Bosnia now: the past and the future facing each other
Cross-posted from CAFÉ TURCO
On the same day that the trial of Radovan Karadzic began in the Hague, war criminal Biljana Plavsic, who succeeded Karadzic as President of Republika Srpska was released from prison, after having served seven of the eleven years to which she had been sentenced by the ICTY for her role on the war in Bosnia.
These two events occurred just a few days after the failure of the Butmir talks, the latest initiative to overcome the current political situation in Bosnia, which some define as crisis, but I prefer to define as deadlock, because unlike in a crisis, the current situation perfectly serves the parties involved. While the current situation doesn’t satisfy anyone, doing nothing, leaving things as they are is clearly beneficial for the leadership of the Serb entity.
Headed by Milorad Dodik, the government of the Republika Srpska is actively working towards the disintegration of Bosnia by systematically obstructing the process of decision making, proving by its behaviour that any power-sharing is worthless when the actors are not willing or at least compelled to share power.
Upon her release from prison in Sweden, Bijlana Plavsic flew to Belgrade in the jet of the government of the Republika Srpska, and upon her arrival, was warmly received by Milorad Dodik. The image of this encounter are striking: the past and the future holding hands, like a mother and her son.
Both were, at a certain point, considered by the international actors involved in Bosnia as moderate politicians worth backing. This tells a lot about the fallacy of the opposition between moderates and hardliners when it comes to Serb nationalism. Their moderation, Plavsic’s as well as Dodik’s, proved to be merely tactical. Through their seemingly moderate policies, when compared to those of Radovan Karadzic and his supporters, they made a very important contribution to the goal of disintegrating Bosnia and reinforcing the homogeneous ethnic composition of the Serb entity.
During the war, Plavsic, aka the ‘iron lady’, was known for her extreme nationalism and her outright racism. A professor of biology, Plavsic had no problem in abusing the authority of science to justify her racism, by presenting ‘ethnic cleansing’ as “a perfectly natural phenomenon” and claiming that the Bosnian Muslims were “genetically deformed material”:
This was the ‘moderate’ politician whom, after the war, the international actors chose to back. And when she voluntary surrendered after being indicted by the ICTY, her ‘moderation’ seemed to be confirmed. Thus Plavsic had as her defense witnesses prominent figures such as Madeleine Albright and Carl Bildt, whose testimony was an important mitigating factor for the judges (here, see note 20). Plavsic went as far as showing remorse and appealing for reconciliation, and the sincerity of her words was confirmed by the statement of the witness Elie Wiesel.
In fact, by pleading guilty on the count of persecutions as a crime against humanity, she managed to obtain a bargain in which the prosecution dropped all other charges, including two counts of genocide. Her plea thus represented not a positive step towards reconciliation, but a lost opportunity to prove that a genocide was committed in Bosnia by the Serb forces against the Muslims.
Early this year Plavsic retracted her confession, in an interview with the Swedish Vi magazine :
By pleading guilty on crimes against humanity so that she could get away with genocide, Biljana Plavsic sacrificed herself for the sake of the nation, but her sacrifice was obviously not as hard as the one she thought it was right to impose on her own co-nationals. Indeed, for the sake of ‘Greater Serbia’, she considered that the death of as much as half the total ethnic Serb population would be a worthy sacrifice:
So, through her ’sacrifice’, not only she managed to get her sentence substantially reduced, but she also avoided a conviction of genocide that would contribute to highlight the illegitimacy of the very existence of Republika Srpska.
If we look at the concept of legitimacy as springing from the founding act of any politically organized society, what do we see? We see the need to deny genocide, because legitimacy is the glue that binds people together in a politically organized society, while genocide is the ‘original sin’ upon which Republika Srpska was built. If someone like Bijlana Plavsic, or Milorad Dodik for that matter, chose to oppose the warmongering faction led by Karadzic, it was because they understand that violence was merely an instrument among others to achieve a goal.
