Logo SOG
 
 
  Project: "Interethnic Coexistence and Dialogue in the Western Balkan Region"
 


Part I: Macedonia- Ohrid, May 18 - May 20, 2001

  Opening
  Marie-Hélène Bricknell, Resident Representative, World Bank, Skopje
Dr. Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Ambassador, Head of OSCE Presence in Albania, Tirana
Hildegard Dunkl, Chargé d'Affaires, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Skopje
Gernot Erler, MP, President, Southeast Europe Association, Berlin
Donald Kursch, Deputy Special Coordinator for the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe, Brussels
 

Executive Summary

Macedonia, lynchpin of the Central Balkans, is in danger of collapsing. In an effort to help find means for shoring up this state and aiding its people gain political, social and economic stability, the Suedosteuropa-Gesellschaft (Southeast Europe Association / SOG) sponsored an interethnic dialog in Ohrid, Macedonia. More than 65 participants convened from May 18 - 20, engaging in dialogue meant to promote greater interethnic understanding and thus to promote preventive conflict resolution in Macedonia. The meeting was chaired by Gernot Erler, President of the SOG and prominent member of the Deutsche Bundestag, the German Parliament. Participating were representatives from Macedonian civil society, the academic community, business, the media, and the arts. Invitees from Macedonia reflected the diversity of ethnic groups and civil engagement within Macedonian society. Those from abroad included outstanding regional experts and representatives of international organizations active in Macedonia, along with, diplomats and members of the German Parliament. Each participant was asked to candidly present her or his views on the issues discussed.

The meeting was held during a time of acute crisis for Macedonia with fighting in Northern Macedonia between the Macedonian Army and ethnic Albanian rebels from National Liberation Army ongoing. Discussions were informal, open and always serious. They were focused on issues of special importance to furthering interethnic coexistence. The participants were divided into three groups, each of which undertook discussion of the problems associated with each of the following general areas:

1. Education, Science and Vocational Training;
2. Media and Culture;
3. Economic Reconstruction and Development.

Within these Working Groups, participants found areas of broad agreement, as well as thorny issues that led to strong disagreement. The articulated aim of the discussions was to find some common ground and to recommend concrete measures that might promote peaceful inter-ethnic coexistence in Macedonia. In fact, the working groups produced a number of concrete proposals on how the relationship of the different ethnic groups in Macedonia could be improved. Topics that were been discussed and associated recommendations are contained in the Reports of the Working Groups.

  working group !
  Working Group I:
The Role of Education, Science and Vocational Training, May 19, 2001
 

The discussions were marked by a sincere willingness on the part of participants to openly talk about issues regarding interethnic coexistence. This in itself signalled a success for the initiative, because soon after discussions began, it became obvious that the rift between the ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians is far wider than the public in the West commonly understands. While many ethnic Macedonian participants agreed that the collective rights of the ethnic Albanian community must be expanded, others did not feel that there is need for substantial reforms since the ethnic Albanians, as well as other minorities, already participate in government and thus have access to the means for bringing about reform through democratic decision making. Among ethnic Albanians, on the other hand, there was a consensus that their community suffers discrimination and that there is a serious need to increase the number of ethnic Albanians in state bodies and in other sectors of society. They stressed the need to give ethnic Albanians constitutional equality with ethnic Macedonians. None of the Albanian participants suggested changing the present boundaries of Macedonia. Members of smaller minorities, notably the Roma and Vlachs, expressed their frustration that while the demands for improved circumstances for the ethnic Albanians attract great attention, their concerns gain little notareity. There was a general conviction that the Macedonian state urgently needs deep-rooted reforms. Many reforms, including the fight against corruption, only indirectly, if at all, are issues that have interethnic relevance as corruption transcends ethnic boundaries.
Participants generally felt that the "Government of National Unity", installed in May, presents one of the last real opportunities to save Macedonia from civil war and territorial break-up. When, during one of the panels the question was raised "what constitutes the advantage of a multicultural Macedonian state ?" there was a consensus by all that such a state in the only viable alternative to civil war and disintegration. There was also a consensus that the ongoing armed conflict has to be ended immediately. Apart from the obvious consequences of this action, it offers xenophobes a platform upon to which to engage in "hate speech" in the media, and thus further polarize the population .

The SOG Interethnic Dialogue demonstrated that there is a severe need for concrete and immediate action in many fields. Some of the doable suggestions must be undertaken immediately: Among these are the revision of history textbooks; development of teacher training programs, further efforts to provide high-quality university education for members of all ethnic groups; the creation of an "ethics council" or journalism board for establishing guidelines for what constitutes professional journalism and for setting up means for self-policing of the media; the transfer of knowledge and know how to Macedonian business; the enactment of functional legislation that promotes fair business practices. Participants agreed that many of these measures can only be implemented with the help, active support, and sometimes prodding from outside of Macedonia.

As concerns follow up activities, the Southeast Europe Association intends to:

1. Make the results of the interethnic dialogue available to a broad spectrum of decision makers in Macedonia and internationally;
2. Seek ways to enhance as many of the concrete measures that were identified by the participants as being crucial for interethnic coexistence in the reports of the three Working Groups.
3. deliberate the utility of follow-up meetings concerning Macedonia and, if appropriate, will continue for the dialogue and the search for interethnic harmony in Macedonia.

  working group III
  Working Group III:
Economic Reconstruction and Co-operation, May 19, 2001
   
  report working group I Aufzaehler
report working group II Aufzaehler
report working group III Aufzaehler
     
 
© 2008 Southeast Europe Association. All Rights Reserved