminal and non-criminal sanctions for those who
committed crimes in the past; refusal to fulfill international obligations, the
most significant of which is the extradition of war crimes-indictees; Political level: politics enables those
who served the previous repressive regime to return to the public and to
political functions now; and Moral level:
an atmosphere in which crimes are justified, criminals are celebrated as
heroes, and those who wish to punish crime and criminals are demonized:
-
The secular character of the state is lost – growing theocratization of the
state – the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) becomes a significant political
factor; - growing clericalization of public life: increased interference of religious communities, most of all SOC in matters of education, culture, media, women’s rights – reprpductive and sexual;
-Party-tocracy and party rule: the concentration of political power and influence in the hands of political parties – collusion between the political elites and organized crime;
- Degradation of the parliament: political parties have an exclusive interest to appoint their own people to positions in public administration, state enterprises, cultural institutions, public works; political parties abuse public resources, and use them for their own interests and needs, etc.
The obstacles at the level of society is overwhelmed
by a distorted value system, which becomes obvious when one analyses the
attitudes of citizens toward war crimes and the Hague tribunal:
Transitional
justice – Hague Tribunal – attitudes of people, Opinion polls done by the
Belgrade Center for Human Rights in 2005 – the question: Who committed most war
crimes during the wars in former Yugoslavia?
-The
majority of the respondents (74%) said that Serbs committed the least number of
war crimes, while Croatian, Albanian and Muslim forces committed more; as many
as 24% of the respondents said that Slovenes committed more crimes than Serbs;-Only one in twenty respondents believes that most crimes were committed by Serbs;
-The predominant opinion is that cooperation with the Hague is necessary only to avoid economic sanctions and the isolation of Serbia, which is a direct reflection of the dominant views of politicians;
-Srebrenica: in 2005 – 50% of the respondents thought they knew what happened there, while in 2001 this was 48%, which is such a small change, etc.
-In 2007, Women in Black carried out a research project ‘Women, security, transitional justice’ which shows that even among the most progressive women (activists in civil society and democratically oriented political parties) less than half (46,5%) consider that transitional justice should satisfy justice and restore dignity to the victims, while the rest believe that it is necessary only in order to qualify for international economic aid and increase the living standards;
-A mentality of ‘servitude,’ instead of citizenship is prevalent, as well as a feeling of helplessness, belief that citizens can not change anything themselves;
-There is an ‘epidemic of depression,’ loss and disappointment because of ‘unfulfilled expectations’ following October 5th;
-Most respondents (in WiB research) say they do not trust any state institutions, while some trust only the Church
-Growing dissatisfaction leads people to passivity, and mobilizes them only for nationalism and clericalization;
-Research in December 2006 (“Politics and everyday life’) has revealed that desperation is the prevalent feeling among the citizens of Serbia, and mostly among young people.
The Accountability for war and war crime
in Serbia
has not achieved a consensus within its civil society concerning the
accountability of the Serbian regime: a ‘soft’ approach is prevalent, which
insists on the guilt of all (relativism) as opposed to a ‘hard’ approach by
those who insist on the collective moral responsibility of the Serbian side
(‘starting from one’s own back yard)
-The
demands of civil society largely fall in line with the national consensus;-Civil society activists (women), mostly human rights defenders in Serbia, who play a political role – advocate to change to value system, they initiate activities against the glorification of the criminal past, but they are demonized – at the state level, but also by the majority of the NGO sector;
-Relations with institutions – so-called partnership instead of autonomy;
-Most NGO’s do not have the role of creating an independent civic public, but predominantly an economic character – their role is ‘not to make waves,’ they fit into the governing value system, etc.
Women’s peace organizations in the
context of national ideologies, mechanisms and places of institutional
responsibility (accountability) for peace and security – structural and social
peace-building
Interview with Sonja
Biserko, and Staša Zajović
What
did the women say after our introductory remarks: The basic problems of civil
society – based on statements of the participants (women)
Civil
society more or less fits along ethno-national lines, it fits into the
divisions of society on the basis of ethnicity through identities come down to
ethnicity and religion – we are forced into ethno-national groups, even though
we do not want to belong only to one entity; in this day and age, there are
divided, schools, BiH is a state of two entities and we accept this life, even
though we do not want to belong to only one entity; all three entities (3
nations) need to speak about their selves and their past, their own nation; government
creates hatred among the people; and Bosniacs keep holding all the key
positions in Sarajevo, nothing has changed since ’96.
Responsibility
of the civil society – conformism, passivity, fear to loose face in front of
the majority, credibility in the environment, lack of autonomy in relation to
government. In responsed they say what others want to hear, and not what we
really think, and if we were honest, we would be no different from the
politicians; fear of offending the majority within the same nation; the
government and the nongovernmental sector are like one;
-lack
of mutual support within the civil sector; people are become to sedentary, we
are not involved in politics – we only deal with domestic violence ‘we need to
change ourselves in order to change a women’s politics’; and people are no
longer interesting in our towns, nor in our country.
Society
we live in: fears, submissive mentality, distorted value system, disappointed
expectations:
-there
is fear – we live in constant fear, especially in fear of war, fear of
conflicts;-unfulfilled expectations, in 1996 we were full of enthusiasm, we were hopeful;
-the problem lies in the cultural/submissive mentality of the people, because ‘when we act differently, we are treated as traitors of the people’
-conflicts and tensions are reignited;
-distorted value system and the spiritual health of the people;
-conflicts between political parties, not just inter-ethnic relations, etc.
Furthermore,
the attitude of the international community – the international community
imposes certain terms and conditions, brining into question the autonomy of the
civil society: is part of the project of the international community; the
international community holds the ethnic balance; and partnership with local
communities suit the international community.
