The conference took place in the Andrássy Hall of Andrássy University Budapest as part of the „Changing Orders Research Programme.“
Divided into four panels, the concepts of crises, conflict and reconciliaion was examined by different specialists from the Western Balkans and beyond. The conference was organized by Dr. Christina Griessler, Associate Professor at AUB and Rector’s Commissioner for Western Balkans Cooperation
Welcome speech by Rector Prof. Zoltán Tibor Pállinger
Rector Zoltán Pállinger opened the conference and welcomed guests and participants. He mentions this is the second Western Balkan conference held as part of the ongoing Swiss-Hungarian Cooperation Programme, “Changing Orders.” Last year’s conference, with the title “The Western Balkans’ European Future: The Role of Non-EU States in Shaping European Integration,” focused on the various forms of support that non-EU European countries have provided for EU enlargement of the Western Balkans.
Although this year’s conference addresses the issues of crises and conflicts in the Western Balkans, its objective is to provide a more positive perspective on the region by highlighting successes in managing conflicts and differences, as well as in addressing the lasting legacies of war and violent mass atrocities. The prevailing negative image of the Balkans as a conflict-ridden region was reaffirmed for many during the 1990s, when, following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, states and communities once again became embroiled in warfare. This negative image needs to be questioned. What has not been much addressed are the existing successes of reconciliation in the region, hence this conference will focus on the process of reconciliation.
At the end of his opening speech Rector Zoltán Pállinger provides some information on the Andrássy University Budapest and on the Changing Order Project and its activities before wishing everyone a successful conference.
Introduction of Conference Theme, Dr. Christina E. Griessler (AUB/netPOL)
Christina Griesser expressed her excitement about the topic and the composition of panels at today’s conference. She welcomed all the participants and thanked them for taking their time to travel to Budapest and for sharing their expertise. She continued with critically reviewing the title of the conference “Crises, conflict and reconciliation in the Western Balkans”. If the objective is to overcome the negative image of the region, why are there references to crises – it’s not one crisis, it’s several crises – and conflict in the conference title? Griessler argues that reconciliation has a backward-looking dimension, meaning that issues in the past have to be addressed before people can move forward. Reconciliation cannot fully take place if crimes and atrocities of the past are ignored. However, the fact is that there are still contested issues and disputes in the region, which need to be analysed and assessed. We need to understand the conflict origins, how to overcome these, and how to find common ground, maybe even creating a vision of a joint future. And finally, that reconciliation is a longer process and not a once of event – like politicians taking pictures after signing an agreement, or a tweet declaring a breakthrough at negotiations, or the public celebration when signing a paper promising peace. To truly appreciate the achievements of reconciliation in the Western Balkans, we have to remember the difficult past. So, the conference title mirrors progress – from crisis to reconciliation.
Griessler continues explaining the link between the EU’s strategy of Enlargement and reconciliation and good neighbourly relations in the Western Balkan region. She mentions the problematic political issues within the countries of the Western Balkans, and points out the EU’s misguided approach of dealing with autocratic leaders in the region, who actually do not have an interest in fostering reconciliation in the region, rather the opposite.
Griessler continues with introducing the panels of the conference: The first panel discusses some of the internal political crises within and conflicts with neighbouring countries in the region. In the second panel, participants analyse the underlying dynamics of crisis and conflicts in the region. Often, the political narratives about the wars are used to further deepen the division within societies. In other cases, laws and agreements are not complied with, or governments might feel legitimised to dismantle minority rights or to ignore EU-driven reforms. The third panel looks at the concept, meaning, and practice of reconciliation. On one hand, the difficulty lies in the definition of reconciliation, and on the other hand, the practical implementation of initiatives to reach the goal of reconciliation. Moreover, the experience with Transitional Justice is part of the broader reconciliation discussion. The last panel of the conference plans to discuss the issue of the implementation of reconciliation activities with practitioners from civil society organisations. After a short presentation on the work of each of the organisations, the debate should dive into the challenges for reconciliation in their countries.
However, at the beginning of the conference, Nemanja Dzuverovic will present the “Balkan Peace Index” and explains, how to measure “peace” in the Western Balkans. This provides a good starting point for further discussions.
Before Griessler hands over to the keynote speaker, she thanks everyone who was involved in the organisation of the conference.
Keynote speech:
Nemanja Džuverović, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade: Three Years On: What Measuring Peace Reveals about the Western Balkans “Balkan Peace Index (MIND Project)”
As an in-depth exploration of the conference topic, Nemanja Dzuverovic delivered a keynote on his recent work at the Faculty of Political Science for the University of Belgrade: after three years of compiling the Balkan Peace Index (BPI), he presents a comparative approach on the shifts and peace dynamics in the countries of Western Balkan, including Croatia.