Until now, the only conviction on the account of genocide by the ICTY was the case of General Radislav Krstic, the commander of the Drina Corps. However his conviction for genocide covered solely the case of the Massacre of Srebrenica. The chance to get a conviction for genocide in a wider area than Srebrenica was also missed at the trial of Momcilo Krajisnik, in which the prosecution failed to establish the Krajisnik genocidal intent (read Bosnia’s ‘accidental’ genocide, by Edina Becirevic). Krajisnik was convicted to 27 years in prison, but acquitted of genocide, and as a result of his appeal, the sentence was reduced to 20 years, overturning the convictions in several charges.
This appeal revealed major flaws in the prosecution’s strategy and sparked the fear that similar or even greater difficulties will be faced to convict Radovan Karadzic of genocide (about this debate, read ‘What Karadzic Prossecutors learnt from Krajisnik Trial’, by Simon Jennings).
Thus, bearing in mind the failure of the International Court of Justice (about this, read ‘The ICJ and the decriminalisation of Genocide‘, by Marko Attila Hoare, and ‘Vital Genocide documents concealed‘, by Florence Hartmann), and the fact that Ratko Mladic is still at large and most likely will never be captured, the trial of Radovan Karadzic represents the last chance to establish through international law the full extent of the genocidal character of the aggression against Bosnia-Hercegovina (about this, it’s worth reading this post by Kirk Johnson at Americans for Bosnia).
The stakes are high. The result of this trial cannot but have an important impact on the Republika Srpska. It is not at all a matter of ‘collective guilt’, since guilt is always individual, but it is a matter of political legitimacy. The political identity of the Serb entity is being built now as if it was an alien land, but the past keeps coming back and the urge for justice won’t go away so easily, as the case of the Spanish Civil War highlights.
However, for something to change in the current trend of ’smooth’ disintegration, it is necessary that what is called the international community, meaning the relevant international players in Bosnia, should seriously reflect on what went wrong in their approach both to the conflict and the post-conflict phase. That reflection is not happening and the result is clearly shown in the predictable failure of the Butmir talks.
Nonetheless, I do believe there are grounds for hope, for the simple reason that the future is not written in the stars but is rather built in the present and can always be changed. I believe real change must come from within the Bosnian society. Imposed solutions have already proved their limits, but international support for change will always play a crucial role. For change to happen, we must stop waiting for a miracle, because time is not working on our side.
Comments
| 2 November 2009, 5:29 pm |
Well done for deleting LJB’s ‘contribution’. It’s sometimes entertaining hearing his thoughts on BNP-related threads, but having him pollute posts like this one should not be tolerated.
| 2 November 2009, 11:39 pm |
Are there any Christian Churches left standing in Bosnia or Kosovo?
| 3 November 2009, 12:59 am |
Sarah, thank you for a very good post on the Bosnian Serb so-called Republic. Unfortunately too little attention has been paid since 9/11 to the former Yugoslavia.
Related: “Bill Clinton gets Hero’s welcome in Kosovo” at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/02/world/main5494651.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.3
| 3 November 2009, 1:05 am |
“The result of this trial cannot but have an important impact on the Republika Srpska. It is not at all a matter of ‘collective guilt’, since guilt is always individual, but it is a matter of political legitimacy.”
I fail to see how claiming an entire ethnic group’s political identity is built on an inherent genocide is anything other than collective guilt. Simply saying that it is not does not change the fact that denying the Bosnian Serbs their own identity is collective guilt.
But suppose the Bosnian Serbs make a break with their past. They apologise. They purge and try those responsible for the past. And then they decide they want to leave Bosnia and join Serbia. Can anyone think of a logical reason why they can’t?
Simply saying that Serbs are all genocidal scum who got what is coming to them is not a way to advance any argument. It is rather hard to deny peaceful people their own right to self-determination.
| 3 November 2009, 1:32 am |
Are there any Christian Churches left standing in Bosnia or Kosovo?
