Saturday, October 1, 2016

Godot Arrives in Sarajevo



























FEB. 18, 2014




SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina — A BOY, his voice heavy with embarrassment and regret, was performing Samuel Beckett in Serbo-Croatian. “Mr. Godot,” he said, “told me to tell you that he won’t come this evening, but surely tomorrow.”

It was 1993 in Sarajevo. Outside, the only sounds came from a United Nations vehicle rolling by and, in the distance, a mortar shell exploding.

The staging of the play, “Waiting for Godot,” was managed by Susan Sontag, and her choice was apt: Despite the United Nations presence, the war-torn country felt as if it was waiting for a resolution that would never arrive.

Almost 20 years later, Bosnia and Herzegovina is once more torn by strife, but this time it is different. Frustrated with corruption, political inaction, unpaid wages and youth unemployment around 60 percent, workers started a protest in the northern town of Tuzla on Feb. 4. Within days, the unrest had spread nationwide. By the time I arrived in Sarajevo a week later, scores of government buildings had been set on fire.

Around the country, protesters are not just occupying streets and public squares but organizing plenums to create alternative governments. In Sarajevo, one such assembly was taking place at the youth center, which before the wars of the 1990s was one of the most popular Western-style clubs in Yugoslavia. During the war it was hit by artillery shells and caught fire.

Now I watched as more than 1,000 people — mothers without a job, former soldiers, professors, students, desperate unpaid workers — gathered here to discuss the future of the country.

In the best tradition of direct democracy, after hours of discussion, the participants agreed to set up a completely new government, to curtail the salaries and benefits of politicians, and rein in the privatization process, which many in this country consider hopelessly corrupt.

The same day, the plenum in Tuzla forced the local government to fulfill one of its demands: eliminating the practice of paying “white bread,” or salaries of politicians after they leave office — savings of some $700,000 a year, enough to cover about 130 average annual pensions.

Aside from these small but important victories, the people’s assemblies have succeeded in what the international community and the awkward, tripartite government it imposed failed to do over the last 20 years — namely, overcoming the rifts among the country’s Croats, Serbs and Bosnians that have haunted it since the end of the war.

During the first day of protests in Sarajevo, one young man, among 50 others, had been pushed into the river by the police. A few days later, I watched as he appeared with a broken leg in front of the plenum. “I am a Catholic, I am a Jew, I am a Muslim, I am all the citizens of this country,” he said.

Another man added: “If I am a Muslim, and he is a Serb or a Croat, if we are hungry, aren’t we brothers? We are at least brothers-in-stomach.” Then he muttered, “I am not smart, but I just wanted to say this.” From the other corner of the fully packed hall, someone replied: “If you’re here, you’re smart!”

As Andrej Nikolaidis, a Sarajevo-born writer who escaped the city while it was under siege by Serbian forces in the early 1990s, said, “The citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina are these days greater Europeans than the Europeans themselves, they are now the ones who are serious about European ideals, while the E.U. created a museum of abandoned ideals.”

These plenums are attracting ever more people and are now part of the daily routine. During the day people protest in the streets, and afterward they gather in the assemblies.

Instead of waiting for Godot — for Ms. Sontag, it was the “international community” that was supposed to stop the war; today it is the European Union, which is supposed to bring an end to economic despair — they have taken the future into their own hands.

But unlike the 1990s, when international action was the only solution, today the people are uninterested in European Union intervention. When Valentin Inzko, the union’s high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the unrest might require international troops to quell it, protesters lashed out at him, too.

Of course, the cynics among us could pose the legitimate question: What happened after the Arab Spring? What happened after Occupy Wall Street? And the answer might sound disappointing for anyone hoping to see something come of these new protests: In Egypt, we had first a stronger Muslim Brotherhood, and then military rule again; in the United States we find the same financial system again. So why would Bosnia and Herzegovina be different?