Rather than beginning with an academic explanation of methodology, Dzuverovic introduced a philosophical question: Why do so many indices try to quantify qualitative aspects of life? Values about a country’s democracy, the quality of a restaurant or of living in a specific city are increasingly used to put a value on various facets of life. But from a political point of perspective, these values are used as a base for decisions which can illustrate shifts and developments over time.
As nowadays indices are mostly created by North-Western scientists, resulting in what he calls a ‘tyranny of experts’, these kinds of indices tend to reproduce themselves. In response, Dzuverovic decided three years ago to measure peace in the Western Balkan states by himself. To avoid a dominance of Western empirical work and different approaches to the concept of peace, his approach differs in three key understandings: using local researchers, questioning the local population, and owning it locally. Therefore, his index consists of “negative peace” domains such as political violence and fighting crime, as well as “positive peace” domains including state capacity, environmental sustainability, and political pluralism.
Reviewing the results of the past three years, Croatia and Albania can be seen as peace winners. Furthermore, in Montenegro and North Macedonia peace was contested. Conversely, Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina lagged: political pluralism especially in Serbia did worse. Croatia again had very positive results. North Macedonia and Montenegro made notable progress, driven by successes in conflict resolution such as North Macedonia’s resolution of the naming dispute with Greece. In a nutshell, the Balkan Peace Index shows a stable level of negative peace in the region, but emphasises the significant challenges for advancements in positive peace and reconciliation.
1. Panel: Political Crises? Western Balkans and its EU-Neighbours
The first panel was chaired by Ana-Gabriela Pantea from the Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, who introduced the speakers: Anna Krasteva from the New Bulgarian University, Nenad Markovikj from the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje and Dušan Janjić from the Forum for Ethnic Relations.
Anna Krasteva, the first speaker of the panel, gave her presentation on “Post-Democratic Crises vs Contestatory Citizenship from Balkan Perspectives”. She opened her talk addressing the asymmetry between where academic knowledge of the Western Balkans is created and where it mostly lies, which is in the Balkans.She then presented the conceptual history of crisis, where she discusses the meaning of crisis and states that crises might have become the new normality. At the moment, societies are faced with crises of Post-Democracy with is linked to Post-Truth and the emergence of Mega-leadership. She distinguishes three major mechanisms of crisis: creating a crisis, maintaining permanent crises, and the symbolic battle between elites and citizens on the use of political crises. All these mechanisms are used by the government to control its citizens. In her presentations, she provided examples of these mechanisms in Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Serbia. In the end, she laid out the meaning of citizenship, which, according to her, is way more important today than a century ago, as it not only stands for belonging, but for active participation. The protests act as a laboratory for citizenship, but protests are temporary, only citizenship is a long-term engagement of political participation. Krasteva distinguishes between three types of protests, which relate to democratisation, environmental protests, or anti-corruption protests. The processes of state capture and attempts or society capture fuel the protests in the region. This resulted in a form of contestatory citizenship, where the population critically questions the government’s actions. The talk ended with her arguing that even with failed temporary protests, there is always the concept of eternal hope for the better.
The second speaker, Nenad Markovikj, gave his talk on “North Macedonia between the anvil and the hammer – cyclical leverage traps, impossible choices and systemic crises”. He started underlining the crisis of endurance in North Macedonia regarding the EU accession process, which is also known as EU accession fatigue. There always seems to be another issue or veto from someone to hinder North Macedonia EU integration process, such as the interventions by Greece, France, and recently by Bulgaria. Skepticism and a lack of trust in the enlargement process rise not just in the government but also among the people of North Macedonia. Markovikj described the leverage trap, which is a situation where the local elites wait for the EU to mess up. He stated that this leverage trap led to an internal political crisis in North Macedonia, which resulted in political decisions that were counterproductive towards the EU accession process, such as the foreign policy alignment with Hungary and the current Trump-Administration. These circumstances and the country’s identity crisis caused by constant interference from its neighbors resulted in the current state of North Macedonia, which is no longer enthusiastic about the EU membership and might not adopt the by the EU and Bulgaria requested change of the constitution. At the end, he distinguished three possible scenarios going forward: An optimistic scenario with the negotiation process moving in the right direction, a pessimistic scenario where there is no process made at all, and a realistic scenario with slow progress in the joining process.
