The Great Cities Program: Reflections

If I had to select one thing or idea that summed up my feelings on the journey through the post-communist world this winter, it would be one of the things that came out in our meeting with a German MP, Hans-Ulrich Klose, in Berlin.  We were in a question and answer session, and our discussion had turned to the topic of German Reunification.  One of us had asked him if there was anything major in the GDR that was worth preserving in the reunification, and his final answer boiled down to “Germany.”  There were parts of his country, his native land, which he had not seen even as an old man before the fall of the wall.  Many sites of historical and cultural significance to the German people had been preserved behind the Iron Curtain.  Now that their country was whole, they could take full possession of their heritage.

            He later went on to say that the cost of incorporating East Germany into West Germany had run to approximately 8 Trillion Euros, and in his opinion was worth every cent.  When we later moved on to the topic of European Unification, he said that it would probably cost as much, and also be as worthwhile.

            The juxtaposition of the two ideas, of unifying Germany and unifying Europe, cemented an impression in my mind, which held true as we traveled further into Central and Eastern Europe.  Communism had cut off part of Europe’s heritage and culture for over half a century, and now Europe had to re-unify itself, incorporating the Soviet Bloc and Yugoslavia into its economic and political sphere.

            What exactly Europe ad regained revealed itself as we stayed in each city.  In Budapest, we were immediately struck by the beauty of the architecture in the city streets.  There are some of the most beautiful buildings in Europe in this double city straddling the Danube; special mention must go out to the Parliament building, which is one of the largest and most ornate in the world.

            The Magyar people and language are unrelated to any others in Europe, excepting the Finns and Estonians, and yet it would be difficult to imagine Europe without them.  Budapest struck me as a quintessentially European city, from the cafes we sampled delicious food and wine in, to the beautiful cathedral I attended a mass in, to the spectacular views on the shore and bridges across the Danube river.  Even the elements that were not technically native, such as the Turkish-derived baths, were still based on rooted things in the land, in this case, the thermal mineral springs under the city.

            Unlike East Germany, no one had been paying to recover Hungary.  In fact, at first, Hungary was well on its way to paying for itself, at least in terms of economic recovery.  Lately, fiscal irresponsibility, the 2008 recession, and political upheavals were taking their toll, revealing just how much work Hungary was still in need of.  Like Berlin, however, it would be worth it.

            South and east of Budapest, further along the Danube, lies the Serbian capital of Belgrade.  While Budapest’s reputation had to a certain extend preceded it, I don’t think any of us knew what to expect coming here.   It was like getting a city in a Blind Bag, you weren’t sure what you were going to get until afterward.  At first, it wasn’t exactly pleasant.  We were alone, without a native guide, trying to find our way around a city that had not extended much effort into cultivating a tourist friendly environment.  That is, our hotel map was a travesty of cartography, and we couldn’t find any street signs in an alphabet we could decipher.  Later on, as we acquired a native guide and saw the city in the daylight, we were quite impressed with the city, and the hospitality shown to us.

            The change of impression has something of a historical parallel, I suppose.  Immediately after the fall of Communism, Serbia was under the control of Slobodan Milosevic, who set about doing pretty much everything in his power to alienate outsiders: initiating wars of territorial aggression, supporting ethnic cleansing, being a brutal dictator, rejecting all attempts at European integration, etc.  It was only after he was overthrown in the October Revolution of 2000 that Serbia has made its first halting steps towards making itself open to Western integration.

            Like before, however, there are things Serbia has to offer that make such efforts worth it.  The countryside is a fertile one, with agricultural products that could make a niche for themselves in any market.  Belgrade itself is full of a cultural heritage that dates back to pre-Roman times.  And the people, once you get to know them, are more than willing to show off their country to you.  Perhaps it was a sales pitch, but like Budapest, Belgrade is worth every cent.

            Our last stop was Bosnia, which can break your heart if you let it, and I did.  We were to stay in Sarajevo, but we made a stop in Srebrenica first.  That was the site of a massacre during the ethnic warfare that plagued the country between 1992 and 1995.  We were hosted and guided by a man who had lived there, and seen it happen with his own eyes.  The women who had survived the massacre of the Bosnian town had founded the memorial, and one of them later hosted us for a home-cooked dinner.  It was the only time anyone on the trip had actually hosted us in their own home, and for that reason I shall probably remember it when I have forgotten everything else.