But this time, protesters are up against not a military dictatorship or a financial hegemon, but an ill-conceived, poorly run government that few people, in or out of it, believe in. And it would be wrong to say that the protesters are new to this game. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been struggling, in one way or another, for decades to construct a better country for themselves. In that sense, the best answer we might give, for now, also comes from Samuel Beckett: Try again, fail again, fail better.

Srecko Horvat is a Croatian philosopher and the author, with Slavoj Zizek, of “What Does Europe Want? The Union and Its Discontents.”

















Ukraine's fallen statues of Lenin are not just a rejection of Russia













Some attack them and others guard them. Yet if Ukrainians looked at Yugoslavia, they'd see neither Russia nor the EU is the way forward







Srećko Horvat

Sunday 16 March 2014







A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Lenin.

Back in 2011 Ukraine was preparing to host Euro 2012. The government decided to release a promotional video titled Switch On Ukraine. Among the sites shown in the video was Liberty Square in the north-eastern city of Kharkiv. But something was missing. When the sun rose over the square, instead of an 8.5 metre-high statue of Lenin there was only an empty plinth. Someone had digitally erased the politically problematic icon.

In 2013 another statue of Lenin, this time in Kiev's central plaza – once known as October Revolution Square and now known as Euromaidan – was smashed by angry protesters using sledgehammers. Many have correctly identified this as the key point in Ukraine's political crisis. According to one estimate, of the nearly 1,500 Lenin memorials across Ukraine, protesters have destroyed around 100 of them, from Poltava to Chernihiv, from Zhytomyr to Khmelnytskyi.

This is nothing new of course. During the very beginning of the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia, I remember vividly how communist and anti-fascist monuments were torn down by nationalists who believed that democracy had finally arrived. Some urinated on them, others blew them up. In the period from 1990 to 2000 at least 3,000 monuments were torn down in Croatia alone.

Is the monument mayhem in Ukraine any different? It is: last week, residents of Kharkiv – the same town where the symbolic erasure of Lenin started in 2011 – installed barricades around the statue of Lenin after fending off an attack by Euromaidan revolutionaries. Even if the protesters weren't defending the image of Lenin so much as exhibiting their attachment to Putin this is a remarkable state of affairs.

To return to the former Yugoslavia for the moment: according to the last statistics from the World Bank, the unemployment rate among young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina is 57.9%. This ex-Yugoslav state is not yet part of the European Union, but is already approaching Greece's 60% rate. The newest member of the EU, neighbouring Croatia, is third in the union when it comes to youth unemployment, at 52%.

So this is what we got by getting rid of communism and entering the EU. Croatia and Slovenia are part of the EU, but according to the latest news, Russia's Rosneft hopes to take over Croatian oil and gas firm INA along with its Slovenian counterpart Petrol. In another ex-Yugoslav state, Serbia, Gazprom is already present and holds 56% shares of the Petroleum Industry of Serbia.

Here, an insight from Hegel's Philosophy of History might be useful. He said that "by repetition that which at first appeared merely a matter of chance and contingency becomes a real and ratified existence". What Hegel teaches us is the following: the first act of "erasing" Lenin in Kharkiv, in 2011, wasn't a matter of chance but an indication of thing to come – the real demolition of Kiev's Lenin in 2013. Similarly, the total failure of the "transition" of ex-Yugoslav states from communism to the "democratic" EU might well prefigure the real failure of Ukraine's "transition".

The current fight in Ukraine is not only a fight over closer ties with Russia or the EU. It's – even if the protesters don't realise it – a fight over Lenin's heritage.

Some 75 years ago, Leon Trotsky described the situation as though he was writing about today's deadlock: "Ukraine is in a state of confusion: where to turn? What to demand? This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques who express their 'nationalism' by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence."

So what was his answer? A united, free and independent worker's and peasants's Ukraine.

It is for this reason the spectre of Lenin is still haunting Europe: the fallen statues all around Ukraine don't symbolise merely Putin's Russia or the failed project of communism. They demonstrate, through correspondences with fallen statues elsewhere, that neither Russia nor the EU can be the answer.



