As the last speaker of the first panel, Dušan Janjić talked about “Belgrade Serbia’s Crisis, a way out and impacts on neighbors”. He opened his talk stating that Serbia is not the Serbia from 20 years ago and that it has critical days ahead that can go in any direction. The student protests are really strong, because the reasons for the protests affect a broad section of people in Serbia. Serbia is different from just one year ago. He further described that Serbia is in a big structural crisis, not just political but also institutional, social and security. Many institutions in Serbia are barely functional or even completely dysfunctional. He especially highlighted the deep security crisis. At the end of his talk, Janjić mentioned relations with neighbouring countries, such as Albania, Croatia, and Hungary. Serbia is also a neighbour to NATO. Serbia has a problem with its foreign policy, which oscillates between Russia and the US or China and the US, and at the same time the current government pretends to still conduct reforms to join the EU. The EU is not able to align Serbia with its foreign policy, as other candidate countries. Over all this has to change for Serbia going forward when it comes to talks of joining the EU.
2. Panel: Identifying, Analysing and Addressing Conflict Issues in the Region
The second panel, with the title “Identifying, Analysing, and Addressing Conflict Issues in the Region”, was chaired by Christopher Jakob Walsch from Corvinus University.
The first speaker was Haris Lokvancic, who has a wealth of international experience, including a 15-year tenure at the Swiss Embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He pointed out that over 30 years after the Dayton Agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina still has not established a true peace. Although the Dayton Agreement ended the armed conflict, it also set up ethnic divisions within the nation’s political framework. The agreement created two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, and identified three “constituent peoples” (Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats) as the main political groups. This arrangement, designed to prevent further violence, has instead solidified wartime identities in the political system, leading to ethnic vetoes, overlapping authorities, and fragmented governance. Consequently, Bosnia experiences institutional stagnation, where critical decisions are frequently obstructed by ethnic agendas, hindering effective governance and democratic change.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, political leaders take advantage of the existing dysfunction and fear-based narratives to keep control. Manipulated memories of the war and ideas of ethnic victimization maintain divisions, while reconciliation attempts mostly remain symbolic, meeting international expectations rather than fostering real change. Patronage systems and “technocratic” international interventions maintain the current state, while the media and education uphold conflicting historical narratives. This supports a continuous cycle of fear, dependence, and inertia, blocking significant reform and collaboration across ethnic lines.
The second speaker, Frauke Seebass, Carl-Lutz Fellow and a Visiting Fellow at the SWP Brussels Office, discussed insights gained from the EU-facilitated dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo. This dialogue, shaped by the Brussels (2013), Washington (2023), and Ohrid (2023) Agreements, seeks to encourage normalisation but faces limitations from internal EU divisions, and as well as national agendas, especially from Germany and France. The EU’s method of prioritising technical matters before political ones and using “constructive ambiguity” has allowed discussions to take place, but also led to politicisation and distrust. Despite claiming neutrality, the EU often acts as a political entity instead of an impartial mediator, and the dialogue’s inherent inequality continues to put Kosovo at a disadvantage. Reconciliation initiatives are further hampered by domestic political manipulation in both nations. Seebass emphasised that fostering trust, increasing transparency, and including local participants are crucial for enhancing the process’s legitimacy and efficiency.
The third speaker, Lura Pollozhani, who is a researcher at the University of Graz, studies social movements and the enlargement of the European Union. She talked about changes in North Macedonia, where efforts after 2001 to enhance social unity and reform institutions like the “One Society for All” strategy have not been very effective. The reforms mostly only made superficial changes, exchanging the word “ethnicity” with “intercultural communication,” and they did not sufficiently involve marginalised groups such as Albanian, Roma, and Sinti women. Initiatives from civil society, especially the 2016 Colourful Revolution, have had a more significant impact than formal institutions, showing that active participation from citizens leads to better inclusion than approaches coming from the top down. Incidents like the Kocani fire demonstrated strong support at the grassroots level, highlighting a contrast with the slow pace of institutions, while ongoing hate speech and division, especially on the internet, still block true social integration.
3. Panel: Reconciliation – Concept, Meaning and Practice
The third panel “Reconciliation – Concept, Meaning and Practice” brought together Ana Milošević, Researcher at the Criminology Institute at KU Leuven, Daniela Ingruber, War and Democracy Researcher at the Institute for Strategic Analysis (ISA), and Laura Kromjiák, Assistant Professor at the Institute of Political and International Studies at Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) Budapest.
In her intervention “When memory fails: Memorialisation and the inefficiency of Transitional Justice”, Ana Milošević advocated for a critical evaluation of transitional justice (TJ) measures in the post-Yugoslav countries through a theory of change to challenge dominant assumptions on dealing with the past. In her assessment, international interventions have often followed a ‘playbook’ when it comes to TJ and reconciliation, disregarding local realities and contestations, and thus resulting in performative rather than transformative effects. Thus, a theory of change approach could increase efficacy if it leads to a better connection between TJ measures and collective memory, as well as local perceptions of justice and actors of change.