            Of all the countries we visited, Bosnia-Herzegovina may have arguably been in the worst shape, politically and economically.  The peace settlement had institutionalized an ethnic deadlock, doing most kinds of business was a challenge, and all the challenges of post-communist and post-conflict recovery had been heaped upon the little country.  But, if we could have only visited one city on the entire trip, I think we all would have chosen Sarajevo. 

            Sarajevo is what you get when you take the architectural beauty of Budapest with the hospitality of Belgrade, and mix in influences from all over the Mediterranean region.  It may well be the only city in the world where you can stand on one square, and see a mosque to the east, an Orthodox church to the south, a Catholic Church to the north, and a Synagogue to the west, and all of them beautiful.  Even though it was the city we spent the least time in, I think we made more personal connections to the people there than any of the others, including some college students from the local University who were just plain fun to hang out with.

            Sarajevo may be the costliest piece for Europe to bring back, but arguably the most worthwhile, for a very special reason.  This city has a long history of being multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, which most agree is going to be the future of Europe.  If Bosnia, and by extension Europe, can recover that tradition, it will be an essential part of the future of Europe as a whole.

            Even to those of us who are not European, as none of us on this trip were, the recovery of post-communist Europe to the West and the world in general is an important thing.  In today’s globalized world, the term “World Heritage” has more meaning than ever; to a certain extant we can all lay some claim to all parts of human culture, to all the beautiful things we have made on earth.  A historical anomaly had once cut us off from them, but now we can go to these cities again, and see what we have missed.  Our next challenge is to re-integrate their people into the world, and it will not be easy or cheap.  But as Herr Klose has said, it will be completely worth it.

Bosnia to Hungary: January 19

[I had this saved on a Word Document, but forgot to post it earlier]

Most everyone in Bosnia who had any kind of Optimism about the future of ethnic relations in the country gave us really the same basic plan: get the people talking to each other.  All the nasty stories that each of the groups tell about each other, they say, only survive in a culture of isolation.  Forging casual, business, academic, or other personal connections is a way to see the things they have in common, and repudiate the inherited hatred and distrust.  None of them said it would be easy, but all pretty much agreed on the effectiveness.

We had a chance, in our last evening in Sarajevo, to test that theory when we had dinner with some local students [and one transfer student from Libya] from the American University in Sarajevo.  It pretty much confirmed the idea that college students are the same everywhere.  Our conversation was more on movies, TV shows, jokes, school, food, and drinks than about international or inter-ethnic relations, but we all had a good time.   I really wish we’d had more, in fact; they were a great group to hang out with.

The hospitality of the Balkans was the most unexpected, and most pleasant, surprise we’d received.  We weren’t sure how people in the group would treat Americans, but everyone was really out to show their best side, at the very least.  We had a few racial minorities with us as well, who found themselves to be the most popular among us, perhaps as a result of the attractiveness of the exotic.  It was actually kind of funny; we had one Korean guy with us, and every single club he went to, the DJ would play “Gangham Style,” and literally everyone would turn and give him center stage.

We were all really sad to leave Sarajevo; we eked out a walking tour the morning we were to bus out, again with the same hosts.  It was really interesting to see the Turkish Quarter; not many European cities have that.  Sarajevo is really a beautiful city, and for all its tragic history, a rather safe one.  There was really only one homicide in recent memory; and the victim’s face was graffiti’ed everywhere, as a kind of memorial.  I thought that was rather touching.

Well, the bus ride was pretty long, though the borders didn’t give us as much trouble as we anticipated.  We passed through Croatia on the way back to Budapest, and I noticed a difference between that country, and what we saw in Bosnia and Serbia.  There were no rural villages or huts; all the dwellings looked like a modern, western Suburb.  There were no hollow, abandoned buildings, though the architecture was similar to what we saw elsewhere in the Western Balkans.  I guess that’s an indication of Croatia’s readiness to become an EU member this year.

We all shared our impressions on the way back; and a couple of us shared some personal stories about our time here.  I told everyone about how my grandfather had escaped from Cuba, and another student told a story about managing to re-unite with two Serbian exchange students whom he met back in High school.  It was all really neat; the professor told us that in terms of getting along with each other, we were one of the best groups he’d ever taken on this program.

