In the framework of a dialogue on Kosovo and Serbia, I was asked to give an introductory keynote speech. The dialogue, which was organized by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), took place in Vienna at the Bruno Kreisky Forum on the very day that Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia is led by a president who is eager to weaken the West – and especially the EU -- wherever it can, including in the Western Balkans. This creates an additional argument for why the EU should strengthen its engagement in the region and insist on dialogue and cooperation between all groups and countries of Southeast Europe. The basis for such a dialogue must be respect for one other and for the different stories and narratives told by each group. The starting point of my contribution was a speech held by the famous Nigerian-American author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
Adichie argued that to tell a single story is dangerous, limiting, and distorting, but it is always a demonstration of power. “It is impossible to talk about the single story without talking about power... How they are told, who tells them, when they’re told, how many stories are told, are really dependent on power.” Whoever has the monopoly on telling “the” story has the monopoly on power.
This is an important understanding whenever you start to tell a story. Adichie cites the examples of the US and Africa. She writes: “Start the story with the arrows of the Native Americans, and not with the arrival of the British, and you have an entirely different story. Start the story with the failure of the African state, and not with colonial creation of the African state, and you have an entirely different story.”
Adichie emphasizes: “The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are not complete.” They also flatten out one’s lived experience, and one may overlook other stories that formed oneself or one’s country. Needless to say, the single story is often told deliberately to strengthen one’s power. But such an approach prevents the overcoming of divisions and conflicts.
Israel and Palestine
One very prominent region where we often find an insistence on telling only one story is the Middle East, especially in Israel and Palestine. In their book The Holocaust and the Nakba, editors Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg sought to demonstrate that the two opposing narratives about the Holocaust and the Nakba -- the eviction of Arabs from their homes in the land that would become Israel – can be “reconciled” if both sides accept the tragic story of the other side. “Each side is convinced that they are history’s ultimate victim, while denying or downplaying the suffering of the other side in order to validate their own claim.”
The two editors published their book (and there is another book edited by Bashir Bashir and Lela Farsakh, The Arab and the Jewish Questions) in order to “mitigate or challenge the dichotomy between these two mainstream narratives. It seeks to transcend the binary, dichotomous confines that these national narratives impose on history, memory, and identity in order to consider the two narratives together...the dichotomous, exclusive worldview offered by the traditional national narratives…is historically flawed and ethically and politically flawed.”
In the case of Israel and Palestine, it is certainly not only a question of different stories but of a fundamentally different foundation for the state of Israel. As Natan Sznaider argues in his book Fluchtpunke der Erinnerung, Israel has the purpose of providing a safe haven and home for all Jews who want to come to Israel. Its primary focus is on justice for Jews, not for all people living in the region of Palestine. For Arabs, conversely, the primary aim is having the same rights and opportunities as Jews. Human rights should be upheld for everyone, and all citizens should be treated equally.
Relevance for Kosovo
In some ways, the situation in Kosovo can be compared to that in the Middle East. The basis for the independence of Kosovo was not, from a Kosovar Albanian point of view, the creation of a state with equal rights for all citizens living within it. The primary purpose was to achieve justice for Kosovar Albanians and give them the right to decide their own destiny themselves. The Kosovar declaration of independence can be seen as an act of decolonization, and Kosovo’s state-building was strengthened by its opposition to Serbia. As a result, the state-building project has been partially undertaken in opposition to Kosovar Serbs.
In both cases, there is no uniform citizenship. There exists a minority that has a separate narrative and demands respect and equal rights, which include – especially in Kosovo – collective minority rights, something which the majority sees as a danger for the unity of the country.
As a conclusion, we can underline that first, in all countries, there are always multiple stories to be told, rather than a single story. This is particularly true in multiethnic societies. These different stories or narratives have their justifications, and no story can capture the whole picture. There is always at least a second story with its own justification. The issue is how to respect all stories but at the same time bring them closer to each other in order to create peace and promote economic and social wellbeing.