Daniela Ingruber presented her research “Towards a Culture of Dialogue” which starts from the ‘emotional overload’ of a contemporary information environment where conflicts unfold in real time, asking how the feeling of powerlessness and loneliness triggers can be overcome towards positive engagement. Presenting the concept of Peace Journalism, she argued that the ‘gangster culture’ where modern democracies are overtaken by super-rich individuals who place themselves above the law and are even awarded by public fascination can be countered by an approach that focuses on principles and structures rather than on content, and centres around empathy, perpetuating a collective responsibility for democracy and peace.
In her new book “Intergenerational Trauma in Refugee Communities”, co-edited by Ajlina Karamehić-Muratović, Laura Kromjiák presents original research on how to overcome the cycle of inter-generational trauma through community-based approaches among refugees. Her own in-depth research with Bosnian Americans revealed that war-related mental health challenges are often amplified among refugees and at the same time normalised, given that they are widespread and lack understanding, especially given that many survivors struggle to communicate their trauma. As a consequence, trauma often becomes a central aspect of identity construction across generations, and trauma transmission is deepened as trauma is integrated into the stories of successive generations as emotional and ontological truth.
The lively discussion following the presentations focused on the temporality of memory and reconciliation, and on practical steps to apply lessons learned.
Roundtable: Civil Society Organisations
The last panel of the conference was a roundtable discussion with representatives of Civil Society Organisations from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia, who are working in the field of reconciliation in their home countries. Christina Griessler asked the representatives to introduce their organisations and outline the focus of their activities.
Marko Milosavljević explained that the Youth Initiative for Human Rights (YIHR) was founded in 2003 in Serbia in the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, to establish links between young people from the region. The organisation has offices in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia. Milosavljević works at the office in Belgrade. YIHR addresses issues of Human Rights, Democratisation, and initiates activities to deal with aspects of the violent past of the region. YIHR publicly criticises the glorification of war criminals and the practice of war crimes denials, such as the massacres in Račak in Kosovo (January 1999) and Srebrenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina (July 1995), which are questioned by politically established narratives. Another important aspect of their work in the field of reconciliation is the monitoring of the political situation in the region in relation to facing up to the war crimes. The continued denial of the war crimes manifests itself in the appearance of murals of the convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić in public places. While observing and monitoring these activities, the YIHR is reacting to them by developing alternative communication strategies. An important and prominent activity is the joint commemoration for victims of the war, independently of the victims’ backgrounds. For example, YIHR publicly commemorated the massacres of May 1992 in the village of Bradina and in Tuzla in 1995, where communities from the opposite sides of society were victims and perpetrators. This joint commemoration demonstrated that in the end, people on all sides of the war become victims. Other proposals for a more inclusive culture of commemoration are put forward by YIHR, such as changing memorial plaques to add the victims’ names. Moreover, YIHR organises joint cultural events, such as the Serbian-Kosovarian “Mirëdita, Dobar Dan!“ cultural festival, which was banned by the Serbian government this year.
Natalija Havelka from the Centar za Mir, Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights in Osijek, Croatia presented her organisation, which focuses its work on human rights, democratisation, community development, fostering a culture of nonviolence, and dealing with the atrocities of the wars in the 1990s. The organisation was established by a group of concerned citizens in 1992 as a reaction to the war, at a time when parts of Eastern Slavonia, prominently the area around Vukovar, were managed by a UN Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium to prepare the region to be fully re-integrated into Croatia. Centar za Mir is therefore the oldest human rights organisation in Croatia. It publicly spoke out for an end of the war and supported a negotiated resolution based on human rights. It rejected the idea of an ethnically homogeneous state and the practice of ethnic cleansing. Its mission to build a society based on a culture of peace.
After the war in 1995, the Centre for Peace started programmes for peacebuilding. Key aspects of the projects were establishing dialogues, capacity building, and peacebuilding through communities, media, and local communities. The following programme supported the peaceful reintegration of Eastern Slavonia and Western Sirmium into Croatia, including the provision of human rights legal aid, the support for displaced women, peace education, and supporting veterans and trauma work. Nowadays, the Centre for Peace focuses on projects of dealing with the past, offering peace education (Peacebuilding School Projects), manages an archive, and awards the “Krunoslav Sukic” peace price. One of their current projects is the monitoring of war crimes trials in the county courts of Osijek, Rijeka, Split, and Zagreb. It still works with victims of sexual abuse during the wars in former Yugoslavia and the civilian victims of the Homeland War (summer 1995). And it is documenting the post-war peace-building activities of the multiethnic communities in the region. The Centre has received the Yellow frame Award from National Geographic Croatia in 2021 and several times the European Innovative Teaching Award (EITA).
