> http://www.antiwar.com/malic/pf/p-m040402.html
ANTIWAR, Thursday, April 4, 2002
Balkan Express
by Nebojsa Malic
Antiwar.com
Bosnia Revisited
10 Years On
Ten years ago this Friday, the
Bosnian capital of Sarajevo woke up
under a blockade. Set up by a Bosnian Serb
militia to protest the impending - and
illegal - declaration of independence
by a Muslim-Croat regime, it escalated
into a full-fledged siege and a bloody
ethnic conflict that dragged on for
1326 days. In the course of what
became known as the Bosnian War
(1992-1995), Serbs fought Muslims,
Croats and - eventually - NATO. Croats
fought both Serbs and Muslims, and
occasionally allied with either. Muslims
fought Serbs, Croats, and even other
Muslims, howling all along for the UN
or NATO to intervene on their side.
They also solicited and accepted help
from hundreds of vicious "holy
warriors" from Islamic countries,
claiming at the same time to be secular,
democratic, multi-ethnic and tolerant.
The Fog of Facts
The war has been defined as an
aggression, a civil war, a religious or
ethnic conflict, a clash of civilizations,
a genocide, a war of secession
and a war of succession, with every
belligerent using the definition that
suited them best.
Same thing happened with the
casualty figures. No one knows for certain how
many people actually died in Bosnia.
Usual wartime practice of inflated
claims of enemy casualties was
combined with a new practice of inflating
one's own civilian deaths, in order to
gain sympathy from abroad. Figures
thus range from 250,000 Muslims
alone to 60,000 on all sides. Similarly,
it is claimed that up to 2 million people
were displaced, but it is still
unclear how many were displaced by
force. Many certainly were, yet they all
claim so. No one admits fleeing in the
face of danger, even if that is the truth.
Beyond a doubt, the war in Bosnia
was brutal. Atrocities were a part of
everyday fighting, and international
conventions were hardly heeded as
boundaries between civilians and
military were blurred to nonexistence.
Sharpshooters on urban frontlines
picked off anything that moved. Millions
of land mines killed anyone who came
along. Artillery bombardment killed
indiscriminately. Captured foes,
military or civilian, were often
brutalized and killed. The real atrocities,
however, quickly became obscured by a sea
of garish claims calculated to gain
media attention: concentration camps,
mass murder, mass and systematic
rape of women, and even genocide. And while
it was easy to document the everyday
atrocities, finding evidence for these
claims has proven much more elusive.
A House Divided
To be sure, there are a few facts few
can disagree on. One is that Bosnia is
divided today between the Serb
Republic (48%) and the Muslim-Croat
Federation (51%), the remaining 1%
taken up by the internationally-run
"district" of Brcko. The Federation is
further subdivided into 10 cantons,
largely along ethnic lines.
The entire country is effectively - but
not officially - ruled by an
international viceroy, with the prosaic
title of High Representative and
offices in a walled white mid-rise
along the former frontline in downtown
Sarajevo.
Some 20,000 NATO troops still remain
in Bosnia as part of a "stabilization"
(i.e. occupation) force, or SFOR.
That's down from 60,000 sent there 6
years ago. Among them are still a 1000 or
so Americans, despite a promise by a
former Emperor that they would only
stay one year. Many of those who served
in Bosnia are now occupying Kosovo,
as part of KFOR.
Word Games
Few other places testify to the power
of words as much as Bosnia today. Its
very name has become a weapon in
political, cultural and ethnic conflict
that still simmers in that ruined land.
Muslims have bestowed upon
themselves the name "Bosniak," an
Austrian-era archaism denoting inhabitants
of Bosnia, thus implying their
ownership of the country. Very often,
Muslims are simply referred to as "Bosnians,"
clearly implying that Serbs and Croats
are pesky minorities at best,
murderous intruders at worst.
Residents of the Muslim-Croat
Federation mention the phrase
"Bosnia-Herzegovina" as often as
possible, as if uttering the country's
name could somehow conjure it into
existence. In the Serb Republic, on
the other hand, the name is mentioned seldom,
if ever - as if ignoring it could make
the country disappear.
