An Uneasy Peace After the War

It is quite obvious that when you are in the midst of a war, you do not pay attention what the news agencies, foreign or even domestic, are reporting about it.  You are only trying to survive.  Occasionally, and only in recent years, I will look up articles or interviews that have covered the war in Bosnia.  For example, at the time of the war, The New York Times was pro-Serb, and has reported falsehoods.  And even now, there are people who deny that genocide in Bosnia ever happened, especially those who are waging a war against Islam.  And so, it follows, according to such logic that Muslims (in Bosnia) could not have been victims of war since there are (at this moment) radical, militant Muslims that are terrorizing the West.

I came across an interview with women (mainly American) who founded an organization called “Women’s Commission” that was meant to help the survivors after the end of the Bosnian war.  The commission, as it is obvious from its name, mainly focused on women and by association on children.  The interview aired on April 17, 1996 on the Charlie Rose Show.

The interview is not a current event or what you might consider “topical” or “relevant” in a temporal sense.  It is concerned with post-war efforts at reconstruction.  Bosnia has moved at a light speed, you might say, in the reconstruction of the country and its capital.  There was something else that struck me though, something which transcends time and journalistic relevancy—an inadequate and naïve conception of justice.

(As a side note, there was an excellent article in June/July issue of First Things titled “Peace After Genocide,” on the Hague War Tribunals and the liberal approach to justice.  I responded to it in a letter to the editor, which will be published in the next issue of the magazine).

But let me go back to the Charlie Rose interview.  The women in the interview are committed full force in bringing some relief to the women and children of Bosnia.  I do not find anything wrong with that.  But the rhetoric used and the implied action, which would follow can be characterized as highly unrealistic. 

Words like “healing,” finding “long-lasting peace after the war,” “forgiveness,” “fast reconstruction” (of the psyche, mind you) are just a few indicators of the naïve approach to justice.  They spoke of the fact that the war criminals need to be immediately singled out and brought to justice.  They spoke that the healing process needs to begin immediately.  They spoke that the women need to return to their homes, immediately.    

I do admire their verve and what I deem, a truly honest need to help.  I have no doubt in that.  But you know that whole “be wise as serpents and gentle as doves?”  Well, it’s the serpent part that is missing, and in this case, an integral part in achieving justice.

The only act that could have happened immediately is taking care of the basic human needs—food, clothes, shelter, and adequate access to water.  That is certainly all I could ask for when I lived in a refugee camp (and the camp I lived in for almost four years would be considered a “five star hotel” compared to some others which I saw and could have ended up.  Think of dead pigeons and fecal matter in the rooms I’ve seen, which you were meant to inhabit).

So, let me go back to the points the women in the interview made, and single out the pure impracticality of these suggestions. 

War criminals—an immediate justice.  Impossible.  The politics of former Yugoslavia seen through the entanglement of the relations with Russia, England and France are far too complicated in order capture the criminals and prosecute.  We know, by now, that the Hague Tribunal is nothing but a court of jesters.

Women and children returning to their homes, immediately following the Dayton agreement.  This is not true in all cases, but in most, homes in the villages have been destroyed, burned to the ground.  For example, the house I was born in, my grandparents’ house which was built most likely in the early 1800s is gone.  When I went back to Bosnia, all that was left were stone steps that led nowhere, and partial walls, covered by now, in weeds.

Immediate healing, forgiveness and naturally, a unity among people.  Healing?  People could not even process the events until years later.  It took years, for me, until the post-traumatic stress hit me, and I had no clue what was going on with my mind and body. 

All of these are fine goals, in and of themselves.  I do not know whether all of these women are liberals, and that is beside the point, however, they do exhibit a liberal approach to justice and forgiveness.  The utopia, which is created and that surrounds the choices is bound to fail.  Why?  Because it is trying to do too much in a short period of time.  Human spirit is resilient, and I can certainly attest that we, Bosnians, are resilient people indeed.  But to demand, through the use of funding no less, a recovery of the fragmented psyche is absurd.

Any peace after the war is uneasy.  Forgiveness is a slow process.  Fragmentation of the individual begins to dissipate at such snail speed that sometimes you feel like you will remain a prisoner of war forever; that you will never free yourself.  A naïve approach to justice and forgiveness forgets the reality that a human being, who has endured war is, in many ways, forever stained by evil.  The darkness is within you, and the tension between emptiness and hope is your constant companion.  And so, you wake up every day, you try to choose the “yes” of life, and you fill the day with works of love, and not of hate.

I know that some people want to hear that there is a defining moment in a survivor’s life when he/she finally sheds the burden of war and trauma associated with it.  But these moments only happen in Hollywood movies or on the way to Disneyland.  Such reality does not exist.  What does exist is faith that even if earthly justice does not happen, God will in the end judge.  And the tension of being human continues, in the everlasting dialogue between the fragmentation and redemption.