Questions to and Replies by Prof. Dr. Georg Meggle, Leipzig Oct 18th 200

Meggle, Georg

English

Elektronisch archivierte Theorie - Sammelpunkt

Auf Serbisch: Раз говор бу ди подигли носеве, erschienen in: Књижевни Гласник 1/2001, Београд, S. 59-62.
Belgrade - New Impressions
Questions to and Replies by Prof. Dr. Georg Meggle, Leipzig Oct 18th 2000
You came to Yugoslavia for the third time. How would you describe the political events of
the 5th october and the changes in Yugoslavian society?
The opposition in Yugoslavia, united under DOS and promoted heavily by OTPOR, did get
the decisive majority in the elections for Y -President and in the municipal elections as well.
In the Y-parliament elections the opposition could not succeed so clearly in consequence of
the large scale Montenegro refusal to take part at the elections. And this is the reason why a
coalition with the old regime parties had to be installed.
Surely, the conditions for these elections were not fair. The old regime used all is means to
change the votes in its own favour; moreover there was a lot of more or less undercover
assistance to the opposition from the West. But it is without any question that the
overwhelming majority was voting for a radical change. The opposition was wise enough to
present a candidate whose personality was known to be a real alternative, an alternative not
only to Milosevic but also to many of the leading figures of the opposition in the years before.
The words on Kostunica's election posters - "Who does dare to look into your eyes?
Kostunica, of course." - were collectively accepted to be true. But nevertheless it should be
kept in mind, that the main reason for Kostunica's victory was that the whole thing was a
decision against Milosevic; the pro-Kostunica voters may not continue to vote for his agenda
as soon as Milosevic and his gang are out. But at present these future prospects are not yet at
stake.
The last time I was in Belgrade in June this year the city was dominated by depression. Now it
is like a new city. Peoples' noses (at least of those I had contact with) are now elevated by a
good deal. "Gotov Je (He is finished/out). We have won!" The whole air has changed.
This change is due not only to the results of the elections. Much more, it is due to the public
upheaval in reaction to the old regime's refusal to accept these results. The public not only
voted; it demonstrated on the streets. As it had already for the same reason for months in
1996. But now with incomparably bigger efforts. Now with the open compassion of nearly the
whole country, e.g., with workers and miners marching into Belgrade with trucks and lorries
from Cacak, with the President-elected as the leading figure - and, quite contrary to 1996,
with CNN and the other world's media not only watching, but by pressing these events to the
centre of the world's interest, taking part. You know all this much better than I. (By the way, I
was not given my visa until some days after the change.) Parliament building conquered,
policemen joining the demonstrators, the leaders of the special police units refusing to send
out the tanks, etc.
2"Welcome in Free Serbia!" - this was the greeting I was welcomed with again and again. And
then the reporting about what happened on the Oct 5th begins, to be told again and again, with
pride and with great alleviation. And all these reports result in one summary: "Now we know
how strong we are - and this lesson we will never forget. And so the old regime will have no
chance any more."
I stayed in Belgrade for nearly one week. Most of the talks I had with my friends were related
to what's going on in these days. No much talk about how the future will be; nearly no
looking back into what happened during the last decade. This is quite understandable. After so
long a time of humiliation from an oppressive regime and additional heavy and deep
humiliation by NATO' bombings now there is the time to indulge in festivities. And as a
friend I would be the last one to complain about that. I was taking part in this mood.
Could you tell us how those changes were perceived in Germany?
Well, my opinion presented above may have already been some part of a "german
perception". But mine differs from that of many of my fellow-germans in some respects.
Here, back in Germany, many people look at your Oct 5th event as being a double victory: as
a victory of democracy in your country - and as a victory of "our" NATO's policy. And, I
guess, this might not just be the opinion of the Germans; it seems to be part of the official
policy in most NA TO countries, though not explicitly ventilated so - as most prefer not to
talk about last year's intervention any more.
Another thing (though again this is probably not just one of the german characteristics) is that
although all sides are applauding Kostunica for his victory, some are complaining in the same
breath that this man "is not the best choice", meaning by that two things: that he, too, is a
nationalist; and that he pronounced himself to be unwilling to hand over Milosevic to the The
Hague Tribunal. (And this not only, as many western politicians were too eagerly willing and
able to believe, before the elections, but also after them.) Opinions differ as to what
conclusions should follow from this "suboptimal election result": full operation only if at least
the second "bad aspect" of Kostunica is changed (By whom?). I am sure that again our foreign
minister's slogan will win: "Freedom first, justice later". Nearly nobody is arguing about what
Mr. Kostunica's reasons for his Den Hague reluctance might be; and nearly nobody seems to
notice that with respect to Kostunica's kind of "nationalism", some of our NATO partners
would be the much more nationalistic ones.
So much for my dissenses with Germany's public opinion. But this should not diminish the
great relief most people feel here about your changes. And the general opinion is, of course,
that now it's time to try again with cooperation - and we will do our best in helping your