Rather than simple word games, these
are serious indicators that the
attitudes which a decade ago led to
the war are alive and well today,
ingrained deeply into the fabric of
society, and poisoning ethnic
relations every day more.
Oscar Politics
Just two weeks ago, a picture about
the Bosnian War won the (American)
Academy Award for best foreign film.
The award, earned by Danis Tanovic
for his brilliant directing, a clever
screenplay and captivating music
score, was immediately drawn into Bosnia's
political maelstrom. His words from the
award ceremony, "This is for my
country, for Bosnia," were twisted and
abused almost as soon as he uttered them.
Thus the Bosnian Serbs, portrayed
rather unflatteringly in "No Man's
Land," smarted and scoffed at the
accomplishment. Croats claimed the
award as their
own, on the grounds that many ethnic
Croats starred in the film. Bosnian
Muslims, on the other hand, would not
shut up about their success; Tanovic
is a Muslim, and the film sometimes
unabashedly peddled their war
propaganda. Yet they conveniently
forgot that the Muslim authorities'
refusal to allow Tanovic to film in
Bosnia made him move the production
to Slovenia.
To his greatest credit, Tanovic himself
refused to be drawn into politics,
staying away from the limelight and
even avoiding a triumphant return to
Sarajevo he knew would turn into a
media circus.
Back To Square One?
Just last week, the departing viceroy
managed to convince some of Bosnia's
leading politicians to agree on a
package of constitutional reforms that
would give greater rights to all three
major ethnic groups. This is seen as
a step ahead from the institutional
discrimination of the Dayton Peace
Agreement, which favored ethnic
oligarchies.
Nonetheless, the reforms are still
based on ethnic, collective politics,
and their system of quotas and parity is
merely trying to restore the situation
from just before the war. This system,
and its abuse by ethnic parties, led
to the war in 1992. Reinstating it will
hardly undo the damage.
Ironically, the judicial review that led
to the reforms was initiated by the
wartime Muslim leadership, which
hoped to accomplish its goal of unifying
Bosnia under Muslim domination by
abolishing the Serb Republic. The current
agreement thwarts that plan, but it's far
from being defeated. As long as it
exists, Serb and Croat politicians will
bitterly oppose all calls for a
citizens' republic, a non-ethnic
political society that might give Bosnia
a raison d'etre and a future. Muslim
integrationists' wartime claim to
represent a secular, citizens' republic
seems to have poisoned that well for
a long time to come.
No Man's Land
Unlike irony, tragedy, suffering or
deceit, hope is one thing Bosnia is
perpetually short of. Stumbling under
the weight of loss, destruction,
poverty, crime and repression that
have marked the past decade, the
residents of Bosnia are far from any
sort of miraculous deliverance. Some
ruined buildings may have been
mended, but the wounds in people's
souls may never be.
Meanwhile, Bosnia continues to exist
as a sort of black hole, bereft of
meaning, form, function or future. In
order to be free, those who live in it
need to take responsibility for their
feelings. But what then? Bosnia's
peoples could find a way to live
together and build a true Bosnian
nation.
Or, they could peaceably part and
bury Bosnia as Yugoslavia - another
idea of multi-ethnic coexistence - was
buried recently. Or, most likely, they
would simply jump into another round
of ethnic bloodshed, hoping that
violence could persuade the others,
or at least kill them off.
The occupation is not addressing any
of the persisting ethnic, political or
even social issues. It merely
represses them, postponing the day of
reckoning and prolonging Bosnia's
continuing agony. Such an approach is
somewhat justified by the absence of
bloodshed, but it might make things
worse in the long run - if they can
possibly get worse, that is.
Bosnia is a living monument to the
horror of Yugoslav dissolution, the
harrowing reminder that people are
not footnotes, and can't simply be erased
or left behind. It is, as Tanovic's film
so aptly states, a "No Man's Land,"
resting on a landmine that would
surely kill if it were to try and rise. It
is a testament to Empire's criminal
misconduct in the Balkans, as it sought
to impose unworkable solutions
without understanding the problems.
Most of all, ten years later, Bosnia
remains a paradox. And those were
never easy to inhabit.
