I remember December 1, 1997, as a crucial and so far one of the most important days in my life. This was the day I left for Bosnia and Herzegovina to become a member of the SFOR Peacekeeping Mission. Today on December 1, 2001, I look back to this first adventure of my life. Still I am trying to figure out what caused these cruel deeds and this furious devastation of a whole and formerly relatively prosperous country. Things I could see and experience there brought up to me the idea to discuss the initial reasons for this particular war, which had become one of the bloodiest events in Europe’s contemporary history. Despite all the subsequent crises in the region, an area known throughout history to be cause of numerous conflicts and wars – as BISMARCK once said being not worth the bones of one of his soldiers1 – it might be further deserving to devote the later part of this paper discussing the actual setting and feasible future deve lopment. Literature gives a broad overview of political explanations for the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, which became frequently apparent during the last years and crises. Despite the fact, that in the media the terms ethnicity and nationalism was used extensively, there are only few attempts to explain the pre-war situation by these phrases. Therefor the objective of the following chapter will be a clarification of the terms in regard to the particular situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina shortly before the war. In conclusion it might be suitable to make some remarks on the actual situation regarding the ethnical combination as well as the impact of refugee migration on the territory of the country in comparison to the pre-war status and the persuading outcomes eventually resulting out of this.
However, the observer should be aware, that the examinations often lack discreet evidence; in the words of NASH: “But even this phrasing of the search for universals in group loyalties and boundary maintaining mechanisms is difficult to spin into empirical relevant sentences”2. This proves much more valid in regard to the fragmentary settlement and diversity of the respective ethnicity in the pre-war Bosnia (see also the attached map of 1991 census).
[...]
______
1 Bismarck (1922).
2 Nash (1989), p. 4.
Table of Content
1. Introduction
2. Collapse
2.1 Ethnicity
2.1.1 Definition of Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups
2.1.2 Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups in the pre-war Period
2.2 Nationalism and Nation
2.2.1. Attempts of definition
2.2.2 Bosnian Peculiarities
3. War
4. Cease-Fire
4.1 Post-war settlement
4.2 Reconciliation or Alternatives
5. Future - Conclusion and Perspectives
Abbreviation
Map of 1991 Census
Maps of Warfare and Peace
Front Lines in April 1995
Refugee Migration
Implications of the Dayton Peace Accord
Bibliography
1. Introduction
I remember December 1, 1997, as a crucial and so far one of the most important days in my life. This was the day I left for Bosnia and Herzegovina to become a member of the SFOR Peacekeeping Mission. Today on December 1, 2001, I look back to this first ad- venture of my life. Still I am trying to figure out what caused these cruel deeds and this furious devastation of a whole and formerly relatively prosperous country. Things I could see and experience there brought up to me the idea to discuss the initial reasons for this particular war, which had become one of the bloodiest events in Europe’s con- temporary history. Despite all the subsequent crises in the region, an area known throughout history to be cause of numerous conflicts and wars - as BISMARCK once said being not worth the bones of one of his soldiers1 - it might be further deserving to de- vote the later part of this paper discussing the actual setting and feasible future deve l- opment. Literature gives a broad overview of political explanations for the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, which became frequently apparent during the last years and crises. Despite the fact, that in the media the terms ethnicity and nationalism was used exten- sively, there are only few attempts to explain the pre-war situation by these phrases. Therefor the objective of the following chapter will be a clarification of the terms in re- gard to the particular situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina shortly before the war. In conclusion it might be suitable to make some remarks on the actual situation regarding the ethnical combination as well as the impact of refugee migration on the territory of the country in comparison to the pre-war status and the persuading outcomes eventually resulting out of this.
However, the observer should be aware, that the examinations often lack discreet evi- dence; in the words of NASH: “But even this phrasing of the search for universals in group loyalties and boundary maintaining mechanisms is difficult to spin into empirical relevant sentences”2. This proves much more valid in regard to the fragmentary settle- ment and diversity of the respective ethnicity in the pre-war Bosnia (see also the at- tached map of 1991 census).