They
done so many actions to change this state of affairs through the following actions
of civil disobedience – street actions; creating spaces to where fear can be
expressed; encouraging women’s energy to create peace because ‘women were the initiators of peace even in
war’ ; Women must be more aggressive and advocate peace more ‘aggressively’; to
question and challenge the current state of affairs, and take responsibility
for the way we live; change models of actions, find new ones; encourage women’s
resistance and strengthen the peace movement; encourage responsibility and
accountability of civil society; act outside the ethno-national corps ‘go down
the path of the minority of the people’; distinguish between the actions of
civil society and the state; and lastly influence the institutions.
There
are numerous definitions of peace. One of the most influential ones emphasizes
the distinction positive and negative peace, and its author is Johan Galtung,
internationally acclaimed Norwegian scientist and researcher of peace.
His
definition means the following: Peace as absence of war is negative peace.
However,
according to Galtung, peace should not be considered as a mere absence of war,
but also as an absence of fear, hatred, poverty, injustice. Then it is positive
peace. Positive peace means that there is no war or violent conflict and that
there is equality, justice and development. Positive peace means that there is
no direct violence (physical, etc.), there is no indirect or structural
violence (poverty, exploitation, injustice, tyranny, etc.).
One
could summarize these concepts in the following way:
absence
of war = negative peaceabsence of war + social justice + development = positive peace
absence of direct violence + absence of indirect violence = positive peace
What
kind of peace are we talking about in today’s BiH? Positive or negative? What
do peace and security mean for you?
In
Bosnia and Herzegovina negative peace is prevalent because:- peace was forced, but without tranquility, ‘peace as cessation of armed conflict and cease-fire’
- we have the appearance of security, with all kinds of fears;
- many of those who started the war are still in power;
- militarized and ethicized media: they only portray conflicts, tensions and violence, not actions against those;
- media produces hatred among the nations;
- the political elite is ‘the noose around the neck of the people’
- there is corruption at the government and NGO level;
- organized crimes of all three ethnic groups is connected;
- corruption among representatives of the international community;
- distorted value system and morality.
In
Bosnia and Herzegovina, positive peace can be seen through the following:
-we
feel safer, some progress is obvious;-togetherness has reached a new level, we live side by side;
-there are mixed marriages
The
concept of transitional justice has emerged in the past few decades, and it is
constantly being amended, reshaped and enriched with new contents and models,
in accordance with the need to address the complex issues of the negative
heritage of the past. In brief, transitional justice is a way in which an authoritarian/dictatorial/totalitarian/undemocratic
society makes a transition into democratic order.
Mechanisms of Transitional Justice –
institutional system
Transitional justice encompasses all
forms of accountability: individual, collective, moral and political. All the
models so far have been a combination of various processes of transitional
justice as well as ‘the creation of new aspects of accountability, because the
models of transitional justice created so far do not provide answers to the
complex issues of the past and are not sufficient to break-away from the
vicious past.’ (Nenad Dimitrijević).
Therefore,
as there are no ready-made models that could be transferred and applied, it is
necessary to continually create new models of transitional justice. Such is the
Women in Black attempt of “gendering justice” , i.e. incorporating the gender
dimension, namely, a feminist approach, to confronting the past and
transitional justice.
Therefore,
transitional justice comprises of both
criminal and non-criminal sanctions, which include a scope of different models.
As for criminal sanctions, the most widespread model are war crimes tribunals
within the institutional legal system of a particular state. Furthermore, the
state also assumes responsibility for transitional justice through truth
commissions, compensation and institutional reforms. Thus, transitional justice
rests on four pillars: Tribunals and trials; Truth and reconciliation
commissions; Reparations; and Institutional reforms
Institutions
of international justice in the 20th
century
The
permanent International Court of Justice (ICJ): established in the Hague in
1920, after the end of The First World War and it is considered to be the first
international tribunal, made up of permanent independent judges and competent
for all international disputes.
The
Nuremberg Tribunal: founded in 1945 by
the allied forces – France, Great Britain, the USA and the USSR. The Nuremberg trials
started after the end of the Second World War
(in November 1945); the tribunal was made up of judges coming from the
allied powers, the winners of the war. The trials lasted for three months, at
the end of which 22 top ranking military and civilian officers of Nazi Germany
were sentenced. The majority were sentenced to death, some to prison terms, and
three were released of charges.
The
International Tribunal for Rwanda: founded in 1994. The seat of the Tribunal is
in Arusha, Tanzania. A very large number of drastic punitive measures has been
pronounced so far. For the first time in history, a sentence for genocide was
pronounced (Ayakesi).
International
Criminal Court (ICC): the first permanent global body competent to hold trials
of war criminals, based on their personal accountability. It was founded in
Rome in 1998, as an international judicial institution for the prosecution and
sanctioning of the gravest crimes: the crime of genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and aggression, yet only for those committed after July
1st 2002, when the tribunal began its activities.
At
the time when the Rome Statute came into force. The seat of this tribunal is in
the Hague, and it has been ratified by 104 countries. Unfortunately, it has not
been ratified by the great powers, such as USA, China and Russia.
Transitional justice within the
institutional legal system framework – Serbia
The
Law on Cooperation with the Hague Tribunal: adopted in April 2002 in the
Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was renamed later into
the State Association. Since the separation of Montenegro (May 2002), it has been
valid in the territory of Serbia. The Law stipulates the precise obligations of
Serbia, according to the UN Resolution 827, those being the following: allowing
investigations on the territory of Serbia, providing the documents required by
the tribunal, i.e. Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal, cooperation
of the domestic and the Hague Prosecution, as well as the obligation to arrest
the indictees and to transfer them to the Hague.
