Positioning
It is easy to set people against each other. How easy it is to close ranks. Just an international tribunal under the banner of justice for two hours to read a sentence and that is that the rhetoric of the enemy side. Sure, unstoppable crescendo.
Nevina (innocent); efektivom kontrolom pod (under the effective control),
Nije sprijecila Genocide (did not stop the genocide), u Srebrenica genocide (Srebrenica genocide)
And here they are politicians who are the hosts of the new subsidiary words long experience of pain: Srebrenica, Omarska, Sarajevo, .. or collective identity: the subject becomes the Serbian people. While the Serbian state, the reality of the Serbian state the years of the Bosnian war or the former Yugoslavia (according to the rhetorical: Civil War vs. aggression), become a reality blurred, a personal responsibility for some of those: ONI.
Part cries of injustice and dishonor, the other is breathing a sigh of relief and raises his head with honor. Long live here
consumed as an institution that A, is in danger with his verdict, to place ourselves as parties in a case in which, on the civilian opposition, there has never been allowed to participate, from which, as an alternative to civil we were expelled systematically ignored and every time we tried to prevent, stop, limit and now healed.
The trap of those who feel the cause of Serbia, is to become champion of the sentence, trying to explain why it is right. The trap of those who feel Bosnian is to deny this ruling, accusing her of injustice in the sample of the dead.
That this terrible violence, we risk being crowded: activists and resistant of all ages and places the parties in this game. As an invited audience in the format of a talk show.
Taboo
decisions such as the International Court of Justice have the effect of a bomb that exploded once spreads around inattraversabile if a large circle of silence. And 'the taboo of death, his being among the first of the bomb and its after.
noise, which follows, is that instead of politicians. Inflexible and organized, sophisticated and populist intended to cover the silence of reflection of many thousands of people are doing to deal with this ruling. Peering into the depths of their lives, they look in the eyes of their friends, as the sad or happy us as their . The noise serves to encourage even more noise, than to give the impression that the sentence is not by anything, it needs to be discussed, fought or supported. Our silence becomes taboo and must be broken. In a society
a human taboo is a strong prohibition ( or ban) relating to a certain area of behaviors and habits, declared "sacred and forbidden." Breaking a taboo is usually considered something repugnant and worthy of condemnation by the community. (Wikipedia)
It is precisely for this reason, it is necessary to break the taboo, to say aloud what this decision hurts or what this decision raises. So go ahead and cross the circle of this deafening silence. Speaking @ another excellent conscripts in this verdict and as we are besieged by the international taboo in their communities.
the morning of the verdict for me was just a Monday, I had moved everything to the day after, he was a colleague of mine to remind me to impormene evidence. The effect has been and will be of pure pain. I had to stop, pause, draw breath and then listening, reading, listening, speaking, straparlare, and again to remain silent.
The wound does not come from the trial which is nothing more nor less than "Chronicle of a Death Foretold." The wound true, that is amazing in its normal and I find that my colleague does not feel the same way. That in spite of ourselves we are separated by a thin line that our lives are built along the lines vague but still existing in our communities be they linguistic affiliation, emotional, family.
So for me the wound does not come from the trial, or even that there is better, but it is one of those injuries that international institutions, imagine guarantors something to give to the citizens. The real wound, comes from what generates this review: a logical symmetry, which is a vortex of repairing the damage or its failure to repair the heart of the debate.
Reconciliation
And in this race, the clash between the symbolic is a national of a country, Serbia and the deaths of a non-country like BosniaHerzegovina explode and we position ourselves. But inevitably incur. I am here on the side of the dead on the side of the story, he is on the other hand, citizens are at risk of stigma.
This relieved my pain and that I was speechless and made me feel the risk and identify the trap. This is not nor mine, nor his trial. The more I think the more I think that Bosnia vs Serbia is as old as the end of a football game, when after extra time and penalties are decided by throwing a coin into the air.
But after the penny, when the teams back in the locker room and everyone gets the compensation owed to him for taking part in the competition, the audience relives the game in the stands, look for this or that action and eventually exacerbated or enhanced review the flight of money to at the time, forever, it falls to the ground.
Well, I do not want to be on those stands, I do not want to be public in this game. I do not want to be forced to watch the replays of the last ever flight I do not want to argue hours, days, months, about how that flight would have / could have been. And I know you do not even want my friend. We talked, we went to the bottom. We have allowed our differences, we recognized. And 'there will be there until our ability to dissolve or neglect. My
taboo is broken and now I can say that the verdict I / we are concerned. That verdict belongs to a way of describing the world, to decide the world and the people who do not belong to us. That trial is part of the world of repairs, compensation for damages. For me as an ordinary person living an ordinary life, this is not much, if not flock to me. I need much more, and I need to get out of this binary logic that local politicians and international manage so well.
I need to get out of this circle and groped to re-reconcile my ideas with those of my colleague, starting not from who is right, but by us. Because we want to be friends and not want to be enemies. From the fact that everyone is aware of its identity and does not want to lump this an important issue. Then re-reconcile the idea of us with that of the @. Break the vicious circle of who is right and to propose a new paradigm. No ecumenism, no way of pacifism, but nothing doing good statement of intent: a practice of civil policy.
Enough with the logic of reparation imposed by a society that needs to believe that it is capable of administering justice, who constantly asks us to parties, then line up facing each other, one against ' other. Wars kill, destroy and divide. No court can go back to the time before death, destruction.
power repairman is not in a verdict given by a court ... who imagines himself impartial. The repair is not in the verdict, but in recognition of the damage, the damage in the complaint. The only court to date has been able to give justice to some extent is that of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. A court where the witness, autodenuncia become symbolic and legal recognition of what happened to the amnesty provision among its instruments. A court whose purpose is the truth, the reconciliation of the people, not an opinion drawn according to abstract rules of law.
A court case, a course aimed at reconciliation between the people and not to repair the damage may never occur in the Balkans, a place strangled by un'occidentalizzazione fierce and sophisticated.
Whatever this is my / our bridge. What I / we will talk. No hard feelings.
