Chapter 2: Ethnic Groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina
When dealing with terms such as ethnic group or nationality, we need to reach a consensus regarding a definition of each of the terms. Once we have established what is a nationality and an ethnic group, we can move to the next step in which, our focus will center on ethnic structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina (we are here only concerned with 'three' major players involved in the conflict between 1992 and 1996). This will help us firstly, to establish the 'apparent' nature of the conflict, i.e. we will try to answer questions whether this conflict is an aggression of one state on another, or is it civil war within one state - with more than friendly support of neighboring states, or is it essentially a religious conflict. In presenting a discussion that will appear to be supportive of either one of the three commonly entertained notions, we will try to point a reader in a different direction. This 'different direction', or as we will discuss it in the next chapter (the notion of 'stranger') is based on following analogies: If something is all of the above (we are referring here to three often proposed, and above mentioned, descriptions related to the nature of Bosnian conflict), then it is possible that it is none of the above, and if something is always evident as an expression distinctive of one group then it is as such either partly or entirely incorrect because the other side/s involved in conflict cannot accept such description. Both of these strains of thought only confirm that if there is no consensus, the whole problem rests on incorrect propositions.
1. Nationality and Ethnic Group
We must immediately ask: what do we mean by "nationality" and what do we mean by "ethnic group"? In 'western world' it is commonly assumed that nationality and citizenship are linked together. We will not seek some generalized definitions for these terms, but rather we will try to meet them there, where they seem to have reached its boiling point, i.e. on Balkans. History of the term's usage in former Yugoslavia, deviates from western 'definition'. Further more, both terms nationality and ethnic group have had more or less similar meaning. The term "ethnic" was usually used in conjunction with a "minority", as is most commonly but not exclusively the case in Vojvodina - the northern province of today's Serbia. Our understanding had been that "ethnic minority" represents an ethnic group, which has its origin outside the former Yugoslavia.
Firstly, nationality could be a 'blood' related issue. In other words, it is a matter of ancestry. So if one were born in a Serb family, one would be immediately considered as a Serb. This approach, which is still entertained on Balkans may have been applicable prior to the Second World War, but the reality of communist Yugoslavia has to some extent done away with this ancestral logic. So, apart from Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Slovenians and Albanians (who were the major nationalities of the region before and during the times of former Yugoslavia), a need had arisen to accommodate those who were involved in, or were children from 'mixed' marriages, and also those who had similar cultural practices specific of one religion. In order to offer a solution to situation at hand, communists have introduced nationalities called "Yugoslavs" and "Muslims". The former presented a convenient solution for mixed marriages (not to mention that certain number persons, who could have claimed 'single blood' line nationality also opted for Yugoslavs) and the latter applied for a significant part of population linked with the religion of Islam - majority of Muslims inhabit Bosnia and Herzegovina. However good, these solutions had had to face with the post-modern mind set. The communist regime answered promptly and offered a definition of "nationality" according to which, "nationality is a sense of belonging to certain national or ethnic group". The latest population census in former Yugoslavia recorded a number of Eskimos living in Yugoslavia; "Eskimos" because persons opted to invoke sense of belonging to that ethnic group. It is important to state here, that our interest is not to establish whether the communist government acted correctly, or should one ask United Nations for definitions of the kind. We have described developments in Yugoslavia under communists for the sake of presenting a picture through or under which we grew up. And most of us were fine with these solutions either because the nationality didn't matter much or because we couldn't care less about tribalism of the past.
We need to mention Muslims as nationality as well. Although the date is irrelevant, the constitution of 1974 introduced Muslim as a nationality. Why it didn't introduce Bosnians and Herzegovinians as nationality, or nationalities is unknown to us. Communists must have followed the logic of presence in various geographical areas, when they had decided to introduce "Muslims" as nationality. It is true that most of Muslims inhabit Bosnia and Herzegovina, but they are to be found as majority in some other regions of the former Yugoslavia. Be it as it may, the fact is that the communists have made a precedent nowhere else to be found in the world. Muslim is a religious term describing a follower of Islam. However, this term has become ever since 1974 a synonym for a national belonging as well. It is only with post communist era, that in Bosnia and Herzegovina a certain move is evident towards a divorce between Muslim as a follower of religion and a description of nationality.