The Law on Processing War Crimes
In
2003, the Law on the Processing of War Crimes was adopted in Serbia. The
following bodies are in charge of processing the crimes: the War Crimes
Prosecutor’s Office, the War Crimes Council of the Belgrade County Court, the
so-called Special Court and the Department for the Detection of War Crimes of
the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia. So
far, few cases concerning war crimes were conducted before the Special Court in
Serbia.
Truth and reconciliation commissions
The
most well-known mechanisms in the sphere of non-penal sanctions are truth and
reconciliation commissions, lustration, the opening of secret files,
damages/compensation, rehabilitation of victims, commemorations, the erection
of monuments, apologies, moral restoration, etc.
The
mechanisms at the state level will be presented in this part, while the civil
society initiatives will be presented in the second part of the text. The
following countries, in chronological order, have established truth and
reconciliation commissions: Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Zimbabwe, Nepal,
Chile, Chad, South Africa, Germany, El Salvador, Sri Lanka, Haiti, Burundi,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, USA, Canada and Australia. The last
on the list of countries to have established a Commission is FRY, and that will
be discussed later. The truth commission
is an institution that has been in existence for more than thirty years and
represents one of the best-known ways of acknowledging past crimes.
Compensation /reparation/ damages
Compensation/reparation
can be individual or collective, in the sense that entire groups can be
allotted material damages. Material reparations can be compensated between
countries or within one country. Reparations can also be symbolic: public
apologies, public commemorations, erection of monuments, etc.
Institutional
reforms: As previously stated, one of the main objectives of transitional
justice is to enforce the rule of law, and a prerequisite for this is the
reform of the existing institutions, in order to restore legality and trust.
Here are the most important mechanisms that can be applied in the process of
institutional reforms in the area of transitional justice.
Other
mechanisms of transitional justice promoted by civil society and adopted by the
state due to pressure from civil society. The criminalization of Denial of the
Past: Some countries have introduced legal regulations that criminalize the
denial of the Holocaust and other acts of genocide. In ten European Union
countries, the denial of the Holocaust is treated as a criminal offence:
Austria, Belgium, Germany, The Czech Republic, France, Latvia, Poland, Romania,
Slovakia and Spain. Unfortunately, none of the Yugoslav successor states have
adopted laws that criminalize denial of genocide. Although human rights and
peace organizations have urged a law, their demands have not been met.
Naming
and Shaming: the ritual of singling out, naming, shaming, and publishing names
-calls on the perpetrators of crimes and their political masters to officially
admit that what they did was wrong.
Reconciliation:
taking responsibility for the past – primarily acknowledgement of past crimes,
those that were committed in our name and only then all others. Reconciliation
cannot be achieved trough denial, but only through the complete exposure of
crimes and establishing accountability for them.
Moral
Renewal: the processes of discontinuity,
delegitimazation, and deconstruction of the criminal ideology in the name of
which injustice and crimes were committed.
•Work actively towards creating a just and lasting peace – especially if, in the period of transition, a political culture and social climate of impunity for past crimes continues to be one of the biggest obstacles to achieving a just and lasting peace;
•Constantly put pressure on state institutions to uncover crimes and punish the organizers, initiators, and perpetrators of war crimes;
•Monitor, evaluate, and assess the steps the government has taken to implement transitional justice;
•Strive against impunity and lack of punishment for past crimes. The denial of crimes allows the political, cultural, spiritual, and emotional climate that generated war and justified war crimes to continue.
•Build a culture of ‘accountability’ and ‘a culture of rights’ as opposed to ‘a culture of impunity.’ In a ‘culture of rights,’ citizens are responsible for respecting of human rights and protesting against human rights violations, etc.
Transitional Justice – A Feminist
Approach
“We will not be fooled by our own, ‘I am
responsible not only for my own actions, but for what is done in my name.” Women
in Black
Serbia
is facing numerous obstacles in implementing transitional justice. One of them
is the lack of consensus within civil society concerning the Serbian regime’s
accountability for war and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The ‘soft’
current prevails, insisting on the relative guilt of all parties involved in
the conflicts, while a ‘hard-line’ minority insists on the primary
responsibility of the Serbian side. Women in Black belong to this so-called
‘hard-line’ approach. This minority opposition is vilified.
Why Do We Insist on a Feminist Approach?
First of all, the feminist approach to transitional justice does not deny or revise existing models of transitional justice. Women in Black attach particular importance to these models and methods, both theoretically and practically. The attempt to 'engender' justice is complementary and enriches the existing models and methods of transitional justice, but it also creates a new way to overcome the negative, criminal past. The most important features of the feminist approach are:
-The gender dimension in transitional justice - theory and practice. When we started this approach, we discovered a deficiency of experience of and theoretical research on justice from a feminist point of view. We tackled this problem;
-The visibility and appreciation of women’s resistance to patriarchy, war, nationalism, militarism, and above all, to the community and state they come from and work in;
-The visibility of women’s contributions to transitional justice processes – overcoming invisibility and the pushing of women to the margins as an act of feminist responsibility, but also rectifying the injustices inflicted upon a very large number of women who participated in nonviolent resistance to war and in reconciliation and peace building processes. In brief, the feminist approach involves continually recording women’s presence in resistance to war;
-Strengthening the autonomy of women through active participation in peace building. We strive to increase women’s visibility as peace promoters, not only as victims of war and violence;
-Transforming emotions into actions by turning bitterness, guilt, and helplessness towards the wars waged by the Serbian regime in our name into actions of civic responsibility;
-Creating a feminist ethics of responsibility through acts of public resistance, disobedience, and rejection of all forms of patriarchy, the root of all wars. We initiate public acts of resistance to all patriarchal authorities and structures that decide in our name and wage wars and conduct acts of violence in our name. Such acts also mean assuming responsibility for peace. They actively contribute to attaining a permanent and stable peace;
-Encouraging and developing a feminist ethics of care by transforming the patriarchal duty to care for ‘one’s own’ into an emotional, moral, and political choice. Care for others, most importantly the victims of crimes committed in our name, is an active policy of solidarity, trust, and peace. The feminist ethics of care aspires to achieve equal standards of law and justice and respects the role of relationships and emotions in the process of serving justice. This process violates all imposed and assigned identities and national consensus-es. It creates new forms of ‘belonging’ and ‘kinship;’
-Strengthening women’s solidarity by creating women’s coalitions for the punishment of all crime through the application of transitional justice and the creation of new forms of transitional justice, in keeping with international experiences, but addressing specific needs and requirements of the region.