country to recover .
3What, in your opinion, will be the future of Yugoslavia and the Balkans?
I don't know. But I am sure that a good answer to the first part of your question (future of Y)
depends on the answer to the second one (future of the Balkans). And so helping Y means
helping to improve the situation in the Balkans in total. But all this help will be in vain if the
Balkan people don't come to terms with each other by themselves. And this development is no
project to be done very soon; and every decision which is aiming at any fast solution will be
damned to create not improvement, but the very contrary. So let's all have a long breath, at
least not a shorter one than we needed and still need in Northern Ireland and in other places as
well. As far as money from outside to be pumped into the Balkans is concerned there might
be one special incentive for the Balkan people: The more cooperative they are (not only with
the West, but – much more important, of course – between themselves ), the more they will
get. And, I am sure, this profit will not only hold on the financial level.
What the future of your country will be? Well, I just hope that this question will mostly be
decided upon by yourself.
You raised your voice against NATO bombing last year. Could you summarize your
arguments for our readers?
Humanitarian Interventions are wars waged for humanitarian reasons, the main reason being
to stop high level violations of human rights. Now, I do in fact think that such wars might be
moraly justified – but only if there are certain conditions fulfilled, namely the traditional
conditions for a war to be a just war. These conditions were definitely not fulfilled in the case
of NATO's bombing of Y last year . That bombing was, just to mention the most important
factors, not necessary to eliminate the alleged reasons for the intervention; the bombing itself
was essentially enlarging the scale of atrocities. The intervention did undue damage to outside
parties; and more than that: the kind of bombing was connected with crimes against humanity
by itself. So, whether the U.N. would have signed this war or not, this war was morally
wrong. (For more details see my arguments via link Forum in www.mentis.de )
The whole instrument of so-called Humanitarian Intervention-warfare is to be regulated by
international rules. And this should hold all the more for the case of an intervention without
the previous placet of the U.N.'s or its security council. The justification of these wars is
analogous to that of emergency assistance cases in criminal law . And if you plea for having
acted for emergency assistance reasons even against existing law your action has to be
checked by legal process afterwards – without ally exception. These same rules should apply
on the international level for alleged emergency assistance wars.
But, so one might object, what if these legal processing rules don't yet exist? Well, then those
who plea so strongly to be in accord with morality can and ought to put themselves on trial by
4free will. That's the test of whether their morality-appeal is really to be taken seriously or not.
And, in this process, being the actor whose acts are in dispute whilst also being the judge in
one's own case is prohibited exactly in the same way as it would in law in general.
So, just in order to minimize the potential for misusing the Humanitarian Warfare instrument,
it is clear what the world's nations should ask for at present: Not only to put Miloseciv and the
main figures of his gang to trial; but also the persons most responsible for the NATO-
bombing-connected crimes should be given a fair chance of their decisions to be checked by
reference to international law. But I have not yet heard of ally step in this direction. And of no
step of even to amend international law in this respect for the times coming.
If there is no "moral progress" into this direction, then the present intervention doctrine
combined with the false opinion, that we did bomb Serbia into democracy will deliver the best
(or worst) premises for trying the same "successful bombing into democracy" very soon
again. Serious violations of human rights abound; and so will reasons for changing that by
far-distance warhead bombings. A good thing as far as there are no NATO soldiers killed,
whatever the "collateral damages" to the "feed people" will be. (Vietnam was only a failure;
Y-bombing democracy's victory.)
To be fair to my german and other western fellows: I have heard the same weird argument
also in Belgrade. Whereas my view, as sketched above, is taking sides with Kostunica in these
respects.
Could you tell us your opinion about contemporary European Philosophy?
Sorry , this is too big a question for a short answer. There are too many countries about whose
philosophy scene I have nearly no detailed information about. And in fact I just do not care
about everything which runs under the title philosophy, in any country whatsoever. Life is
short, and there are many things much more interesting than just philosophy. But as far as
clear thinking in that field is concerned, there seem to me to be some good prospects.
Analytical Philosophy, as one essential branch of philosophy craving for clarity, is producing
good work in many European countries, some of the best being produced, for my taste, in
Scandinavia. And there is at present a shift in this analytical field from the narrow topics of
theoretical philosophy (with Logics at it's centre) to the wide spectrum of practical questions,
including bioethics, information-ethics and even just war ethics again. But both in theoretical
and practical philosophy, there are some colleagues and students in your country who can
compete at the highest level. I met some here in Belgrade during each of my three stays. And
I think that these people will have something to tell us; something, e.g., about the various
weak, but sometimes very strong, relations between individual intentions and society's
changes. Let's hope they will do it.