We all really did feel like family as we shared one last drink together in the hotel bar.  It was sad to reflect that we would soon be parting; some of us had booked earlier flights than others, and wouldn’t get a chance to say goodbye in the morning.  I don’t think any of us were quite willing to leave yet, but classes were starting soon back in the US, and we would be there come Tuesday.

Bosnia: January 18

Today saw the end of the academic portion of our program, and we packed in a lot of things at the end. All in all, were were in Sarajevo for only 2 1/2 days, which I don't think was nearly enough time.  This was probably the city I was most nervous about visiting, because I had no idea what to expect, it being in a former warzone and all.  Of all the cities we've visited, however, this one probably got me to like it the most.  It's been through so much in it's history that I can't help but want to root for it to succeed, somehow.  There are so many beautiful things in the city center, the legacy of its inter-ethnic heritage, that make it unlike any other city in Europe.  It's easy to fall in love with it, like our local guide did.

At the same time, however, this was the most frustrating place.  You want to see something good come out of all the crap it has had to deal with in the war and afterwards, but there are so many systematic obstacles for both the city and the country.  The tragedy that occurred here is probably best illustrated by the story of the Rector of the University of Sarajevo.  During the war, he found himself put in what amounted to a small concentration camp, only to find that the guards were his former students.  In the faculty, people who had worked together for years professionally and personally suddenly went to opposite sides of an ethnic conflict.  And, at the end of all of this, the peace that ended the war institutionalized these ethnic divisions, which pretty much means that politics in Bosnia-Herzegovina is war continued by other means.

Take the current situation with the Presidency.  The current constitution stipulates that there be one member from each ethnic group.  The Croat member, however, comes from a political party that has a significant Bosniak membership, and was elected with the help of voters who don't consider themselves as part of any particular ethnic group (or part of an unrepresented one).  So you have this guy who is popular enough to get votes outside of his ethnic base, but now the Croats are upset; they're the smallest of the 3 main groups, and they don't consider this President to be representative of them.  They fear that if they let up just the tiniest little bit, the rest of the country will roll back their rights.  This kind of fear perpetuates a situation where the special status of ethnic groups is protected, which reinforces the Dayton mechanisms, which as stated in the previous entry, do little to nothing to help reconciliation or get any systematic reforms in this country done.

One of our many visits was in the office of the High Representative; which is the international community's Civilian enforcement mechanism for the peace process.  The person we met was the #2 guy in the office; he outlined how frustrating it can be to work in a country like this.  He did mention, however, one factor that gave him hope: there's only one path forward for this country, the reforms that would be pre-requisite for Bosnia to join NATO and the EU.  There's a political deadlock currently, but the frustration that's going to build as nothing continues to improve will either break the logjam, or the politicians will see what's coming, and use it according to their interests.

He did, however, outline an alternative scenario:  If neither civil society or political leaders push for these reforms, it is possible that Bosnia-Herzegovina will succumb to the centrifugal forces in the state, which will lead to it's weakening, and possibly dissolution into separate states.  He was the only one of all the people we met that seemed willing to acknowledge this possibility.  I don't know how likely he thought it exactly; he did relate hopeful stories of people realizing this need and acting on it.

I hope and pray that things can work out.  It may take a while, given how Bosnia possibly had the worst start imaginable for a post-communist transition.  Sarajevo is a city worth coming to, and coming back to.  Hopefully, there will be a return of people willing to make a state together.

Bosnia: January 17

I think it is a bit of an understatement to say that Bosnia is a wounded country.  To me, the word "wound" somehow conjures up a peripheral injury, like an arrow through the shoulder or leg.  If I wanted to be more accurate in my description of the place, I would say that Bosnia is a country with a broken heart.

Over 1,000 years of history, the country and the region had developed a culture of multi-ethnicity, especially around Sarajevo.  It was especially known abroad for the way in which the different national/religious groups were able to live intermingled together.  After the fall of Yugoslavia in 1992, however, came the war, and the various genocides and "ethnic cleansings," including the massacre at Srebrenica.  The upshot of all the killings and fleeings is that huge swaths of the country are now ethnically homogenous, with the autonomous Republic of Srbska being populated by Serbs, and the Federation of Bosnia and Hercegovina by Bosniaks and Croats in different Cantons.
It wasn't just the demographic change, however, that affected the country, but a psychological one.  There's no longer any trust between the ethnic groups, which has hindered the implementation of the peace accords, and the rebuilding and repairing of Bosnia in general.