Questions raised by civil society during
the seminar:
-Do
members of your community (political ethnic) know and are they aware of crimes
committed in their name?-What kind of pressure have you exerted on state institutions in order to publicize war crimes and bring those responsible to justice?
-Is genocide in Republika Srpska named as such and is there a consensus on the facts – that more than 8.000 Bosniaks were killed?
-there is no debate on this topic within civil society – it is swept under the carpet;
-responsibility is seen as a concern for the other community – responsibility is shifted to the other side in the name of a ‘higher purpose’
-abuse and manipulation of victims is prevalent;
-responsibility of the Dutch battalion should be re-examined;
-selective memory: memory is more precise in the case of crimes committed against one’s own nation, than against others.
What
is necessary in order to publicly acknowledge the truth about war, war crimes
and punishment of crimes:
-admit
the problem: members of both communities must take responsibility for crimes of
their own side;-public acknowledgement of all three sides;
-accepting the fact (in Republika Srpska) that genocide was committed in Srebrenica.
How
can we change the state of affairs?
We
spoke of alternatives throughout the seminar, so we include here some responses
that were mentioned in the oral evaluation/impressions on the last day of the
conference (November 29th):
-actions
of civil disobedience – this is the ‘key’
-organizing
street actions – organized resistance;-creating spaces to where fear can be expressed
-encouraging women’s energy to create peace because ‘women were the initiators of peace even in war’
-we must be more aggressive and advocate peace more ‘aggressively’
-we want to question and challenge the current state of affairs, and take responsibility for the way we live;
-change models of actions, find new ones – question the way we work within our groups;
-encourage women’s resistance and strengthen the peace movement;
-encourage responsibility and accountability of civil society;
-act outside the ethno-national corps ‘go down the path of the minority of the people’
-distinguish between the actions of civil society and the state;
-influence institutions;
-it is necessary to discuss these topics: several participants (women) said they had heard certain things for the first time;
-support youth;
Women’s potential for reformist politics
of peace and security. A new concept of security
Understanding
the security situation in the world, even in the region, is based on new
parameters that encompass security. Historic and political changes have led to
the end of the Cold War, technological revolutions Asia’s entry into the global
market. A revolution in communication, information technologies and
transportation have accelerated interdependence and global integration.
Globalization has changed the nature of threats to peace and security. Today,
these are more interconnected than ever before, they endanger everything, they
disregard borders and no single country can solve them alone.
The
classical concept of security and conflicts among states is being abandoned,
and the emerging concept of human security is understood: economic and social
aspects (poverty, contagious diseases, ecological degradation); conflict within
states (war, genocide), proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons, organized crime, instability in energy procurement.
Tectonic
changes in the world have brought about a complete disorder in the balance of
powers, and differences in perceptions and responses to new challenges. This
has affected the fragmentation of the politics has not yet achieved a consensus
on collective security, keeping in mind the differences, fear and mistrust,
cultural prejudices and divisions, political conservatism, national
protectionism and extremism as the main components. The future of the world
will depend on the way USA and other major powers position themselves in
relation to current challenges and opportunities.
Western Balkans and major security
concerns
As
a region, the Balkans have been one of the major global challenges over the
last 15 years, which reflected new security risks. The Balkans have been the
scene of the most brutal conflict in Europe since World War Two (starting in
1991, short in Slovenia than Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, then NATO
intervention in Kosovo in 1999). Since then, there has been a substantive
change, will key roles of USA, EU and UN.
Peace
was established following the signing of peace accord with the support and
insistence of international factors: Dayton Accords (1995), the Kumanovo
Agreement (1999), Ohrid Agreement (2001). With an overwhelming presence of
international institutions (mostly UN and EU) cooperation between the newly
formed states was established; trust-building is an ongoing process; return of
refugees has been only partially successful; control has been established over
weapons and borders. Most of the countries in the region have already
established a partnership with NATO (Partnerships for Peace), which is the only
true guarantee of substantive military transformation in the region. The Dayton
Accords have precisely foreseen the extent of armies in Croatia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Serbia. In the meantime the Bosnian army undertook a process of
integration (with overwhelming resistance from Republika Srpska and Belgrade).
The
prospect of EU membership was a mobilizing factor for democratic, political and
economic transition. The process of stabilization and association which the EU
undertook in the Balkans since 2001 was confirmed at the Thessalonica in 2003,
along with extensive political, financial and technical support, they created a
framework for the transformation of the region. In that sense, some states have
already come a long way in the accession process. Slovenia is already a member
state (2005), while Croatia began negotiations in 2005 and should complete them
by 2009; Macedonia became a candidate country in 2005; while Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia began the negotiation process for the
Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA).