There are quite a few, including all the UNESCO World Heritage sites; you would have heard had they all disappeared. What is more, a Catholic cathedral is being built in central Prishtina.
| 3 November 2009, 1:35 am |
Graham – “A very well-measured and reasonable post with a conclusion that nobody sane could disagree with.”
Given that you have just spent a day or two arguing that the crimes of a few Serbs in the Krainja justified ethnic cleansing and the article claims collective responsibility is wrong, I, for one, welcome your repudiation of your previous, and needless to say, vile, views.
| 3 November 2009, 1:39 am |
I forgot to say to Sarah: this is an excellent, well-argued post, as we have come to expect from you.
It is rather hard to deny peaceful people their own right to self-determination.
I would have a lot less trouble had the Bosnian Serbs been both vocal and violent in their opposition to other ethnic groups, not least the Kosovars from exercising their right to self-determination. In a land where, unlike the Bosnian Serbs, they did not systematically murder and rape much of the local population to gain their majority,* and where they have been in a majority for centuries.
*Perhaps anyone who believes Serbian tales of genocide can explain to us what a muhaxhir is.
| 3 November 2009, 4:56 am |
hasan prishtina – “I would have a lot less trouble had the Bosnian Serbs been both vocal and violent in their opposition to other ethnic groups, not least the Kosovars from exercising their right to self-determination. In a land where, unlike the Bosnian Serbs, they did not systematically murder and rape much of the local population to gain their majority,* and where they have been in a majority for centuries.”
Actually weren’t the Bosnian Serbs always a majority in RS? Can you tell me when they were last a minority in that part of Bosnia?
I agree that Serbian nationalism is not a pleasant political ideology. Nor are a lot of nationalisms around the world. But it seems odd to punish an entire people because they did not speak up for the Kosovars. Or anyone else. Murderers are responsible for their murders, not the communities they come from. Serbs have as much right to self determination as anyone else.
And unless we want to be there forever we need a stable long term solution. Given that the peoples of Yugoslavia cannot live together in Yugoslavia, they are unlikely to do so in Bosnia or in Kosovo. So in both case partition seems the best solution with the Serbian parts going to Serbia, the Kosovan parts to Albania or wherever else they want to go, and the rump Bosnian state can carry on as it is or eventually merge into Croatia.
| 3 November 2009, 8:38 am |
It is important to say that there is a significant number of people working at grass-roots level to overcome the trauma and the deep divisions brought by the war. This effort is not yet translated into the political system but it is happening. Integrative tendencies exist along centrifugal.
Serbs were not a majority on the territory of what is now ‘Republika Srpska’.
They are now thanks to mass expulsion of the non-Serb population, plus the relocation of Serbs from other regions of Bosnia, most of which were forced to leave their homes by the Serb nationalists themselves, who, behaving as if people were property, would not allow their ’subjects’ to live in areas under control of Bosniaks and Croats. This is a proven fact. Thus the idea of self-determination cannot apply to this region, because that would be rewarding genocide, to put it in a simple way and not waste time with juridical and moral arguments. A quick return of the refugees, as happened in Kosovo, would have been the best thing, but until a certain point conditions on the ground did not allow it, and we cannot criticize people who have suffered so much, and who, meanwhile, organized their lives again, not to want to return.
Bosnia will never be the same, but this doesn’t mean it’s condemned to disappear.
So much for subtlety:
In what regards the difference between collective guilt and political responsibility, as well as legitimacy, I use the concepts as defined by Hannah Arendt. She has very clearly defined the difference between guilt and responsibility.
“”"But suppose the Bosnian Serbs make a break with their past. They apologise. They purge and try those responsible for the past. And then they decide they want to leave Bosnia and join Serbia. Can anyone think of a logical reason why they can’t?”"”
What you suggest the bosnian Serbs to do is the same thing that Biljana Plavsic did to get away with genocide. Bravo! This tells a lot about your political and moral values.