First world war: was Gavrilo Princip a terrorist or a freedom fighter?














It was not the 'shot heard around the world' that caused the 1914-18 war but imperialism – anything else is revisionism







Srećko Horvat

Tuesday 15 April 2014



As the date approaches when all countries will mark 100 years since the "shot heard around the world", it gives rise to more discussions about the meaning of the first world war. If there is one single historical figure who still provokes controversy, it is without doubt the Bosnian Serb who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. His shot led directly to the first world war when the Austro-Hungarian empire issued an ultimatum against Serbia and then declared war. Russia and France mobilised their armies, followed by Germany, and soon all the great powers had gone to battle.

Never before had a 19-year-old man provoked so much trouble: at the end of the four years of war, four powerful empires – the Austro-Hungarian, German, Turkish and Russian – disappeared from the world map, 16 million people were dead and 20 million wounded, and in 1917 the Bolsheviks came to power. These things may have happened at some point anyway, but it was Gavrilo Princip who sparked it all off.

The Wall Street Journal recently compared him to Osama Bin Laden, and reviewing Christopher Clark's bestseller The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, one author goes so far as to state that Princip "did a great deal to make the Holocaust possible". Not only was the second world war a consequence of the first world war, but in an irony only history can invent, the young terrorist died miserably in April 1918 in the same prison that later became the concentration camp of Theresienstadt.

Although blaming a single person for the Holocaust is similar to the controversial theory in The Jew of Linz – which claims that the incident responsible for Adolf Hitler becoming antisemitic was a schoolboy interaction in Linz in 1904 with the Jewish philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein – for the first time a Serbian weekly recently published a picture that proves how important Princip was to Hitler. It shows Hitler being given a memorial stone that commemorated Princip, taken by the Nazis from the Sarajevo street where Princip opened fire on Ferdinand. The weekly paper Vreme says the memorial was presented as a gift to Hitler by German officers during the second world war as he celebrated his 52nd birthday on 20 April 1941. Three days earlier Yugoslavia had capitulated after being invaded by Nazi Germany and its allies.

About the same time as this picture was published in Serbia, neighbouring Bosnia – where the "Sarajevo, the heart of Europe" celebration will take place on 28 June – announced a new monument to Ferdinand. A few months later the Serbian government announced that it will build a big monument to Princip.

So who was the hero and who was the victim? It seems the old formula could be applied once again: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In the case of Princip, which side should we choose? The answer is clear: both are wrong.

What is missing here is the third option. None of the above monuments gets the picture right; both represent historical revisionism at its worst. According to the historical archives, during the hearing of Princip on 12 October 1914, when asked by the judge what kind of idea stood behind the assassination, the young terrorist answered plainly: "I believe in the unification of all south Slavs." Although he was surely used by the Serbian ultra-nationalist organisation Black Hand, Gavrilo and his comrades were not nationalists. This can also be proved by the books they had read: the evening before the assassination, Gavrilo was reading Peter Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist", while on the same evening another member of their revolutionary organisation Young Bosnia (Mlada Bosna), Danilo Ilić – only three years older than Princip and already a translator of Kierkegaard, Ibsen and Edgar Allan Poe – was translating Oscar Wilde. Another member of Young Bosnia and its main ideologist, Vladimir Gaćinović, was a friend of Victor Serge, Julius Martov and Leon Trotsky.

If we want to explain the shot that was heard around the world, we should first explain its historical context. It was not Princip but imperialism that drove us to the first world war. And contrary to the current trend for historical revisionism – be it the Serbian version of Princip as a "nationalist hero" or the Bosnian obsequiousness to Ferdinand – those young people were primarily political romantics and anti-imperialists.

So why does Princip still matter? Usually we think 100 years is a long period, sufficient to learn some lessons from history, but if anything, it is exactly the first world war centenary that proves again that maybe the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from it at all. As long as the worldwide competition for the best commemoration of 28th June remains a self-congratulatory spectacle, European nations might be sleepwalking into war again.