We met today both with representatives of the Constitutional Committee of the House of Representatives, and the foreign policy advisor to the Bosniak member of the Presidency, who reinforced this message.  The current constitution of Bosnia is actually Annex IV of the Dayton Peace accords; and one of the major problems with this constitution is that it institutionalizes ethno-centric politics.

For example, there isn't one President, but three, one from the Republic of Srbska, who is a Serb, and two from the Federation, one Bosniak and one Croat.  It's specifically stated that each will be from those ethnic groups; no one who identifies as a minority group, a mix, or refuses to identify ethnicity is eligible to run for President.  In fact, the European Court of Human Rights declared this Constitutional Provision as violating the international accords that Bosnia is a signant to back in 2008, so the Constitutional Committee has been at work on revision since.  However, since adjusting the constitution would mean weakening their own constituencies, they've been... reluctant.

In addition, there's a fixed number of parliamentary seats for each ethnic group as well, which means that nationalist campaigners tend to do better than compromise candidates, which means that those elected aren't much of a mind to compromise.  However, since all decisions passed in Parliament have to have an equal number of Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats supporting it, not just a majority, it's very easy to block necessary legislation or reforms.

There has been talk of allowing the Republic of Srbska secede in order to smooth out the Federation's politics and reform, but the Foreign Policy advisor pointed out that it would essentially be confirming the victory of Mladic and the rest of the perpetrators of genocide, since their very aim was to create a sovereign, ethnically autonomous sovereign state.  It's sobering, when one considers it, how often those who commit genocide are successful in their aims, whatever account they may be personally brought to afterward, or how much a horrified world may vow "never again."

Nevertheless, Bosnia has managed to make some progress, especially compared to its state back in 1997/98, when our professor first visited the city.  We actually visited a part of the history of that war, of the siege of Sarajevo.  In order to supply the surrounded city, the citizens built a tunnel underneath the airport, which served as the main conduit for arms, food, and medicine from 1993 to 1995.  It was actually built underneath a house, and the owner, who had fought in the war, guided us through it personally.
The land surrounding had healed over, physically.  The houses were in one piece, there were no longer any trenches in the ground.  But whether the Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats here can ever come back together to make a country again remains to be seen.  In spite of the obvious difficulties, most of the people we've talked to were optimistic that we would see progress in another 15 years.  Perhaps so.

Bosnia: January 16

I don’t remember hearing much about the conflict in Bosnia when it happened back in 1995.  I was only four at the time, and more concerned with the upcoming birth of my sister when it was going on.  Later on, I heard something about it; I’m not sure when at first.  That kind of recent history was never taught in any systematic way in my schools, so I had to go by indirect knowledge, of what I happened to incidentally read and see.

Before this trip I did have some idea of the war; the Balkan States were in a kind of prolonged ethnic/nationalist conflict following the breakup of Yugoslavia, and Bosnia was their battleground.  There was a massacre, and at some point the UN, NATO, and US were involved.  That’s about all I could have told you before coming here.

Today, we visited Srebrenica, the site of the biggest massacre in Europe since World War Two, committed in July 1995.  Our guide was Hassan, one of the refugees who managed to escape the Serb forces on foot, though his brother and father were not so fortunate.  He guided us through the cemetery and memorial, telling his story and the story of this place.

In 1992 the Bosnian Serb forces began to advance through the area, driving the Muslim Bosniak refugees before them.  They all came to Srebrenica, which was designated as a UN “safe zone” with Canadian and Dutch battalions cordoning it off.  The situation, materially, was horrible, with only bare subsistence supplies managing to get into the camp.

In July, the Serbian forces had besieged the city, and finally entered on the 11^th, with no resistance from the UN forces.  The Dutch base had 25-30,000 refugees in front of it, begging for protection.  They declared that only 3000 women and babies were to enter, the rest would be left to the Serbs.  5,000 managed to  push their way in, and were put into one room in the base, completely cut off from any news from outside.

