P. Hayner recommends truth commission establishment after the conflict, but in the case of Croatia I believe that this is the best period for it, although 15 years after, because tensions are decreased, criminal justice (ICTY) failed in reconciliation of two groups, diplomatic relations between Croatia and Serbia are on satisfactory level, number of returned Serbs is also sufficient (although still too high number of Croatian Serbs is abroad) to have a successful dialogue through truth commission’s work.
Same author permits that every truth commission can be unique in a sense to be adjusted to specific context of particular country. In case of Croatia, I think truth commission should be common project with Serbia because Serbia is partly responsible directly for the conflict through its paramilitary units’ and organized criminal groups’ crimes, direct conflict on the border in Eastern Slavonia and ideological manipulation with Croatian Serbs. Serbia also has the highest number of refugees from Croatia. One of the aims of truth commission should be reconciliation with Serbia, but the most important aim should be reconciliation between Croats and Croatian Serbs, so in that respect my idea differs from REKOM initiative which wants to cover three ex-Yugoslav republics. Related with Dimitrijevic’s idea, I agree that Serbia should establish a new truth commission, but in respect to Croatian-Serbian conflict, Serbia does not need to deal with it alone. For now, I have doubts should B&H be included for now because that state has serious internal cleavages and I perceive it as a time bomb.
I think that one of the main messages to Croatian Serbs, and to both nations – Serbians and Croats, should be that Croatia is their native land in which they lived for centuries, where they belong and where they are welcomed to come back. Every ideology (whether Croatian or Serbian), which would undermine it, should be condemned by both sides officially. Also, I think that end of truth commission’s work should be marked with highly symbolic and emotional rituals, celebrations and gestures. I think it would be very powerful if new national holiday is established, called Reconciliation Day, on which every year both sides will remember what happened between them and express each other a promise that it will never happen again.
Table of Contents
Why truth commission?
Croatian Serbs and Croatian-Serbian conflict
Facing with the past and the truth
Is reconciliation possible?
Pre-war “mixed” families, friendships and marriages as a social capital
REKOM
ICTY and Croatian public opinion
Truth Commission in Serbia
Final comment
Objectives & Core Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to argue for the establishment of an independent, non-juridical truth commission in Croatia to investigate crimes committed during the 1991-1995 conflict. The research aims to demonstrate how such a commission could foster reconciliation between Croats and Croatian Serbs by addressing historical narratives, mitigating the impact of collective guilt, and providing a platform for acknowledging suffering on all sides.
- The necessity of a truth commission as a mechanism for transitional justice in the Croatian context.
- An analysis of Croatian-Serbian relations, social capital, and the post-war prevalence of collective guilt.
- Evaluation of public opinion regarding the ICTY and previous failed truth commission attempts in the region.
- The importance of moving beyond nationalistic ideologies of victimization toward critical patriotism.
Excerpt from the Book
Why truth commission?
Truth commissions are recognized as one of the most relevant mechanisms which are organized to contribute to transitional justice. South African Truth Commission serves as one of its best examples. As Priscilla B. Hayner (1995) explains, its definition could be divided into four elements: firstly, commission is past-oriented, secondly, it is not focused on certain event, then to give general picture about human rights and humanitarian law violations within one period of time, thirdly, its findings are published in report at the end of its work which is limited by certain period of time, fourthly, it has authority to collect information and its work is protected by its sponsors. (Hayner, 1995; 225, 226) Hayner continues: “Most truth commissions are created at the point of political transition within a country, used either to demonstrate or underscore a break with a past record of human rights abuses, to promote national reconciliation, and/or to obtain or to sustain political legitimacy.” (Hayner, 1995; 226) It has no prosecutor powers and it can publish names of perpetrators in its report, but cannot make a judicial decision to proclaim a certain individual guilty. (Hayner, 1995; 230)
In her article, after presenting and analyzing fifteen cases, she concludes, although there is a list of issues on which every agents must reflect when establishing a commission such as pre-definition of time in which commission will work, pre-definition of time which commission will investigate and so on, that: “There need be no fixed model: in the unique circumstances of each country, other new and innovative models for a truth commission may yet be developed.” (Hayner, 1995; 227)
Chapter Summaries
Why truth commission?: Explains the conceptual framework of truth commissions as non-juridical transitional justice mechanisms and highlights their role in promoting national reconciliation.
Croatian Serbs and Croatian-Serbian conflict: Provides a brief historical outline of the 1991-1995 conflict and the demographic situation of the Serbian minority in Croatia.
Facing with the past and the truth: Examines the presence of literal and interpretative denial regarding war crimes within the Croatian public discourse.
Is reconciliation possible?: Analyzes survey data on the willingness of the Croatian population to reconcile with Serbs and the role of symbolic reparations.
Pre-war “mixed” families, friendships and marriages as a social capital: Discusses the potential for rebuilding social networks as a foundational element for long-term peace.
REKOM: Describes the regional initiative for a truth commission and its current status in relation to governments and NGOs.
ICTY and Croatian public opinion: Contrasts the role of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with the potential benefits of a national truth commission.
Truth Commission in Serbia: Reflects on the deficiencies and failure of the previous Serbian truth commission experiment (2001-2003).
Final comment: Summarizes the author's vision for a Croatia-based truth commission as a tool for breaking nationalistic victimhood ideologies.
Keywords
Transitional Justice, Truth Commission, Croatia, Croatian Serbs, Reconciliation, Collective Guilt, War Crimes, 1991-1995 Conflict, National Identity, Victimization, Human Rights, Social Capital, REKOM, ICTY, Historical Revisionism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the necessity of establishing an independent, non-juridical truth commission in Croatia to address the legacy of the 1991-1995 war and promote reconciliation between Croats and the Serbian minority.
What are the primary thematic fields discussed?
The central themes include transitional justice, the sociology of collective guilt, the role of public opinion in peace-building, and the critique of nationalistic historical narratives.
What is the author's primary research goal?
The author aims to demonstrate that a truth commission is an essential, yet currently missing, mechanism for Croatia to overcome the "victimhood" ideology and facilitate genuine normalization of relations with Croatian Serbs.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative synthesis of transitional justice theory, existing public opinion surveys (including those from Dokumenta and other academic researchers), and a comparative analysis of previous regional initiatives.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It covers theoretical definitions of truth commissions, an overview of the conflict and the Serbian minority, analysis of public attitudes toward justice, and an evaluation of regional initiatives like REKOM.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Transitional Justice, Truth Commission, Reconciliation, Collective Guilt, and National Identity.
Why does the author argue that the current timing is appropriate for a truth commission?
Despite Hayner’s theory that such commissions should follow shortly after a conflict, the author argues that 15 years later is ideal because diplomatic relations are stabilized and the urgency to address the "hidden" suffering has become a prerequisite for further democratization.
What role does the "social capital" of pre-war mixed marriages play in the author's argument?
The author views these pre-war social networks as essential "capital" that could facilitate a dialogue process, as these individuals have a personal stake in the reconciliation process that others oriented solely toward national exclusiveness lack.
How does the author characterize the previous Serbian truth commission?
The author describes it as a failed project that lacked a genuine intent to acknowledge the truth, instead serving as a tool for interpreting events within a framework of Serbian victimhood.
- Quote paper
- Dijana Erakovic (Author), 2010, Demand for establishment of truth comission in Croatia for war-period 1991 - 1995, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/153287