Furthermore, never ever in my life I have said or even though that
“”"Serbs are all genocidal scum who got what is coming to them”"”
I challenge you to search my blog and find anything showing even remotely resemblance to such a phrase, that is yours, not mine.
| 3 November 2009, 10:05 am |
Given that you have just spent a day or two arguing that the crimes of a few Serbs in the Krainja justified ethnic cleansing and the article claims collective responsibility is wrong, I, for one, welcome your repudiation of your previous, and needless to say, vile, views.
I take great satisfaction that an excuser of fascism has to lie about what I have said in order to put a point across and invite anyone to go to the “Karadzic trial” thread to see for themselves just what I did say and what a dishonest representation of that which SMFS is trying desperately to suggest.
| 3 November 2009, 11:29 am |
Excellent piece. Bravo!
| 3 November 2009, 3:16 pm |
Actually weren’t the Bosnian Serbs always a majority in RS? Can you tell me when they were last a minority in that part of Bosnia?
I think Sarah has covered this quite well. Until the war, Eastern Bosnia had a predominently Muslim population, though Serbs were in the majority around Banja Luka. Predominently Serb areas were to be found in Eastern Hercegovina and around Drvar. This changed when the VJ and its allies moved in to towns like Višegrad in the first month of the war.
Murderers are responsible for their murders, not the communities they come from.
RS is still governed by the successors of the SDS, the government that carried out the murders in the first place. There is a world away from Germany in 1949. Germany had lost territory, not gained it. FRG’s civil service and political representatives were not, by and large, ex-Nazis. Furthermore, Germany admitted all its part in the war, including starting it. We are a very long way from that with RS. And surely the views of the people of RS are reflected by their elected representatives?
And it’s not a matter of failing to speak up for the Kosovars. It’s a matter of demanding for oneself what one wants to prevent others having, and being prepared to kill to prevent them having it.
Given that the peoples of Yugoslavia cannot live together in Yugoslavia, they are unlikely to do so in Bosnia or in Kosovo.
They were unable to live together in Yugoslavia because it suited a number of politicians, among whom Milosevic and Tudjman, to have them believe that there was no alternative to ethnonationalism and violence. As far as Kosova is concerned, south of Mitrovica there is a net inflow of Serbs returning from Serbia and taking up citizenship in Kosova. To the north, Belgrade pays double salaries to all its employees (which is most of the population who have jobs) and encourages nationalist extremists to expel Albanians and bully moderate Serbs into submission. Where did we see this before?
| 4 November 2009, 12:46 am |
Sarah Correia – “Integrative tendencies exist along centrifugal.”
Yes. And I hope you all succeed. But it is not likely is it?
“Serbs were not a majority on the territory of what is now ‘Republika Srpska’.”
Really? Sources? I have just gone over to have a look at the nice map they have showing the pre-war distribution of population and to me it looks as if the war did not change the distribution of population as a whole, but rather concentrated it. That is, non-Serbs were driven out of Serb majority areas and Serbs out of non-Serb areas. But very few non-Serb areas became Serb and certainly no large parts of Bosnia.
“They are now thanks to mass expulsion of the non-Serb population, plus the relocation of Serbs from other regions of Bosnia, most of which were forced to leave their homes by the Serb nationalists themselves, who, behaving as if people were property, would not allow their ’subjects’ to live in areas under control of Bosniaks and Croats. This is a proven fact.”
Yes. It is well known that the Serbs of Croatia did not flee when the Croat Army was approaching and occupying their villages. Come on, this is childish. People flee for one reason and it usually involves young armed men with a tendency to rape and murder. In Croatia as in Bosnia.
“Thus the idea of self-determination cannot apply to this region, because that would be rewarding genocide, to put it in a simple way and not waste time with juridical and moral arguments.”
Which is simply the exact same argument the Serbs make when they say they cannot allow self determination because it would be rewarding collaboration with the Turks. The people of RS did not commit genocide, individuals did. They belong in jail and the people of RS have every right to exercise self determination.
