II

Table of Content

Table of  Content.  II

1.  Introduction.  1

2.  Collapse.  1

2.1  Ethnicity.  1

2.1.1  Definition of Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups  2

2.1.2  Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups in the pre-war Period  3

2.2  Nationalism and Nation.  4

2.2.1.  Attempts of definition.  4

2.2.2  Bosnian Peculiarities.  5

3.  War.  8

4.  Cease-Fire  9

4.1  Post-war settlement.  9

4.2  Reconciliation or Alternatives  10

5.  Future - Conclusion and Perspectives  11

Abbreviation.   III

Map  of 1991 Census  IV

Maps  of Warfare and Peace  V

Front  Lines in April 1995  V

Refugee  Migration.  VI

Implications  of the Dayton Peace Accord  VII

Bibliography   VIII

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 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 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 soldiers ¹ - 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).

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,

¹ Bismarck (1922).

² Nash (1989), p. 4.

2

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.

According to a non-sociologist definition the term may shortly be described as an institution, relationship, or self-definition, significantly distinctive from other cultures or civilisations by its habits and its customs establishing a more or less closed social constellation ³ . Yet, BARTH offers a more anthropological definition. Accordingly an ethnic group is a population, which is largely biologically self-perpetuating, sharing fundamental 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 overall character of the group. In like manner this implies the concept of ethnical boundaries. 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 considered 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 necessarily 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

³ Schmidt (1995), p. 277.

⁴ Erikson (1993), p. 4.

3

certain  amount of inner immunity, significant unity and size of the group 5 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 relatives 7 Thus, factual  

cultural  differences result out of the religions affection, historic backing or affiliation,  

and  the consciously maintenance of boundaries between the groups 8 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 similar 9 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 DAVIES 10 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  

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

4

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 primary war by emancipating the particular ethnic groups. Thus, the euphoria of the recently 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 politics ¹¹ . But this seems to have mutually support abroad. The indigenous population could have most likely perceived 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 ethnicity ¹² . Especially language, a more or less shared history and an unwillingly 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.

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 astonishingly of the nation-state. Accordingly, from German perspective the concept of nationalism is historically discredited and the intention of nation state seems to be antiquated regarding the further European integration ¹³ . Moreover communist biased definition devote a much lesser significance to the presence of nation or nationalism in the ideological context, despite the fact, that the entirety, totality and social aggregate of language,

¹⁰ Davies (1996), p. 18.

¹¹ Kind (1994), p. 147-148.

¹² Nash (1989), p. 5.