For the situation of a pre war Bosnia and Herzegovina, we have set the stage regarding an issue, that will pose a huge problem in a war that was about to break out in 1992. This is however only a fragment of the picture that we are just about to paint. From the above said, it may appear that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a war between three national entities or ethnic groups: Croats, Muslims and Serbs; it may appear that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a civil war between three major ethnic groups. However, nothing could be further from the truth than this.
In a summary of previous paragraphs, two things need to be noted. Firstly, the above paragraphs deal predominantly with situation as it had developed in former Yugoslavia between the Second World War and collapse of Yugoslavia. Bosnia and Herzegovina was a part of that state; it was one of six constituent republics. So, the development of national consciousness in Bosnia and Herzegovina was no different to that present in other republics of the former Yugoslavia. This had been the state of mind - if one is allowed to call it that way, which was soon to encounter a war. Secondly, and from the perspective of how a 'nationality' came to be determined, we have identified three distinctive paths. The first one we have called 'blood-line' and it was usually strongly linked with ancestry. For this matter we may call such a path as being a pre-modern. Next path was called into existence by a state - communist run government, and it was prompted by a new reality of mixed marriages. Therefore, this path can be identified as the modern one; the one that corresponds to a building of nation state; the one where 'reality' and statehood hold a precedence. Lastly, and as we have mentioned, and in accord with a world wide development of post-modernism, we have outlined a notion of nationality as being purely dependent on individual's choice. Therefore, national consciousness of the region rested on pre-modern, modern and post-modern premises.
2. Nationality and Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Bosnian war broke out along the national lines. Or to be more precise, nationalities involved in Bosnian war were: Croats, Muslims and Serbs. Each one of these three had been represented in the first post-communist parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, via political parties with predominantly national agenda. Croats were represented through HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union), Muslims through SDA (Party of Democratic Action) and Serbs through SDS (Serb Democratic Party). These three were by no means the only parties involved in the first democratic elections, nor were they the only ones with a distinctively national agenda, but they represented a coalition that had formed the first post-communist government in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The question of nationality has immediately become an important issue. So much so, that one was willing to start a war over the same. What was the problem? From the perspective of Muslims, there was a general opinion that Bosnia and Herzegovina need to become an independent state. Croats were pretty much in accord with the idea of independence. Serbs on the other hand, were quite reluctant to accept such a possibility. Hm, an interesting situation, which only followed practice from two other republics of former Yugoslavia - Slovenia and Croatia. Arguments and counter arguments circling at the time were, both confusing and one sided. But the development on the ground favored those who advocated separation from former Yugoslavia.
In order to get a glimpse of this rather confusing picture we need to elaborate on at least three contention points: separatism, who are Muslims, and Serbs and Serbian aggression.