Following
its independence, Montenegro successfully continued negotiations with the EU
and NATO and will likely join the other countries in the region shortly. The
elections in September and the gesture of Milo Djukanović (to leave on his own)
proved Montenegro to be a politically mature country contrary to the
expectations of many. Thus, the potential negative influence from Serbia was
marginalized in the newly formed state.
Kosovo,
which has been under UN administration since 1999 (with a significant presence
of NATO troops) is in the process of formalizing its independence. The Security
Council began the process that should resolve the future of Kosovo (meaning
independence) most probably already in 2006 or early 2007 (with additional
permanent military and civilian presence). The international community is not
treating Kosovo as a Serbian-Albanian issue, but as an issue with wider
implications for the region (which was also the reason for the intervention).
The goal of the international presence is to secure a sustainable multiethnic
democratic society which will join the EU in due course. I think that should be
taken into account when one considers the issue of security of Kosovo and
Serbia in the long-term.
Following
the failure to adopt the Constitution, the process of EU enlargement is being
questioned within the EU. Due to these reflections on the part of the EU,
political integration may slow down because of weak governments and divisions
concerning the nature of integration. EU is also directed by its experience
with new member states, especially Poland and Hungary.
Besides,
after the first phase of enlargement, the EU is preoccupied with its internal
problems: rejection of the new Constitution and unemployment, alienation
between citizens and governments, and fears of globalization. EU is also in the
process of adjusting to the new economic reality in which a new paradigm should
be found for the welfare state as a European legacy.
Serbia and the new security situation in
the Balkans
Serbia
is the only country in the Balkans that has not fully embraced a European
orientation. After the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjić, who quickly
put Serbia on a European path, the new government of Vojislav Koštunica chose a
clear anti-European profile. Over the last three years the EU has maintained
and insisted on European integration, and all the progress that has been made
since the Djindjić assassination has been as a result of this. Koštunica’s
government has basically established continuity with Milošević’s politics,
enabling the return of SPS (Socialist Party of Serbia) and SRS (Serbian Radical
Party), creators of war.
Constitutional
government skillfully took advantage of the EU interest to keep Serbia on the
Djindjić path, thus using as blackmail – leverage against the EU and its
neighbors something that should have been, objectively speaking, a weakness. As
a central country in the region, geographically, Serbia is still an important
factor for regional stability, or instability. This has often been used in
communication with the EU. The previous government of V. Koštunica has demonstrated
a clear anti-European orientation, and in that sense, it has positioned Serbia
as a neutral country leaning on Russia and opposed to EU and NATO membership.
Refusal
to cooperation with the Hague Tribunal and the negative disposition toward solving
the status of Kosovo make Serbia to me be one of the countries in the Balkans
that is not ready to compromise in search of solutions, nor to take into
account international standards.
Future challenges to security in the
Balkans
The
example of Bosnia shows that ethnicity as a principle, in other words, division
along ethnic lines does not yield results in the contemporary context.
Furthermore, it brings into question universal values which the democratic
international community stands for. Establishing and maintaining a multiethnic
society does not have an alternative, therefore, the decision by the
international community to enforce a solution in case the main stakeholders do
not come to an agreement is not just right, it is the only one.
It
should be noted that the independence of Kosovo is a logical epilogue of the
relationship of the Serbian state toward Kosovo during the XX century,
especially in the last 20 years. The current Koštunica government, just like
the ones before it, ignores or subordinates Albanians in all its suggestions.
This is indicative, since the Serbian political elite never seriously
considered a democratic coexistence with Albanians. Koštunica and his
associates see Kosovo as a territorial issue, which is essentially a
continuation of Milošević’s politics and a comeback to the state of affairs
before 1999.
We
must keep in mind that over the last six years, Kosovo has transformed into a
dynamic and vibrant society. However, its legacy and unresolved status are
hindering progress. Abundant energy is being invested into the issue of status,
while ordinary citizens face existential problems.
The
Serbian side insists on the status quo for a number of reasons. One of which is
keeping the Kosovo issue open, maintains Serbian nationalism as the only
political vision. At the same time, this reflects Serbia’s inability to deal
with its own problems, primarily with its internal composition. The fact is
that Serbia is still using the Milošević Constitutions which introduced the
break-up of Yugoslavia. If Serbia does not decide on a modern constitution, the
old one could serve as an overture to the disintegration of Serbia, because it
has blocked the energy and initiative of its citizens.
This
strategy makes it impossible to publicly promote the awareness that an
independent Kosovo is essentially in Serbia’s best interest. It would be in
Serbia’s best interest to be the first to recognize Kosovo and enable a normal relationship
between Serbs and Albanians, and its own state and political consolidation.
This acknowledgement would go a long way in improving the position of the
Kosovo Serbs. Albanians are a dynamic people in biological expansion who want
to integrate into the region and Europe. We should offer our hand and make use
of their energy and entrepreneurship.
The
international community has always had a tendency to overlook the obvious when
Serbia is in question, and it still does but to a lesser degree, merely because
Serbia is a central country in the Balkans. Serbia is a politically and
geographically relevant country in the region, especially as a long-term
destabilizing factor in the Balkans. However, Serbia has yet to come to terms
with its self, and through a process of democratic transformation, in order to
became a regional player that EU wants it to be and that it deserves to be. It
would be detrimental to skip this process, because that would leave a potential
for future misunderstandings and decrease the chances of a normal situation.