Emina Mušija from Humanity in Action BiH explained that the office she works for in Sarajevo is part of a worldwide network. Humanity in Action is an international network aiming to educate young people on social justice, human rights, democracy, pluralism and it supports intercultural dialogue and civic engagement. Addressing reconciliation is of main objective for the branch in Sarajevo, as well as fostering awareness, empathy and responsibility for social justice. The Humanity in Action BiH programme has awarded 7 fellows in 2025. The fellowship programme has been running since 2005 and celebrates its 20-year-anniversary this year. Every summer, the Sarajevo office organises and hosts a summer school for young professionals. The programme consists of three phases: Firstly, a virtual learning phase, where experts give online lectures and students are engaged in debates. The second part is in-person in Sarajevo. The programme also includes visits of relevant locations in Sarajevo, such as the Children’s Museum and the Srebrenica memorial in Potocari. And finally, the third part is the NED Action Week – Civic Engagement and Advocacy, where the fellows are required to implement civil projects in their local communities. The programmes’ overall focus is on democratic values, inclusion, and active citizenship, aiming for reconciliation and rebuilding social trust.
Griessler asked about the connection between democracy and reconciliation in the work of the organisations, and what reconciliation means for the people working in the organisations?
Milosavljević feels that there might be even a contradiction between these two concepts, because there are no areas or forums to discuss issues of reconciliation or war crimes. There is no public space to openly address questions of the committed atrocities. On the political level, it has not been addressed. However, he believes that there are changes taking place because some smaller political parties are starting to address issues of reconciliation. Still, society is mistrusting political parties, so alliances with political parties are not favoured by civil society. Furthermore, the issue of reconciliation is negatively perceived by a large part of the population. Milosavljević argues that a regional memory of the wars is missing, and there is a necessity of “clearing our garden”. Whenever anyone’s rights are threatened YIHR will react.
Natalia emphasises that reconciliation for the Centre for Peace means to face the past and rebuild societies, and ensure that justice is served. The centre is arguing for the reparation of damage and is engaging in monitoring the war crimes trials. Unfortunately, due to the fact that Croatia is a EU member the EU is no longer supporting these activities.
Emina explains that the programme offered by the Humanity in Action BiH is advocating for reconciliation and addresses the concepts on two levels: the theoretical level as part of the Online lectures, and the practical part, which focuses on overcoming the divisions in society, building up resilience, and finding ways to reconcile. By visiting museums and being faced with the violent history in the region, the fellows have to think about the issue of reconciliation themselves.
The question of sustainability of the organisations’ work was brought up by the audience, and, if the projects are tailored to the funding organisation’s interests. Humanity in Action does not apply for funds, if the projects are not fitting into the donor’s conditions. The Centre for Peace and YIHR are planning their projects first, and if suitable funding possibilities are available, they will apply for the funding. All the participants of the panel state that it is not case that the organisations are adapting their project ideas to the funds.
Griessler asked if cooperation with politicians or polity parity exists. The Centre for Peace is not in contact with parties or even with local governments, the Humanity in Action BiH invites speakers to their seminars. Students, while working on the local projects have to maintain some contacts with politicians due to their activities. YIHR is not in contact with politicians, even though the Serbian state has installed a Ministry responsible for reconciliation, regional cooperation, and social stability, which would be a logical partner. The Executive of the Regional Youth Cooperation Office (RYCO), established by the Western Balkan states to foster exchange, are in closer contact with the respective governments. RYCO has good projects, such as the SuperSchools. He believes that there is hope that political parties are adding the issue of reconciliation to their agenda. There are smaller parties, such as the Green–Left Front and the Movement of Free Citizens, which are taking up issues on dealing with the past. Due to the current demonstrations, the political atmosphere has changed. It is important that victims are listened to and that there is a forum for them to tell their stories.
Concluding the discussion, it became apparent that the financial and political support in addressing issues of dealing with the past and reconciliation is still lacking. In Serbia, there is hope that due to the student protests, some changes can be expected, but it remains unclear in what way the political situation is developing.
At the end of the conference, Christina Griessler thanked all participants of the conference and mentioned that a publication is planned to bring all the presentations together in written form to be able to read them at a later stage.
Dr. Christina Griessler, Frauke M. Seebass, Joel Salomo Keller, Alexandra Barillova, Linus Biedermann