“A quick return of the refugees, as happened in Kosovo, would have been the best thing, but until a certain point conditions on the ground did not allow it, and we cannot criticize people who have suffered so much, and who, meanwhile, organized their lives again, not to want to return.”
So that would be rewarding Croat ethnic cleansing would it?
“What you suggest the bosnian Serbs to do is the same thing that Biljana Plavsic did to get away with genocide. Bravo! This tells a lot about your political and moral values.”
I am suggesting guilt is not collective. The people of RS cannot be punished indefinitely while the Croats and Kosovars are rewarded just because we don’t like their political leaders.
And by the way, by saying that the Serbs of Bosnia cannot be allowed to exercise their right to self determination because this would be rewarding genocide what do you mean except that they are all genocidal scum? How is the genocide the fault of all Serbs?
| 4 November 2009, 1:32 am |
So Much for Subtlety.
I am an ethnic Serb living within the borders of the RS and I would much rather live in a mixed and co-operative Bosnia which is more like the Sarajevo where I was born than the backward and ethnographic defined state where I am forced to exist now.
Why are you saying that I should be held collectively responsible with those old men (and women) who led us into the stupid wars of the nineties, for wanting “self-determination” when in fact that is the last thing I want.
Why are you unable to see beyond people as racial groupings?
| 4 November 2009, 5:39 pm |
subtlety: you challenge me by asking me to give sources. In case you didn’t notice, this is a blog post, not a UN report or an academic article. Anyone can verify if the facts that I state are accurate or not.
“”But very few non-Serb areas became Serb and certainly no large parts of Bosnia.”"”
Are you crazy? It is a well known fact that practically all of eastern Bosnia along the Drina was inhabited by a Muslim majority. Hasan Prishtina’s comment on this is quite clear, anyone interested can find maps and data that confirm this.
Once again, the words ‘genocidal scum’ are yours, not mine.
I’m not going to waste my time explaining you the legal and moral arguments against the application of the right to self-determination to the Serb entity of Bosnia, because you are not a person who argue in good faith. You systematically try to distort my arguments and insinuate that I am making claims that I don’t make.
Branka Sudic:
I invoke the concept of political responsibility of the members of a community towards its historical legacy. Responsibility and guilt are different concepts, both in political thought and as juridical principles.
People like you and many others have also been victims of this war, like the inhabitants of Serb-held areas of Sarajevo who found themselves living in Srebrenica, a place that meant nothing to them and where they were forced to live with the legacy of a crime they didn’t commit.
But it is important to bear in mind who started it, who was fighting for what and how it was carried out.
I quote Plavsic saying that she would have no problem in accepting the death of 6 million Serbs. The Serbian nationalists who planned and carried out this was never, for a single moment had any respect for the lives and well being of any Serbs other than themselves. Feeding their wealth and their obsession for the purity of the Nation was all that mattered.
It is not by chance that, ever since the beginning, it was extremely difficult to recruit the conscripts for the army and that the army of RS had a cronical shortage of man power, while in Serbia, men in military age who were born in Bosnia were chased around and forced to go to war.
However, we must not forget that there was, nonetheless, a very wide participation in crimes. People like the Lukic cousins, who terrorised Visegrad, and so many others, many small town petty tyrants.
This brings me back to the issue of responsibility. I believe that real change in Bosnia must come from normal people, those like you who don’t like to be divided by the flawed criteria of nationality. I have found the same frustration that you express many times.
Here I use the term responsibility as duty, not merely towards the past, also towards the future. It is quite obvious that we cannot expect much from the ruling elite.
| 4 November 2009, 6:29 pm |
Republika Srpska’s existence is built on genocide. The ability and desire of its rightful population to return to their homes is destroyed by the memory of genocide. The idea that Milorad Dodik is capable of making a break with the past when he accuses Bosniaks of murdering themselves during the war is risible. Plavsic’s triumphal return signals that the past is dead as far as RS is concerned.
A very well-measured and reasonable post with a conclusion that nobody sane could disagree with.