Belgrade - New Impressions

Name not available

Auf Serbisch: Раз говор бу ди подигли носеве, erschienen in: Књижевни Гласник 1/2001, Београд, S. 59-62.Belgrade - New ImpressionsQuestions to and Replies by Prof. Dr. Georg Meggle, Leipzig Oct 18th 2000You came to Yugoslavia for the third time. How would you describe the political events ofthe 5th october and the changes in Yugoslavian society?The opposition in Yugoslavia, united under DOS and promoted heavily by OTPOR, did getthe decisive majority in the elections for Y -President and in the municipal elections as well.In the Y-parliament elections the opposition could not succeed so clearly in consequence ofthe large scale Montenegro refusal to take part at the elections. And this is the reason why acoalition with the old regime parties had to be installed.Surely, the conditions for these elections were not fair. The old regime used all is means tochange the votes in its own favour; moreover there was a lot of more or less undercoverassistance to the opposition from the West. But it is without any question that theoverwhelming majority was voting for a radical change. The opposition was wise enough topresent a candidate whose personality was known to be a real alternative, an alternative notonly to Milosevic but also to many of the leading figures of the opposition in the years before.The words on Kostunica's election posters - "Who does dare to look into your eyes?Kostunica, of course." - were collectively accepted to be true. But nevertheless it should bekept in mind, that the main reason for Kostunica's victory was that the whole thing was adecision against Milosevic; the pro-Kostunica voters may not continue to vote for his agendaas soon as Milosevic and his gang are out. But at present these future prospects are not yet atstake.The last time I was in Belgrade in June this year the city was dominated by depression. Now itis like a new city. Peoples' noses (at least of those I had contact with) are now elevated by agood deal. "Gotov Je (He is finished/out). We have won!" The whole air has changed.This change is due not only to the results of the elections. Much more, it is due to the publicupheaval in reaction to the old regime's refusal to accept these results. The public not onlyvoted; it demonstrated on the streets. As it had already for the same reason for months in1996. But now with incomparably bigger efforts. Now with the open compassion of nearly thewhole country, e.g., with workers and miners marching into Belgrade with trucks and lorriesfrom Cacak, with the President-elected as the leading figure - and, quite contrary to 1996,with CNN and the other world's media not only watching, but by pressing these events to thecentre of the world's interest, taking part. You know all this much better than I. (By the way, Iwas not given my visa until some days after the change.) Parliament building conquered,policemen joining the demonstrators, the leaders of the special police units refusing to sendout the tanks, etc.2"Welcome in Free Serbia!" - this was the greeting I was welcomed with again and again. Andthen the reporting about what happened on the Oct 5th begins, to be told again and again, withpride and with great alleviation. And all these reports result in one summary: "Now we knowhow strong we are - and this lesson we will never forget. And so the old regime will have nochance any more."I stayed in Belgrade for nearly one week. Most of the talks I had with my friends were relatedto what's going on in these days. No much talk about how the future will be; nearly nolooking back into what happened during the last decade. This is quite understandable. After solong a time of humiliation from an oppressive regime and additional heavy and deephumiliation by NATO' bombings now there is the time to indulge in festivities. And as afriend I would be the last one to complain about that. I was taking part in this mood.Could you tell us how those changes were perceived in Germany?Well, my opinion presented above may have already been some part of a "germanperception". But mine differs from that of many of my fellow-germans in some respects.Here, back in Germany, many people look at your Oct 5th event as being a double victory: asa victory of democracy in your country - and as a victory of "our" NATO's policy. And, Iguess, this might not just be the opinion of the Germans; it seems to be part of the officialpolicy in most NA TO countries, though not explicitly ventilated so - as most prefer not totalk about last year's intervention any more.Another thing (though again this is probably not just one of the german characteristics) is thatalthough all sides are applauding Kostunica for his victory, some are complaining in the samebreath that this man "is not the best choice", meaning by that two things: that he, too, is anationalist; and that he pronounced himself to be unwilling to hand over Milosevic to the TheHague Tribunal. (And this not only, as many western politicians were too eagerly willing andable to believe, before the elections, but also after them.) Opinions differ as to whatconclusions should follow from this "suboptimal election result": full operation only if at leastthe second "bad aspect" of Kostunica is changed (By whom?). I am sure that again our foreignminister's slogan will win: "Freedom first, justice later". Nearly nobody is arguing about whatMr. Kostunica's reasons for his Den Hague reluctance might be; and nearly nobody seems tonotice that with respect to Kostunica's kind of "nationalism", some of our NATO partnerswould be the much more nationalistic ones.So much for my dissenses with Germany's public opinion. But this should not diminish thegreat relief most people feel here about your changes. And the general opinion is, of course,that now it's time to try again with cooperation - and we will do our best in helping yourcountry to recover .3What, in your opinion, will be the future of Yugoslavia and the Balkans?I don't know. But I