Each conflikt has a source, a beginning. This beginning usually is a different point of view or a different ideology of the opposing parties. At best, these conflicts come about as protest and demonstrations and are solved by compromise, by agreements or by mutual concessions. If the opposing parties cannot solve the conflict by these means, the elimination, the abolition or the destruction of the opposing group often becomes a sad reality of our world. In the worst case a war begins. If a conflict is ended by one side winning over the other by struggle or war, we may not call it a “solution.” The concept of “solution” or better “conflict resolution” is generally associated with the purposeful searching for ways of accomodating the differing interests of the opposing groups. This does not necessarily mean, that the sources of the conflict are eliminated, but that “live and let live” policy (Williams, 1947) is the framework of the further peaceful interaction of the former opposing parties.
Table of Contents
1. The ethnic conflict in Bosnia – Herzegovina
Research Objectives and Topics
This work examines the complex dynamics of the ethnic conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, analyzing the breakdown of social cohesion following the collapse of the Yugoslavian communist regime and the subsequent, often counterproductive, interventions by international actors such as the European Community and the UN.
- Historical context of Bosnia under the "Titolandia" period
- The struggle for power and sovereignty among ethnic groups
- Critique of international mediation and intervention strategies
- The role of democratic processes versus ethnic partition
- The transition from initial conflict to the Dayton Peace Agreement
Excerpt from the Book
The ethnic conflict in Bosnia - Herzegovina
Each conflict has a source, a beginning. This beginning usually is a different point of view or a different ideology of the opposing parties. At best, these conflicts come about as protest and demonstrations and are solved by compromise, by agreements or by mutual concessions. If the opposing parties cannot solve the conflict by these means, the elimination, the abolition or the destruction of the opposing group often becomes a sad reality of our world. In the worst case a war begins. If a conflict is ended by one side winning over the other by struggle or war, we may not call it a “solution.” The concept of “solution” or better “conflict resolution” is generally associated with the purposeful searching for ways of accomodating the differing interests of the opposing groups. This does not necessarily mean, that the sources of the conflict are eliminated, but that “live and let live” policy (Williams, 1947) is the framework of the further peaceful interaction of the former opposing parties.
A common proverb says: ”Half the truth is not true at all”. If one tries to understand historical courses and developments one must know, that no complete truth can be possibly found or stated.
Looking at the historical development of former Yugoslavia we find a comunist regime, followed by the so-called “Titolandia”. “Titolandia” was the period, under Marshal Tito after World War II. Tito tried to transform the postcomunist state into a more socialist republik, where the different ethnical groups lived more or less peacefully together. This period was followed by what we find today: a country split up into different national parts.
Chapter Summaries
1. The ethnic conflict in Bosnia – Herzegovina: This chapter introduces the theoretical foundations of conflict resolution and sets the stage for the historical analysis of the Bosnian war, highlighting the failure of diplomacy and the tragic escalation into violence.
Keywords
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ethnic conflict, Yugoslavia, Titolandia, Conflict resolution, International community, Sovereignty, European Community, United Nations, Civil war, Dayton agreement, Partition, Diplomacy, Izetbegovic, Josê Cutilheiro
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this document?
The document focuses on the origins and progression of the ethnic conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, specifically examining how political struggles and failed international interventions led to war.
What are the central themes discussed in the text?
Key themes include the breakdown of the post-WWII Yugoslavian state, the ethnic polarization of the population, the difficulty of achieving compromise, and the controversial role of external mediators like the EU and the UN.
What is the overarching research question of the work?
The work seeks to understand how the conflict evolved, why attempts at peaceful resolution failed, and to what extent international actors contributed to or hindered the path toward peace.
Which scientific approach does the author use?
The author uses a historical and critical analytical approach, contrasting theoretical frameworks of conflict resolution with the practical timeline of the Bosnian war.
What core content is covered in the main body?
The main body covers the transition from the Tito era to independence movements, the failure of the EC to foster compromise, and the subsequent devastating war that only ended with the 1995 Dayton agreement.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include ethnic conflict, sovereignty, international intervention, conflict resolution, Yugoslavia, and the Dayton Peace Agreement.
How does the author characterize the role of "Brussels" in the conflict?
The author is highly critical of the European Community (referred to as "Brussels"), arguing that their attempts to force compromise and recognize sovereign status without consensus disregarded the interests of specific ethnic groups and fueled violence.
What is the significance of the "Titolandia" period mentioned in the text?
It serves as a reference point for a time when diverse ethnic groups lived relatively peacefully under a unified socialist state, a period that is now viewed by many locals with nostalgia compared to the subsequent war years.
Why does the author argue that the UN's intervention was ineffective?
The author contends that the UN's indecisiveness, conflicting mandates between peacekeeping and peace enforcement, and the lack of a clear strategy caused their presence to be both irritating and useless during the escalation of the conflict.
- Quote paper
- Bachelor of Arts in Social Science / European Studies Yevgeniy Voytsitskyy (Author), 2008, The ethnic conflict in Bosnia - Herzegovina, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/161882