The
negotiations in Vienna have shown that the Serbian delegation does not accept
the reality in Kosovo and that it is not ready to accept the consequences of
the Milošević regime. They expect Albanians to compromise an unrealistic offer.
Because
of all this, I firmly believe that Albanians should turn to the Kosovo Serbs
and offer an honest hand of reconciliation. The fact is they have a very lively
exchange, but far away from media attention, because the Belgrade government
wants to show that there is no communication, at all costs. The international
community should also devote attention to the Kosovo Serbs by strengthening and
supporting their autochthonous elite – autonomous of Belgrade, and enable their
economic survival.
It
is important to point out a very intensive communication between Kosovar and
Serbian civil societies, especially among young people. This has been going on
for a couple of years now, and it should be put into work for a multiethnic
Kosovo. Exclusive communication with a nationalist elite on both sides has been
disastrous for liberal Balkans. Because of alleged political marginality, the
international community has added to this marginalization. Also, the
international community should take care, because of other, old and new
conflicts in the worlds, and not abandon the Kosovo issue, because it could
re-emerge in the future as a boomerang.
Kosovo
is another historic test, whether Europe can resolve an issue in relevant
manner. When bringing the Balkan issues to a closure, it is important to
maintain principles that will guarantee a stable future. The long-term
perspective should not be sacrificed for quick and easy solutions.
Insisting
on decentralization as interpreted by Belgrade is essentially a division of
Kosovo. If the international community was to agree to such an arrangement it
would lead to de facto ethno-territorial separation, with Serbs governed by
Belgrade without reference to Prishtina. Partition or anything close would
trigger a new wave of violence, and mass displacement that would adversely
affect the region. It would destabilize southern Serbia, western Macedonia and
Bosnia.
This
sort of a destructive political game also strives to render all international
efforts over the last 15 years, useless. Serbs need compensation, but of
another kind: their self-imposed isolation should not be allowed, because that
is the hold Serbian political parties have on Serbia. It is crucial not to
allow the Belgrade regime to force its dangerous and destabilizing politics on
the region – once again.
No
doubt that Serbia, and all the Balkans, have a European perspective. However,
even after it resolves the issue of borders, Serbia will still have to face the
serious problem of crime and corruption, which is also the biggest problem in
the region. Additionally for Serbia this means that cooperation with the Hague
Tribunal is imperative. General Mladić is not “just another General” as they
often say in Belgrade. He is the symbol and the executor of criminal policies
which include the most horrendous of all crimes, the crime of genocide. That is
why a long-term and far more sophisticated platform is needed for a society
that is incapable of dealing with corruption and crime.
Towards a feminist concept of security –
the experience of women in black
Women,
Peace, and Security – Resolution 1325 – A Short Summary of Activities
Since
the beginning of our work, Women in Black has worked for different forms of
demilitarization on the institutional and cultural-spiritual levels, through
street actions, education (conferences, seminars, and workshops), legislative
initiatives, and publishing activities. We have written our alternative
history. Although only in recent years have we dedicated special attention to
the issue of security, our feminist-antimilitarist activities have always
criticized the traditional militarized understanding of security. Most importantly,
we have built a different concept and practice of security through our antiwar
actions, demands for accountability for war and war crimes, campaigns for
conscientious objection to compulsory military service and military expenses,
and legislative initiatives.
Campaigns
– Resolution 1325, Women, Peace, and Security was a Women in Black resolution
submitted to the Serbian National Assembly on October 31, 2005, the fifth
anniversary of the adoption the UN Security Council Resolution of the same
name. We presented our resolution to a group of civic-minded women National
Assembly members. Our resolution contains the basic demands from Resolution
1325 as well as demands specific to the political circumstances in which we
live. The text of Resolution 1325, as well and Women in Black’s Resolution
appear later in this publication.
October
31, 2006: resubmitted our resolution to the Serbian Assembly, which had not
taken the ‘Women, Peace, and Democracy’ Resolution into consideration,
illustrating the undemocratic character of the current Serbian government.
October
31, 2007: resubmitted our draft resolution to the Serbian Assembly. We also
held a press conference in which we presented results from research on women,
security, reproductive rights and transitional justice. The day also included a
street performance in front of the Serbian Assembly Building and the promotion
of the Serbian language edition of publication 'From a Traditional to A feminist concept of security- Resolution
1325' .
-Starting
from the expressed wish of Serbian citizens to live in a prosperous and
democratic state in which , security is guaranteed to every human being on the
basis of the full equality of citizens;
-Keeping
in mind that on October 31, 2000 the United Nations Security Council passed
Resolution 1325 which insists on the importance of women’s participation and
the inclusion of a gender perspective in peace processes, protection of women
in crisis areas and war zones from violence, particularly sexual violence, and
the inclusion of a gender perspective in peace treaty application mechanisms;
-Taking
into consideration United Nations General Assembly Resolution 53/144, and the
European Parliament Resolution ‘The Holocaust, Anti-Semitism, and Racism;’
-Believing
that the interest of all Serbian citizens in peace and security are the highest
state and national interests;
-Knowing
that without affirmation of women’s interests in active and effective
participation in establishing lasting and stable peace and security for all
members of the community, there is no possibility for insuring the protection
of peace and security;
-Taking
into consideration the tragic experiences from the period of war in which our
country participated;
-Taking
into particular account our own responsibility for the future of the Republic
of Serbia and its citizens, and the interests of peace, stability, and security
in the country, region, Europe, and the world,
The National Assembly of the Republic of
Serbia is passing: The women,
peace, and security resolution
1.The
National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia expresses and confirms resoluteness
to accept recommendations for its legislative activities from the same-named
United Nations Security Council Resolution, in particular:
-To
secure through legal solutions the adequate participation of women on all levels
of decision-making in national, regional, and international institutions and
mechanisms for conflict prevention and resolution,
-To
support and prompt the resolution of conflicts on the national, regional and
international levels without the use of force and violence,
-To
acknowledge the importance of peace initiatives begun by civil society,
-To
begin taking measures to secure the protection and respect of women’s human
rights and the highest standards of security for all citizens, particularly citizens
engaged in defending human rights and promoting the democratic and civic values
of the contemporary world.
