In cooperation with the EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy in the Czech Republic, the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade hosted a presentation of case studies on the reconciliation processes in the Visegrad and the Western Balkan countries on October 30, 2019. The case studies have been prepared as part of the project entitled ‘From Warsaw to Tirana: Overcoming the past together’, which is financially supported by the International Visegrad Fund.
On behalf of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Anna Orosz, Research Fellow of IFAT welcomed the guests and opened the event. Afterwards Dimitrije Jovićević, Youth Governing Board Member of the Regional Youth Cooperation Office from Montenegro highlighted the view of the youth on the state of reconciliation in the Western Balkans. Although good changes do happen in the region, a lot of work still has to be done for true reconciliation in the Western Balkans. Politicians in the region still use radical rhetoric and institutional changes are progressing slowly. Jovićević listed three important aspects for reconciliation: 1. dealing with the past correctly, 2. changing the environment for youth by fighting high unemployment along with institutional weaknesses and lack of empathy, and lastly, promoting real cooperation in many fields within the Western Balkans. He concluded by emphasising that young people have the potential to change the current narratives.
Starting the first panel on the Visegrad experience in reconciliation, Nikolett Garai, Research Fellow of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, touched upon the blurry definition of reconciliation. She defined reconciliation as a goal and process including multiple actors while aiming to improve relations not only on state level but on a societal level too. As the Hungarian-Slovak relations showcase, reconciliation is not only about forgetting and forgiving, but it has many deeper aspects and more nuanced layers. Tomáš Strážay, Director of the Research Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association then went on by explaining that a positive change of Hungarian Slovak relations needs to be acknowledged and that reconciliation is a long process. He further described that while EU integration itself of both countries did not help with reconciliation, it did have a positive influence. Talking about the issue on national minority rights, Tomáš Strážay saw the ethnicization of politics as a powerful issue working against real reconciliation and lastly mentioned that bilateral treaties were an important fundament but lack of implementation of agreements limited their impacts. Norbert Tóth, Associate Professor of the National University of Public Service of Hungary, firstly reacted to the previous presentations by partially agreeing. In context of false expectations of EU accession, he argued that the EU is unable and unwilling – partly as a consequence of lack of understanding of some Western European member states – to solve such tensions as it lacks the mandate and capacity to support national minority rights. Instead he drew attention to the positive example of Nordic countries. Nikolett Garai also pointed out that the EU accession is not a panacea to solve conflicts. Afterwards, she presented the audience eleven recommendations of the case study: EU accession is not a single solution for reconciliation, avoiding unilateral decisions, conducting practical cooperation, emphasising on the role of the youth, involve third party experts if facing difficulties, establishing bilateral cooperation funds, promoting cross-border initiatives, strengthening economic cooperation, avoiding discriminatory sentiments, creating a favourable environment for education and avoiding overlapping projects and initiatives. Tomáš Strážay added that V4 serves as an important and inspiring model for regional cooperation that could work despite tensions among some members. Garai went on by clarifying that the feeling of ownership is highly important when it comes to initiatives.
The second panel on reconciliation in the Western Balkans and the transfer of know-how was opened by Jana Juzová, Research Fellow of the EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy. She explained that the Visegrad countries care about the Western Balkans because of cultural, historic and societal ties along with security reasons, but pointed out also that V4 role is brought into question because of the political debate within the EU about the state of democracy in these countries. Anna Orosz then guided the conversation toward the Serbian-Hungarian relations by outlining the historical context (including the trauma of Trianon for Hungary and the mutual atrocities committed during and right after the WWII). Igor Novaković, Research Director of the International and Security Affairs Centre in Serbia described circumstances and elements of the Hungarian-Serbian reconciliation process. As he noted as time passes there are less people who were directly affected by violent atrocities in the 1940s. Since 2000s Serbia’s minority right framework moved into a positive direction (lacking proper implementation however) but Novaković also insisted that that framework rather contributed to segregation. The EU integration process and the normalisation of intergovernmental relations opened the way for improved cooperation in other fields (for example economy and trade) as well. Anna Orosz underlined that symbolic acts like recognition of crimes committed and their condemnation were essential first steps in that direction.
The moderator of the panel, Ferenc Németh, Research Fellow of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, asked how the youth can be approached to bring the reconciliation process to a societal level. While Igor Novaković touched on the segregation problem in Serbia and called for the promotion of exchange programmes, Anna Orosz stated that the inclusive societal approach should get bigger emphasis than before and complement the top-down approach so ownership of minority policies could be strengthened. Jana Juzová agreed and further underlined that improvements of political relations do not necessarily translate into full reconciliation. Government contributions for bilateral funds, symbolic gestures such as public apologies and effective implementation are needed. Asked on bilateral reconciliation initiatives in the Western Balkans, positive examples were pointed out by the panellists such as stable state level relation between Serbia and Albania and harmonic relations in the business community. Discussing on best practices of Hungarian-Serbian political acts, Igor Novaković mentioned the crime recognition of the Hungarian president and the necessity for real dialogue.
When it comes to the role of the EU, Igor Novaković drew attention to the decreasing political will coming from the EU and the importance of geopolitics when it comes to EU enlargement and accession. Anna Orosz insisted again that not starting negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania is a very bad political signal and undermines the credibility of the bloc in the Western Balkans. Jana Juzová added that North Macedonian government has implemented lots of unpopular measures, to later be told by the EU that accession negotiations cannot start, which is very disappointing. The panellists also underlined the use of double standards when visa liberalization of Kosovo is in concern.
The conference facilitated an inspiring exchange of views on the reconciliation processes in the Visegrad countries and the Western Balkan region and provided a critical approach to current state of affairs and the role of the EU in these processes. The case studies of the project will be available soon.