am sure that a good answer to the first part of your question (future of Y)depends on the answer to the second one (future of the Balkans). And so helping Y meanshelping to improve the situation in the Balkans in total. But all this help will be in vain if theBalkan people don't come to terms with each other by themselves. And this development is noproject to be done very soon; and every decision which is aiming at any fast solution will bedamned to create not improvement, but the very contrary. So let's all have a long breath, atleast not a shorter one than we needed and still need in Northern Ireland and in other places aswell. As far as money from outside to be pumped into the Balkans is concerned there mightbe one special incentive for the Balkan people: The more cooperative they are (not only withthe West, but – much more important, of course – between themselves ), the more they willget. And, I am sure, this profit will not only hold on the financial level.What the future of your country will be? Well, I just hope that this question will mostly bedecided upon by yourself.You raised your voice against NATO bombing last year. Could you summarize yourarguments for our readers?Humanitarian Interventions are wars waged for humanitarian reasons, the main reason beingto stop high level violations of human rights. Now, I do in fact think that such wars might bemoraly justified – but only if there are certain conditions fulfilled, namely the traditionalconditions for a war to be a just war. These conditions were definitely not fulfilled in the caseof NATO's bombing of Y last year . That bombing was, just to mention the most importantfactors, not necessary to eliminate the alleged reasons for the intervention; the bombing itselfwas essentially enlarging the scale of atrocities. The intervention did undue damage to outsideparties; and more than that: the kind of bombing was connected with crimes against humanityby itself. So, whether the U.N. would have signed this war or not, this war was morallywrong. (For more details see my arguments via link Forum in www.mentis.de )The whole instrument of so-called Humanitarian Intervention-warfare is to be regulated byinternational rules. And this should hold all the more for the case of an intervention withoutthe previous placet of the U.N.'s or its security council. The justification of these wars isanalogous to that of emergency assistance cases in criminal law . And if you plea for havingacted for emergency assistance reasons even against existing law your action has to bechecked by legal process afterwards – without ally exception. These same rules should applyon the international level for alleged emergency assistance wars.But, so one might object, what if these legal processing rules don't yet exist? Well, then thosewho plea so strongly to be in accord with morality can and ought to put themselves on trial by4free will. That's the test of whether their morality-appeal is really to be taken seriously or not.And, in this process, being the actor whose acts are in dispute whilst also being the judge inone's own case is prohibited exactly in the same way as it would in law in general.So, just in order to minimize the potential for misusing the Humanitarian Warfare instrument,it is clear what the world's nations should ask for at present: Not only to put Miloseciv and themain figures of his gang to trial; but also the persons most responsible for the NATO-bombing-connected crimes should be given a fair chance of their decisions to be checked byreference to international law. But I have not yet heard of ally step in this direction. And of nostep of even to amend international law in this respect for the times coming.If there is no "moral progress" into this direction, then the present intervention doctrinecombined with the false opinion, that we did bomb Serbia into democracy will deliver the best(or worst) premises for trying the same "successful bombing into democracy" very soonagain. Serious violations of human rights abound; and so will reasons for changing that byfar-distance warhead bombings. A good thing as far as there are no NATO soldiers killed,whatever the "collateral damages" to the "feed people" will be. (Vietnam was only a failure;Y-bombing democracy's victory.)To be fair to my german and other western fellows: I have heard the same weird argumentalso in Belgrade. Whereas my view, as sketched above, is taking sides with Kostunica in theserespects.Could you tell us your opinion about contemporary European Philosophy?Sorry , this is too big a question for a short answer. There are too many countries about whosephilosophy scene I have nearly no detailed information about. And in fact I just do not careabout everything which runs under the title philosophy, in any country whatsoever. Life isshort, and there are many things much more interesting than just philosophy. But as far asclear thinking in that field is concerned, there seem to me to be some good prospects.Analytical Philosophy, as one essential branch of philosophy craving for clarity, is producinggood work in many European countries, some of the best being produced, for my taste, inScandinavia. And there is at present a shift in this analytical field from the narrow topics oftheoretical philosophy (with Logics at it's centre) to the wide spectrum of practical questions,including bioethics, information-ethics and even just war ethics again. But both in theoreticaland practical philosophy, there are some colleagues and students in your country who cancompete at the highest level. I met some here in Belgrade during each of my three stays. AndI think that these people will have something to tell us; something, e.g., about the variousweak, but sometimes very strong, relations between individual intentions and society'schanges. Let's hope they will do it.

Belgrade - New Impressions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Elektronisch archivierte Theorie - Sammelpunkt

Name not available