- Information
- AI Chat
This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.
Was this document helpful?
This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.
Discussion 3 Bosnian Conflict
Course: International Conflict And Negotiation (INTL 3400)
8 Documents
Students shared 8 documents in this course
University: Northeastern University
Was this document helpful?
This is a preview
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
Already Premium?
How does the trauma of the Bosnian war continue to influence the country today? Is it possible for
Bosnian society to heal from its traumas and to restore unity across its ethnic groups?
First of all, wondering what makes this ethnic conflict different from other ethnic conflicts in
the world, I think talking about Tito helps explaining it. Indeed, Tito’s idea of creating a united
Yugoslavia was so unique for a multiethnic region like this that his death drowned the country in huge
trauma, because people did not know how to live anymore. This is in fact reflected in today’s trauma
amongst the population that is experiencing identity problems: they don’t know who they are
anymore. As Almin Djelilovic, the head of an association of wartime detainees from Hadzici called
Don’t Forget, Don’t Let it Happen Again 1992-95, puts it in the Balkan Transitional Justice article, “Up
to 1992, we lived together, then we waged a war, and now we are living together again. We should
just face the truth, but the truth is a difficult problem”. I think this sentence in itself sums up the
trauma caused by Tito’s death and the loss of unity, and thus the uniqueness of such a conflict and
the difficulty to find a healing solution.
Moreover, the articles also brought up a lot of explaining factors and dynamics that emerged
after the Dayton accords in the region which help understand the tensions there. First, we have to
keep in mind that even though violence stopped, tensions did not. Indeed, as many witnesses or
authors argue, “peace was brokered solely to prevent further horrors “ but the “war had no clear
winner” and “there was no happy ending”. Besides, a rise of nationalism and ethnic tensions has
been noticed ever since the Dayton accords were signed. In fact, even though all three leaders
supposedly agreed on defined entities and territories, Croatian and Serbian minorities living in Bosnia
are still trying to increase the autonomy o their respective entities, rather than supporting the joint
political institutions that were created with a peaceful purpose by the Dayton accords, and which are
actually supported by Muslim Bosnians. Moreover, this toxic nationalism is also characterized by
secessionist rhetoric, advocating for Bosnia’s dissolution which was justly prevented by the Dayton
accords, but also by expansion of military arsenal, especially in Serbia under the control of its leader
Aleksandar Vučić, as explained in Aleksandar Brezar’s article “Bosnia is close to the edge. We need
Europe’s help”. Therefore, one could argue that the so-called “peace agreement” did not change the
situation at all because each minority is still bringing up the same claims, and that we have to start
from scratch again to find a real peace agreement, that will not only stop violence but tensions.
Furthermore, I think the “Bosnia Spends €2 Million on ‘Divisive’ War Memorials” article had a really
interesting perspective in explaining how political leaders manipulating historical narratives of
victimization can actually add up to the tensions and nationalist claims. Indeed, as experts argued in
this article, building memorials that are always dedicated to the majority ethnic group of the area in
which they are built “does not contribute to peace-building”, especially when the truth about the
events that supposedly happened is not perfectly known. Governments are actually also
manipulating the truth about the genocide in narratives, in Srebrenica for example. In fact, as said in
the article, “much of this political revisionism is sponsored by malign external actors, including
Russia” and in that sense, we could argue that the European Union is not doing enough to counter
those false narratives, and that the “soft power” strategy is just not efficient. Therefore, I believe the
EU should try and find solutions to appease tensions, by advocating for more transparency on history
or for more acknowledgment of everyone’s suffering in order for all people to move forward, and
thus act like a “unifying force” for those countries and ethnically diverse minorities. Finally, I think the
identity problems can also be explained by the victim status and PTSD experienced by most of the
populations. Indeed, all parts of the populations experienced trauma in this conflict, the soldiers, as
well as the women who were sexually abused, but also the refugees who were displaced, the camp
detainees and even the children who in a way lost their childhood to the conflict. All of this is causing
a huge identity trauma and thus identity seeking problems that make it even harder to appease the
Why is this page out of focus?
This is a Premium document. Become Premium to read the whole document.