Outside, the Serbian forces were separating the men and boys from the women and children.  The latter were packed on buses into the Bosnian Free territory, and the former were confined, and eventually killed.  Many tried to escape through the woods, only to be caught and killed.  Over 8,000 are counted as victims.

There are still unfound mass grave sites in the Bosnain wilderness.  Searches continue for the missing.  When found and identified, they are buried in the memorial cemetery every 11^th of July.

The story of the memorial itself is also worth relating.  It wasn’t easy to get it built in the first place; the Bosnain Serbs still deny the genocide to this day.  It was the women of Srebrenica who banded to gather to lobby and fundraise for the memorial, which was established with assistance from the International community in 2001, and formally opened in 2003.

I thought it was interesting the way in which the Srebrenica memorial was similar to the Stasi prison, in that it was primarily supported and staffed by the victims of oppression, who wished to show the truth of history over the denials of their oppressors.  It was a sobering introduction to Bosnia, perhaps the hardest-hit state in all of post-communist Europe.

At the end of our visit, one of the women who lived nearby and was active in the memorial foundation hosted us for dinner.  She was very glad that a group of Americans had decided to visit the memorial, and she loved to cook and play the hostess, so we had a very nice home-cooked Bosnian meal, while talking with her about her family, some of whom had survived Srebrenica, others hadn’t.

The drive to Sarajevo was in the dark, along the hills with winding roads and snow.  The terrain would often remind me of the Appalachians back at home.  I was surprised by how modern and clean the city looked when we first approached it, especially in contrast to the countryside.  I suppose that this city has tried its best to heal from the wounds of war, at least materially.  Some scars, I fear, run deeper, and as long as there is no repentance, there will be no absolution.

Serbia: January 15

It was refreshing to hear, for once, someone being optimistic about the future of Serbia.  We met today with Tom Kelly, director of the local National Democratic Institute branch in Serbia, along with a few of his local young workers, Duchan, Buoena, and Marco.  They were the youngest NGO we met with, being first established in 1996, but not being able to operate until around 2001, after the fall of Milosevic.

We were able to go more in-depth in our questions about the issues and challenges facing the political progress in Serbia, since we now had the benefit of a few days worth of experience and learning about the country.  A lot of what we had learned, about the lack of internal party democracy, a general apathy amongst the populace, an unsustainable and declining economy, and a drain of the country's best and brightest for elsewhere left little room to be cheerful, but Tom reminded us that political progress is very rarely a steady thing.  Many times, it is like trying to move a boulder from the top of a hill; you can strain for a long time just trying to budge it, with no apparent success, when suddenly it does move, and rolls on very quickly.

He drew a parallel in this case to the Arab Spring, noting that use of social media per capita in Serbia is one of the highest in the world.  A kind of "Serbian Spring," he predicted, would come about in five years or so, as the youth of Serbia realize the potential that networking can provide for exercising and demanding their democratic rights.

That kind of mass activism, however, has yet to show itself, mostly because there are few issues around which the entire Serbian population can unite.  Kosovo is one, but that does not tend to force change in any democratic way.  Milosevic was another, and all four related how impressive the activist coordination was in that case.  However, the lack of uniting issues and systemic troubles within the Serbian government make necessary several more years of hard, grassroots work for reform.

The main problem is the party and electoral structure; the political parties in Serbia are based around leaders, not policy platforms.  There is little internal discussion and debate about the direction and issues that the party will focus on, all of that tends to be dictated from above.  Ideas don't flow upward.

Secondarily, this problem is also reflected in the electoral structure.  There are no districts, and therefore no constituencies.  The people vote for their favored parties, and the proportion of seats in the Parliament are divided accordingly.  MP names aren't on the ballot; they're appointed by the party head.  That means that MP's are loyal not to the people who elected them, but to the party head that appointed them.  This is a significant problem, but momentum is gathering around potential reforms of the system.

Another key issues that requires focus is that of transparency.  Most policy discussions in Serbia happend behind closed doors, which makes it difficult to monitor and publicly discuss what is going on.  Unsurprisingly, corruption flourishes in such an environment, to the point where its considered crazy not to appropriate public funds if you can get your hands on them.  Outreach programs on the necessity of fairness have been funded to correct this issue, although the recent financial crisis, which has increased the impoverishment of the Serbians, have left a lot of them critical of public officials who get rich off of tax dollars.   This is at least something in the way of a silver lining to that economic disaster.