Teaching stories and history
The different stories that are told are first passed on in early youth. The stories told within families can hardly be controlled or influenced, but, in school, stories can be told in a way that promotes the understanding that there are always different stories. The Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in South East Europe (CDRSEE) -- of which I was unfortunately the last president before we had to close due to lack of financing – was deeply engaged in producing history textbooks that emphasize that there are always different stories to tell. These textbooks tried to avoid the “danger of a single story.”
Christina Koulouri, the main editor and organizer of these books, wrote in an evaluation of this work: “…the ultimate goal of this concept of writing and teaching history was to promote democratic citizenship, tolerance and mutual understanding…There is no doubt that reconciliation cannot be imposed by law or a curriculum; it demands bottom up initiatives and consensus by large segments of society. In this respect, because education reaches far beyond the level of the elites, the reform of history education has been considered as an important part of the reconciliation process.”
The question that we have to ask ourselves is, as Zadie Smith titled her article, “What Do we Want History to Do to Us?” Smith writes: “I might want history to reduce my historical antagonist – and increase me. I might ask it to urgently remind me why I’m moving forward, away from history…Or ask it to promise me that my future will be revenge upon my past.” But it is possible for history to show that a prosperous future can only be built when taking account of different stories that are led -- step by step and with sensitivity -- toward a common future.
Acceptance and justice
To avoid the danger of one story does not mean to deny responsibility and justice. To tolerate and accept other stories does not mean to accept crimes done on the basis and with the justification of other stories. But once you choose a single story, you avoid the question of justice and you only blame the other side. In the case of Kosovo, insisting that solely Serbian history or solely Albanian history is taught in school simply prolongs injustice and prevents reconciliation. For each side, the other is responsible for all crimes and misdeeds. Telling and accepting only one story means decriminalizing one’s own side and putting all the blame on the other side.
Reconciliation and a common future for Kosovar Albanians and Kosovar Serbs in a common Europe cannot function without accepting that there are different stories for the same common country. Reconciliation does not lead to acceptance and respect for crimes and criminals. But justice must be sought and implemented for all criminals and crimes. Mutual respect must be expressed for people, religions, cultures, and origin myths. To believe excessively in one’s own founding myths – such as Kosovo Polje -- can be dangerous. But a certain respect can be demanded and should be given to such myths as well. On the other hands, such myths must not be used to deny new realities. What one should not accept is that there is only one history – one’s own history – that should be taught and learned. As Adichie argues, stories always express power, and power must be divided between all people and in equal respect to all people.
Russian aggression and the Western Balkans
The tragic events surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine were prepared by a unique and distorted story told by President Putin. In an article signed by him and published in July 2021, he told the story of the unity of the Ukrainian and Russian people. He declared “ex cathedra” that the people of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are one people and that the establishment of Ukraine and the policies of its leadership are an “anti-Russian project.” Now we know that the true purpose of this one-sided storytelling was to give his attack on Ukraine an ideological justification.
Not all false stories have such a nefarious purpose. Nevertheless, we should be vigilant concerning all such stories that unilaterally define the common fate of people across borders. The narrative about the “Serbian World” is one such story. Cooperation and links across borders are important and useful to promote peace, but the redrawing of borders to enhance such links is unnecessary and dangerous. The best argument against changing borders that were the result of the breakdown of empires was delivered by the representative of Kenya in a debate of the UN Security Council: all borders created after the dissolution of empires had unfair results, but there is no justice created by enforced border changes.
What neither Kosovo and Serbia nor Bosnia and Herzegovina need is a change of borders. What they need is recognition and respect for different stories in combination with justice and a common strategy for a European future. All too often, the insistence on a single (nationalist) story papers over corruption and criminal activities. Russian support for such stories is a danger for peace in the Western Balkans. Therefore, the EU must step up its engagement in order to counter these authoritarian and autocratic influences from both inside and outside the region. The promised visa liberalization for Kosovars and the opening of accession talks with Albania and North Macedonia should follow immediately. In addition, the EU should bring all countries into a conditional and staged integration process.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.