2. Collapse
RENAN, asking what is a nation, is well aware, that distinctive concepts of nation, ethnic groups, etc. may differ significantly from the respective point of view. Further more, continuously altering categorisation of these concepts’ characteristics may result in conclusions, misunderstanding and misinterpretation the concerned subject completely. Thus I want to elaborate in the next chapter some of the concerned terms and their applicability to the pre-war situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2.1 Ethnicity
2.1.1 Definition of Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups
According to a non-sociologist definition the term may shortly be described as an insti- tution, relationship, or self-definition, significantly distinctive from other cultures or civilisations by its habits and its customs establishing a more or less closed social con- stellation3. Yet, BARTH offers a more anthropological definition. Accordingly an ethnic group is a population, which is largely biologically self-perpetuating, sharing funda- mental cultural values, making up a certain field of communication and interaction, and whose members identify themselves, but also are defined by others as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories. ERIKSEN, in contrast, determinates the approach to the extent, that ethnicity “has something to do with the classification of people and group relations”4. BARTH emphasises the culture bearing function of ethnic groups, though he refrains from delimiting the cultural aspect of individuals to the over- all character of the group. In like manner this implies the concept of ethnical bounda- ries. Hence, boundaries are necessary to define and distinguish between the social groups, considering themselves being of different ethnicity, i.e. identity. However, the variety of categorisation is simply a result of sheer existence and social interaction of human beings. Thus, the particular objectives and cultural features establishing the basic identity of the individual gain only importance or relevance, if an observer claims these cultural aspects relevant to belong to the ethnic group. Correspondingly, the ethnic group defines itself, and is defined, only in contrast to other at least dissimilar consid- ered groups. Whether there is a real or effective difference might by debatable. Finally, an ethnic boundary may define a group. This refers as well to matters concerning terri- tory, which shall be discussed later. However, territorial boundaries do not have neces- sarily to suit the social, i.e. ethnical frontiers. A social boundary may solely define an ethnic group, but above all, canalise social life, determine individual or group behaviour and social relations, by forcing or encircling them. While probably limiting individual freedom, social boundaries of ethnic groups provide the particular population with a certain amount of inner immunity, significant unity and size of the group5. Yet, NASH figures out, that the “reality of ethnic identity, its content, and its boundary lines - being a historical product and thus subject to change, redefinition, and varies salience in the lives of the members of the group - does not overcome the insight that the building blocks of ethnicity, defined as the self-conscious group within a nation-state, are virtu- ally the same over time”6.
2.1.2 Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups in the pre-war Period
These phrases ought to be filled and visualised by the explanation of the pre-war situa- tion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The population of the country consists of 3 major eth- nicity, probably well classified by the definitions given above, which are strongly corre- sponding to religious affection: the Muslim Bosniaks, the Catholic Croats, and the Or- thodox Serbs. Being all of Slav origin, people, occupying the territory that is today con- sidered being the terrain of the country, attained quite different characteristics in their historic development. Especially the Bosniaks got under Ottoman occupation and influ- ence where they adapted the Islam religion and parts of its corresponding culture. On the other side the Croat entity faced a strong pressure of Germanization being integrated in the Austro-Hungarian system. The Serb population grew under the influence and the predominance of Christian Orthodoxy backed by the Russian relatives7. Thus, factual cultural differences result out of the religions affection, historic backing or affiliation, and the consciously maintenance of boundaries between the groups8. It is a matter of fact that the languages of the respective ethnicity might differ in slight notions, but, while ensuing from a single root, they are indeed similar9. Yet, the preservation of a notable distinction is upheld by the sheer existence of the alphabet boundary along the medieval partition of Christianity, as visualised by DAVIES10. This fact became addi- tionally apparent in daily life after the war, when in the semi-divided city of Sarajevo the distrust of entities forced people to change public transport by crossing this visibly invisible border.
The individual historic evolution of the respective groups had widely been discussed and shall not be elaborated here. Yet, KIND identifies a certain historical backing to in- dividual parties in the conflict. Though Croatia fought its own fight for independence in the early 1990s, it may be assumed that the international recognition of Slovenian and Croatia, later on of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the wake of the conflict sparked the pri- mary war by emancipating the particular ethnic groups. Thus, the euphoria of the re- cently re-united Germany seemed to have motivated German foreign policy to trans- form the local in an international conflict, the civil war in a struggle between sovereign states. The purpose may be assumed in a certain degree of historical evident anti-Serb attitude, which shaped pro Croatian sentiments in German politics11. But this seems to have mutually support abroad. The indigenous population could have most likely per- ceived the role of SFOR offending. Despite thousands of soldiers in foreign uniforms, carrying rifles, driving solely in armoured vehicles and obtaining more sovereign rights than the national authorities, it would have not taken wonder experiencing several acts of aversion. Instead, when I was engaged in Croat dominated region in Bosnia once I witnessed an old man raising his arm towards the German troops in a way it was usual in times of Ustascha and the Nazi occupation.
These are some few but obvious examples encountering NASH’s concept of building blocks of ethnicity12. Especially language, a more or less shared history and an unwill- ingly common historical memory, as well as the distinctive religion, though particularly contradicting, might construct a general and prevalent identity of Bosnians as those people who ever since formed a community consisting of visibly different peoples, but never had the chance to establish independently their own state structure or even nation.
2.2 Nationalism and Nation
2.2.1. Attempts of definition
To define the terms of nationalism or nation following German dictionaries is a nearly hopeless venture. The domestic literature is still dominated by digestion of the worst chapter of national history. Definitions bear an evident influence of criticism or even disclaim of ideas regarding nation, nationalism, and occasionally but neither astonish- ingly of the nation-state. Accordingly, from German perspective the concept of nation- alism is historically discredited and the intention of nation state seems to be antiquated regarding the further European integration13. Moreover communist biased definition de- vote a much lesser significance to the presence of nation or nationalism in the ideologi- cal context, despite the fact, that the entirety, totality and social aggregate of language,
[...]
1 Bismarck (1922).
2 Nash (1989), p. 4.
3 Schmidt (1995), p. 277.
4 Erikson (1993), p. 4.
5 Barth (1969), p. 10-15.
6 Nash (1989), p. 5.
7 Kissinger (2001), p. 107.
8 Kind (1994), p. 14-15.
9 Idem, p. 20.
10 Davies (1996), p. 18.
11 Kind (1994), p. 147-148.
12 Nash (1989), p. 5.
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.