ANTIWAR, Thursday, April 4, 2002
Balkan Express
by Nebojsa Malic
Antiwar.com
Bosnia Revisited
10 Years On
Ten years ago this Friday, the
Bosnian capital of Sarajevo woke up
under a blockade. Set up by a Bosnian Serb
militia to protest the impending - and
illegal - declaration of independence
by a Muslim-Croat regime, it escalated
into a full-fledged siege and a bloody
ethnic conflict that dragged on for
1326 days. In the course of what
became known as the Bosnian War
(1992-1995), Serbs fought Muslims,
Croats and - eventually - NATO. Croats
fought both Serbs and Muslims, and
occasionally allied with either. Muslims
fought Serbs, Croats, and even other
Muslims, howling all along for the UN
or NATO to intervene on their side.
They also solicited and accepted help
from hundreds of vicious "holy
warriors" from Islamic countries,
claiming at the same time to be secular,
democratic, multi-ethnic and tolerant.
The Fog of Facts
The war has been defined as an
aggression, a civil war, a religious or
ethnic conflict, a clash of civilizations,
a genocide, a war of secession
and a war of succession, with every
belligerent using the definition that
suited them best.
Same thing happened with the
casualty figures. No one knows for certain how
many people actually died in Bosnia.
Usual wartime practice of inflated
claims of enemy casualties was
combined with a new practice of inflating
one's own civilian deaths, in order to
gain sympathy from abroad. Figures
thus range from 250,000 Muslims
alone to 60,000 on all sides. Similarly,
it is claimed that up to 2 million people
were displaced, but it is still
unclear how many were displaced by
force. Many certainly were, yet they all
claim so. No one admits fleeing in the
face of danger, even if that is the truth.
Beyond a doubt, the war in Bosnia
was brutal. Atrocities were a part of
everyday fighting, and international
conventions were hardly heeded as
boundaries between civilians and
military were blurred to nonexistence.
Sharpshooters on urban frontlines
picked off anything that moved. Millions
of land mines killed anyone who came
along. Artillery bombardment killed
indiscriminately. Captured foes,
military or civilian, were often
brutalized and killed. The real atrocities,
however, quickly became obscured by a sea
of garish claims calculated to gain
media attention: concentration camps,
mass murder, mass and systematic
rape of women, and even genocide. And while
it was easy to document the everyday
atrocities, finding evidence for these
claims has proven much more elusive.
A House Divided
To be sure, there are a few facts few
can disagree on. One is that Bosnia is
divided today between the Serb
Republic (48%) and the Muslim-Croat
Federation (51%), the remaining 1%
taken up by the internationally-run
"district" of Brcko. The Federation is
further subdivided into 10 cantons,
largely along ethnic lines.
The entire country is effectively - but
not officially - ruled by an
international viceroy, with the prosaic
title of High Representative and
offices in a walled white mid-rise
along the former frontline in downtown
Sarajevo.
Some 20,000 NATO troops still remain
in Bosnia as part of a "stabilization"
(i.e. occupation) force, or SFOR.
That's down from 60,000 sent there 6
years ago. Among them are still a 1000 or
so Americans, despite a promise by a
former Emperor that they would only
stay one year. Many of those who served
in Bosnia are now occupying Kosovo,
as part of KFOR.
Word Games
Few other places testify to the power
of words as much as Bosnia today. Its
very name has become a weapon in
political, cultural and ethnic conflict
that still simmers in that ruined land.
Muslims have bestowed upon
themselves the name "Bosniak," an
Austrian-era archaism denoting inhabitants
of Bosnia, thus implying their
ownership of the country. Very often,
Muslims are simply referred to as "Bosnians,"
clearly implying that Serbs and Croats
are pesky minorities at best,
murderous intruders at worst.
Residents of the Muslim-Croat
Federation mention the phrase
"Bosnia-Herzegovina" as often as
possible, as if uttering the country's
name could somehow conjure it into
existence. In the Serb Republic, on
the other hand, the name is mentioned seldom,
if ever - as if ignoring it could make
the country disappear.