Still, quite a few initiatives are showing progress; one municipal official had a clever way of utilizing Twitter: Citizens would take and post pictures of different problems, potholes and the like, that they saw on the streets, and he would direct his attention to fixing them, the next day if possible.  This kind of engagement, by which a leader can get in touch with his constituency through new media, and be held accountable by the people for his work for them, is a very good way of showing how democracy can be an improvement in the daily lives of Serbians.  That can then be used as further momentum for change.

It is good to see some hope for this country before we leave it; as we have traveled in Central and Eastern Europe, I have felt that in each city we have visited, the prospects have gone from bright to bleak.  Berlin had the benefit of a "Western Half" to support the other, and Budapest had at least some reform before backsliding upon which to build some kind of recovery.  Here, things have looked pretty grim, but after meeting with the NDI, I'm not ready to abandon hope just yet.

Serbia: January 14

Yesterday I wished for Serbia to have a new year that was better than the one before.  It seems that a lot of Serbians would consider that a tall order; there’s not a lot of optimism about the present situation, both economically and politically.

Today, we met with a couple of NGO’s that were aiming to change that.  The first was the European Movement, whose aim it was to set Serbia on the road to EU accession.  One thing about Serbian NGO’s that is important to remember is that most of them are locally-founded “grass-roots” movements, though most of them have to sustain themselves through foreign support.  In fact, during the years of the Milosevic regime, most commerce and communication with Serbia was cut off except for these NGO’s, which formed a core of Civil Society in Belgrade, and often were connected to the Democratic Opposition, in addition to their stated goals.

This first one was no exception, as Milosevic was by no means interested in greater European integration of Serbia, and instead aimed for more nationalistic goals of territorial expansion.  By the time he’d been ousted out of power, he’d caused Serbia to lose territory, be bombed by NATO, and generally decline in infrastructure and economy.

Postcommunism in Serbia began with autocracy, war, and decline, which did much to instill pessimism and apathy into the general public.  The younger Serbians tend to be more active, though the European Movement spokesperson related that lately skepticism has grown up among them as well, as most of the work which has been done already has produced few tangible benefits or improvement.  Still, the EU Movement continues to engage in its task, supporting concrete local initiatives and fostering dialogue discussing the relative merits of a path towards integration, in the hopes that the people will better understand what is happening, and what is desired.

The second NGO we visited, the Open School in Belgrade, was founded as an educational supplement for the brighter students in the University of Belgrade.  It provides a one-year course for the top students who apply, giving them travel opportunities in Europe, as well as training in leadership skills and policy formation.  This is important, as politics in Serbia are deficient in policy and policy discussion, tending to be more focused on obtaining power, usually via populist/nationalist emotional appeals, and enforcing that power through law, without the middle step of building a foundational statement of what one’s actual aims are, what problems are to be focused on, and how solutions are to be found and implemented.

One of the problems that comes with legislation passed for the sake of improving to EU standards, especially in the environmental aspect, is that Serbian feel that such things are being done for “them,” “them” being the West, Brussels, the EU, the US, instead of “us,” even though they’re the ones who will be reaping the long-term benefits.  There’s a lot of political apathy among the population that makes it necessary for NGO’s to go into the field and engage with people, to help them understand how a civil society works.

One of the recurring themes that seemed to crop up was that things were improving, but very slowly.  I’m beginning to think that if things don’t start accelerating, they’ll never get off the ground.  It’s hard to work at a thing for so many years without seeing any result, and for Serbia to climb back economically to where it was even in 1990 may take over a decade, and political changes, more intangible in any case, provide even fewer concrete signs of progress.  If there is no sign of progress, it is all to easy to be discouraged.  Understandably, many of the brightest Serbians plan to move elsewhere, especially among the young, simply because they cannot see any opportunities in their native land, and the government’s [lack of] economic policy makes it almost impossible for them to make those opportunities themselves.

However, if the best minds leave Serbia, then the movements for change will have little chance of really pushing for it, lacking manpower and expertise.  Like an airplane, reform in Serbia must move faster if it is to take off; mere patience is not going to suffice.