Letter to the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights regarding their invitation to a dialogue on preservation of independent forces in the Serbian society

Dear friends and colleagues,

Your letter of 18 May was prompted by an Appeal made by nineteen Belgrade NGOs on 6 April, calling on "all those responsible" for the current "NATO destruction of /Yugoslavia/" to strive to renew the peace process. Although not a signatory to the Appeal of 6 April, as a Yugoslav human rights activist presently associated with the Belgrade Center for Anti-War Action, I feel a need to contribute to a discussion on the unfolding human tragedy in Kosovo, as well as in other parts of Yugoslavia, on the ways in which it could and should be overcome, and on the role of the civil sector and the NGOs.

In doing so, I am mindful of the unselfish and useful support provided over the past decade to the civil sector in Yugoslavia by the many international and foreign NGOs, not the least among which have always been your Committee and your Federation. I also remember with warmth and appreciation the many visits to Yugoslavia by members of the various Helsinki committees, some of whom I am glad to count as personal friends. That is why I believe that the dialogue may help to overcome some of the differences pointed out in your letter, particularly if some of them, as I expect, turn out to be based on misunderstandings. Let me now turn to the texts of your letter and the Appeal.

The Appeal does not deny either the existence of ethnic cleansing by the government forces in Kosovo or the causal effects of those actions on the exodus of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. At the same time, the Appeal points out that some, at least, are leaving in fear of NATO bombing and because of military actions by KLA. Such a multi-causal explanation seems to me quite plausible.You, on the other hand, claim unequivocally that "neither the NATO bombing campaign nor military actions by KLA" are responsible for the exodus. With all due respect, this single-cause argument seems to me somewhat simplicistic, better suited for political than humanitarian purposes. When one considers the intensity of NATO bombing in Ksoovo and the collateral damage caused thereby, as well as the deep rifts and the internecine struggles within the Kosovo Albanian community, it would be surprising if these two factors did not contribute to the exodus of the civilian population.

Your view that Belgrade NGOs should have addressed their appeal to the FRY and Serbian authorities does not seem quite justified. As I read it, the Appeal seems addressed to the domestic authorities as much as to the international public opinion. It does call for an "end of the ethnic cleansing process and immediate return of all refugees" as well as for "immediate stop to the bombing campaign".

You ask the Belgrade NGOs to "recognize ... that, in priciple, the NATO intervention was not an arbitrary act of aggression". They may recognize that it is not arbitrary, but they may still worry - as I know I do - that it IS an act of aggression. It is indeed difficult to find another word but "aggression" for an armed attack by a military alliance on any one country, which was not preceeded by that country's military action against the alliance or any of its members.

This issue of aggression raises several questions, on which I would like to hear your views. As a member of a Center for Anti-War Action and as a convinced pacifist, I am in a comfortable position. I deem it my duty to protest against any war and any use of military force. But I do understand that not all NGOs need be pacifist and that, under certain conditions, they may support armed interventions, as you seem to be doing now.

However, I note that, under Article 2.1 of your Statutes, the purpose of the Federation is, inter alia: "to support ... the principles of the Final Act of the COnference on Security and Cooperation in Europe signed in Helsinki, Finland, in August 1975...". The principles of the Helsinki Final Act unequivocally stress the obligation of all participating States to refrain from the threat or use of force in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general.

What is IHF's and your personal position regarding the current use of force against Yugoslavia in view of the IHF's Statutes and the Helsinki Final Act? Was it possible for NATO members to persist with negotiations and diplomacy in order to avoid a military solution? Could your organizations have advocated peaceful conflict resolution as opposed to the war? These questions seem all the more pertinent since a Helsinki Committee (that of Serbia) is a signatory of the very Appeal which you have so harshly criticized in your letter.

In your letter, you ask how you, "from the outside, should address the new situation and how /you/ can continue to support /us/ in /our/ current plight". A possible answer to this question is: by re-apprising the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act - particularly those which treat of the use of force in international relations.

With best wishes,

Ivan Jankovic