Rather than simple word games, these
are serious indicators that the
attitudes which a decade ago led to
the war are alive and well today,
ingrained deeply into the fabric of
society, and poisoning ethnic
relations every day more.
Oscar Politics
Just two weeks ago, a picture about
the Bosnian War won the (American)
Academy Award for best foreign film.
The award, earned by Danis Tanovic
for his brilliant directing, a clever
screenplay and captivating music
score, was immediately drawn into Bosnia's
political maelstrom. His words from the
award ceremony, "This is for my
country, for Bosnia," were twisted and
abused almost as soon as he uttered them.
Thus the Bosnian Serbs, portrayed
rather unflatteringly in "No Man's
Land," smarted and scoffed at the
accomplishment. Croats claimed the
award as their
own, on the grounds that many ethnic
Croats starred in the film. Bosnian
Muslims, on the other hand, would not
shut up about their success; Tanovic
is a Muslim, and the film sometimes
unabashedly peddled their war
propaganda. Yet they conveniently
forgot that the Muslim authorities'
refusal to allow Tanovic to film in
Bosnia made him move the production
to Slovenia.
To his greatest credit, Tanovic himself
refused to be drawn into politics,
staying away from the limelight and
even avoiding a triumphant return to
Sarajevo he knew would turn into a
media circus.
Back To Square One?
Just last week, the departing viceroy
managed to convince some of Bosnia's
leading politicians to agree on a
package of constitutional reforms that
would give greater rights to all three
major ethnic groups. This is seen as
a step ahead from the institutional
discrimination of the Dayton Peace
Agreement, which favored ethnic
oligarchies.
Nonetheless, the reforms are still
based on ethnic, collective politics,
and their system of quotas and parity is
merely trying to restore the situation
from just before the war. This system,
and its abuse by ethnic parties, led
to the war in 1992. Reinstating it will
hardly undo the damage.
Ironically, the judicial review that led
to the reforms was initiated by the
wartime Muslim leadership, which
hoped to accomplish its goal of unifying
Bosnia under Muslim domination by
abolishing the Serb Republic. The current
agreement thwarts that plan, but it's far
from being defeated. As long as it
exists, Serb and Croat politicians will
bitterly oppose all calls for a
citizens' republic, a non-ethnic
political society that might give Bosnia
a raison d'etre and a future. Muslim
integrationists' wartime claim to
represent a secular, citizens' republic
seems to have poisoned that well for
a long time to come.
No Man's Land
Unlike irony, tragedy, suffering or
deceit, hope is one thing Bosnia is
perpetually short of. Stumbling under
the weight of loss, destruction,
poverty, crime and repression that
have marked the past decade, the
residents of Bosnia are far from any
sort of miraculous deliverance. Some
ruined buildings may have been
mended, but the wounds in people's
souls may never be.
Meanwhile, Bosnia continues to exist
as a sort of black hole, bereft of
meaning, form, function or future. In
order to be free, those who live in it
need to take responsibility for their
feelings. But what then? Bosnia's
peoples could find a way to live
together and build a true Bosnian
nation.
Or, they could peaceably part and
bury Bosnia as Yugoslavia - another
idea of multi-ethnic coexistence - was
buried recently. Or, most likely, they
would simply jump into another round
of ethnic bloodshed, hoping that
violence could persuade the others,
or at least kill them off.
The occupation is not addressing any
of the persisting ethnic, political or
even social issues. It merely
represses them, postponing the day of
reckoning and prolonging Bosnia's
continuing agony. Such an approach is
somewhat justified by the absence of
bloodshed, but it might make things
worse in the long run - if they can
possibly get worse, that is.
Bosnia is a living monument to the
horror of Yugoslav dissolution, the
harrowing reminder that people are
not footnotes, and can't simply be erased
or left behind. It is, as Tanovic's film
so aptly states, a "No Man's Land,"
resting on a landmine that would
surely kill if it were to try and rise. It
is a testament to Empire's criminal
misconduct in the Balkans, as it sought
to impose unworkable solutions
without understanding the problems.
Most of all, ten years later, Bosnia
remains a paradox. And those were
never easy to inhabit.