2.
The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia expresses its conviction that
the conditions for establishing a lasting peace and full security for Serbian
citizens will be created only by full and consistent protection of human
rights, particularly women’s human rights, with respect for the rule of law and
with economic prosperity and special attention to social justice and the
protection of victims of the previous period marked by war and war profiteers.
It is therefore showing decisiveness that it is doing all in its power for
these conditions to be realized as soon as possible.
3.
The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia declares that the following is
necessary to attain security for all citizens:
- Consistently
enforcing the constitutionally established principle of separation of church
and state. Religious communities should not make decisions about the
educational system, the healthcare system, or women’s human rights,
particularly reproductive and sexual rights. Traditional common law, which most
endangers women’s human rights, must not be rehabilitated in the name of
preserving identities or culture, independent of whether majority or minority
religious communities are in question.
- Effectively
applying The Family Law, condemning violence against women, and uprooting the
culture of war which legitimizes violence against women and other less socially
and economically powerful people.
- Revoking
The Law on Assistance to The Hague Indictees and Their Families and redirecting
those funds to humanitarian usage, most importantly to families of the victims
of war and educational projects for peace, nonviolence, and interethnic and
intercultural solidarity.
- Making
restitution and providing compensation to families of victims of war using
property confiscated from people convicted for war crimes and high-ranking
individuals in the regime that ruled Serbia until October 5, 2000 who
participated in the unlawful appropriation of property and other forms of
plundering the national wealth.
- Criminalizing
the denial of war crimes in the wars from 1991 to 1999, including the genocide
in Srebrenica, patterned on the criminalization of Holocaust denial on the
basis of recommendations from the European Parliament Resolution ‘The
Holocaust, Anti-Semitism and Racism.’ (P6_TA-Prov 2005/0018).
- Strictly
applying constitutional and legal regulations which prohibit and condemn all
discrimination on religious, ethnic, or any other basis.
- Establishing
democratic civilian control over the armed forces (the army, security agencies,
and police). Only the National Assembly establishes the national interests of
the country and only it—not the army or police—makes decisions about the
security situation in the country.
- Taking
more control of security agencies and consistently applying The Law on
Lustration and opening secret dossiers, keeping in mind that these agencies do
not infrequently endanger the security of a large number of citizens,
particularly human rights defenders.
- Stopping
the trend towards the privatization of armed forces and security agencies that
is shown in the unregulated flourishing of private security agencies and their effort
to revoke the state monopoly on the legal use of force.
- Respecting
the rights of human rights defenders in accordance with the UN General Assembly
Resolution of March 8, 1999 (53/144, annex) and taking legal measures to secure
the rights of individuals, groups, and associations that advance respect for
human rights and spread knowledge about human rights nationally and
internationally.
Showing
readiness to strengthen activity through the eliminating their own
unresourcefulness and mistakes, activists noted that to improve the performance
of NGOs, it is necessary to:
•Fight
to express our own identities as champions of resistance to the criminalization
of society;
•Work
to change the media image of NGOs;
•Increase
the size of NGOs’ actions and influence the media to react to them;
•Energetically
work to build and strengthen solidarity as a very important value within civil
society;
•With
more dedication, expertise, and openness; educate others within civil
society. Civil society frequently
becomes careless about educating others.
•Respond
to pressure and perfidious forms of mistreatment in politics and public life
more generally through consistent actions, not only sporadically;
•In
communication with institutions and organizations in this country and
abroad—including donors— illustrate the phenomenon of the transformation of the
civil sector into a prolonged arm of the state.
Seminar
participants emphasized that it is important to increase pressure on the
government and other state institutions to adopt, apply, and respect the
numerous international documents signed by the state of Serbia. Additionally, NGOs will continue to urge that
human rights defenders be respected and accepted as a legitimate type of
people’s involvement in a democratic society. They should not be described as
traitors or enemies deserving of marginalization and demonization.
2. More interpersonal solidarity among all nongovernmental organizations is necessary.
3. Trainings should be organized to promote a culture of security for women activists.
4. The Serbian Parliament should adopt a declaration which protects the rights of women human rights defenders in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 1325 ‘Women, Peace, and Security’ and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
Draft platform on the protection of
human rights defenders in Serbia
Noting
that violence and a lack of tolerance and respect for others – especially
ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities – has become dominant in behavior and
communication in all segments of modern Serbian society, seminar participants
emphasized that the media and state institutions, especially The Prosecutors’
Office and the Ministry of Justice act with impermissible benevolence and
approval towards this social climate. They even build relationships with
political parties. In this way, these
institutions express and confirm their lack of readiness to confront the causes
and consequences of the wars and war crimes committed in our name in the former
Yugoslavia.Women activists with nongovernmental organizations that work for discontinuity with the criminal past and for respect, protection, and the advancement of human rights as an essential part of safeguarding the dignity and integrity of individuals, groups, organizations, and society as a whole are especially exposed to prosecution, public stigmatization, belittlement, and even physical attacks.
Women
who every day work and fight for their rights, the rights of other women, human
rights, and the rights of everyone who is subject to discrimination
marginalization, injustice, and violence—women who oppose the prevailing
norms—are subject to risks. Patriarchal
structures isolate and silence human rights defenders. The women in this group are exposed to an
additional risk of violence and injustice.
Crimes committed against women defenders go unpunished. This leads makes it possibility to exclude these
women from communities and society as a whole.
The
acceptance of these risks for women human rights defenders becomes disregard
for their engagement in defending human rights.
Traditionally, the media considers asking most human rights
organizations and networks, unions, and political parties specific questions
about women’s rights an unnecessary division and disregard for “more universal
and more important” issues. This
tendency isolates women’s human rights as well as their defenders.
The
government, NGOs, and other actors in civil society should protect human rights
defenders in keeping with The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and
other international instruments and mechanisms.
Protection mechanisms should confirm the principles of equality and non-discrimination. They should forbid culture or religion to be
used to justify inequality for women.
Activists should be protected in all fields of their work, in the public
and private sphere. All state and
non-state actors should be involved with this.
Because
of this, We Demand that the Government and Serbian Assembly:
Annul
all laws and decisions which violate women’s and human rights and threaten
human rights defenders, actively apply the principles of The UN Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders, and make it possible for women to have equal rights to
fight for human rights and all other rights.
Effectively
punish state and non-state actors who misuse criminal laws or use the media or
other groups to hurt human rights defenders or prevent them from defending
human rights and freedoms.
Secure
means for the protection and promotion of human rights defenders and their
rights.
Create
new mechanisms of citizens’ responsibility for violence against women and women
human rights defenders.
Support
of the mandate of the Special Representative of the General-Secretary on The
Situation of Human Rights Defenders and assurance that women human rights
defenders are a focus of their work.
We
call on the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to perform
monitoring. We call on state
institutions, including national commissions for human rights, the consistent
application of UN recommendations about human rights defenders and human
rights, especially women human rights defenders.
Protect
everyone who is under pressure because they defend human rights, especially
those who confront the past, work for the rights of sexual and gender
minorities, are members of an ethnic minority, or work in rural areas without
public protection.
Formulate
programs and direct funds to the protection of human rights defenders and
respond to violence against women human rights defenders motivated by gender.
Allow
women human rights defenders their freedom of choice and consult both women and
men human rights defenders about issues of their security.
We
Call on the Media to:
Respect
the integrity of human rights defenders.Not tolerate, but react to every violation of the human rights of human rights defenders, in accordance with the journalistic code of practice and professional ethics.
Show special sensitivity to women human rights defenders and those whose rights they support.
Belgrade,June 14th 2007
Women in Black—Belgrade; Yukom, The Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, Belgrade
The
Anti-Trafficking Center (ATC), Belgrade. Joined by: The Women in Black
Network—Serbia from Bor, Vranje, Vrbas, Vlasotince, Velika Plana, Dimitrovgrad,
Zaječar, Kikinda, Kraljevo, Kruševac, Leskovac, Novi Sad, Novi Pazar, Novi
Bečej, Niš, Pančevo, and Tutin. Hera Women’s Club, Bačka Topola; The Youth
Initiative for Human Rights, Belgrade; The Incest Trauma Center (ITC),
Belgrade; The Autonomous Women’s Center (AŽC), Belgrade; Voice of Difference,
Belgrade; The Reconstruction Women’s Fund, Belgrade; Feminist ’94, Belgrade;
The Queeria Center, Belgrade; The Roma Women’s Network, Belgrade; Hora—A Group
for the Emancipation of Women, Valjevo; The Belgrade Center for Human Rights;
Urban In, Novi Pazar; and Zorana Šijački.
Women in Black’s Feminist-Antimilitarist
Concept of Security
This
concept means:•Analysis and criticism of war, peace, and security from a gender viewpoint – patriarchy created war. War is seen as a main factor that takes away and violates human security.
•Peace is the absence of violence against women, not only the absence of war. After wars, warlords and repressive political, economic, social, and all other patriarchal structures endanger the security of women and everyone who does not have social and political power.
•The subjects of security are citizens. Human needs, freedoms, and rights—not territory and the state—are the basic goal of human security. Consequently, it is necessary to create a theory and practice of human security informed by the everyday extremely negative experiences of people related to the traditional concept of security.
•Demilitarization on all levels. This means decreasing military and police expenditures and redirecting the money to the civil sector. When military expenses are higher, security is lower.
•A just distribution of resources. Security can only exist if national wealth is used – not for guns and bombs – but for health and human welfare.
•Establishing civilian and democratic control over the armed forces, military, police, and security services, with the ultimate goal of eliminating the military and armed formations.
•The application of transitional justice laws, the punishment of all war crimes, The Law on Lustration, the opening of secret dossiers, and changing the dominant nationalist-militarist cultural models and educational system.
•The right and obligation of civil society to put pressure on institutions to establish a just peace and human security.
•Protecting the rights of human rights defenders, recognizing the threats against them in Serbia.
•Resistance to social control of women. The state endangers security much more than it protects it. The state and its institutions endanger women. Women do not trust any state agencies or government institution. Consequently, the state is a false protector of women, in wartime and peacetime (Eric Blanchard).
•Women’s rights to self-determination, the right to reproductive and sexual rights.
•Nonviolent resistance to nationalism, militarism, fundamentalism, and all forms of discrimination. Women are active subjects of change, not passive and powerless victims.
•Women’s joint work against militarism, above and outside of state and national borders and barriers in the goal of creating a world without military violence and all other forms of violence.
•Creating new forms of security from a gender perspective through the feminist ethics of care, the feminist ethics of responsibility, actions for peace and solidarity, and nonviolence on the global and regional level.