- Separatism or Independence
As noted earlier, Slovenia gained independence already and Croatia was soon to follow the suit. However, in Croatia a war between Croats and Serbs posed itself as a conflict of a longer nature. But it needs to be stressed, it was a war going on in an independent state of Croatia. This eastwards movement of requesting and gaining independence in its logical order (Slovenia, Croatia...) had reached Bosnia and Herzegovina. Again, the war posed itself as the only way out. So, what were desires and concerns that one could hear as being voiced over and over again. Croats and Bosnians, as Slovenians before them, were very reluctant to stay in one state where the Serbs would be majority population. It may seem as legitimate concern and as valid reason for independence. Allegedly and according to Croats and then to Bosnians, Serbs had been both the dominant and dominating nationality of the former Yugoslavia. According to Serbs in Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to live in a state and with a state, where the Serbs would be ethnic minority, was unacceptable. That neither of these arguments is entirely wright nor entirely wrong may show itself if we switched from explicit statements to the implicit ones. If one was unwilling to live in a state where the others are majority, how would one treat that majority, now turned minority in a new state. In other words, Croats did not want to continue in a state where the Serbs are majority, but would quite easily live in a state where they, the Croats would be a majority - what kind of treatment do they have in place for the Serbs? The same analogy applies in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But, this is only one half of implicitness or inversion of original arguments. Here is the second half. If the Serbs were unwilling to live in states, where they would become minority, would it mean that they had really been dominant and dominating nationality in the former Yugoslavia. If the Serbs are quite content with the notion of majority, why will they 'feel' other wise if they are to become minority, unless the notion of majority did have some benefits. Or to put all of this Balkan trickery into a more direct language: we can either live all, under my roof, or each needs to live under his own roof. But also, if you do not want to live under my roof, I will take everything what is mine with me and live under my own roof. One could really go into eternity with arguments and counter arguments of this kind.
Muslims are Serbs?
We have in previous paragraph introduced the notion of territorial pretension. What it meant was that the Serbs had been unwilling to live with Croats or Bosnians, in a 'third state' for that matter, but they had been quite content to stay where they had been and to live in some new state without Croats or Bosnians. With Bosnians, however, there was another problem. Who were those Bosnians or Muslims, since they had been a nationality in the former Yugoslavia? According to the Serbs, Muslims are mostly Serbs and to some extent Croats, whose ancestors had during the expansion of Ottoman Empire switched their religion for the Islam. Whether and to what extent this is true may be a valid discussion with a different subject. For the purpose of our discussion, we will mention only two points that may be of relevance.
Most probably the population who lived on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, prior the invasion of the Ottoman Empire, were Slavs. However, how good Serbs or Croats they were at the time is questionable. Old Bosnian State, also included, as its integral part, the Bosnian Church, which was more or less continuation of what used to be known as "Bogumils". Most of Bogumils had come to Bosnia from Serbia during a reign of Stevan Prvovjencani, later known in Serbian Orthodox Church as Sveti Sava. In an effort to Christianize Serbs into Orthodox Christianity, Sveti Sava had decided to expel, or other wise get rid off, all those who did not want to abandon Bogumil version of Christianity. So in a flight for their bare life, those Serbs, who had also been Bogumils crossed the river Drina and settled in Bosnia (not even during the peak of old Serbian kingdom, had that kingdom with its territory crossed the river Drina). However, Bogumils, or later Bosnian Church to a greater or lesser extent switched to Islam, when faced with Ottoman military might. Therefore, the Bosnian conflict may well be a religious war.
We have already used the term "Bosnians" many times. And we have mentioned that the Bosnian as a nationality does not appear in the 1974 constitution of the former Yugoslavia. Muslim, as a nationality does appear in that constitution but areas where Muslims are a majority population are not only restricted to Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the newly gained independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina (and we are again in 1992), has prompted for calls to establish "Bosnian" as a nationality. That these calls have come mostly from the Muslim part of population presents an obstacle, but an obstacle that needs to be overcome if Bosnia and Herzegovina is to establish itself as a modern state; for the post-modern Bosnia and Herzegovina a bit of time is needed.
-Serbs are Aggressors?
Notion of Serbs as aggressors has been widely entertained. But, to make such a claim, one need to take into account its implicit side as well. Firstly, Bosnian Serbs cannot be considered as aggressors since they are a part of Bosnian reality. If their intent had been to separate themselves from Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to join some 'all Serb' state, then they would have to be considered as separatists. Essentially, their attitude had been the one of separatism. Of course, there is a notion of Serbs as aggressors which includes a moment of an outside intervention executed by the reminder of the former Yugoslavia, i.e. by Serbia and Montenegro. It is more or less proven fact that military and para-military units had been deployed during the Bosnian war from the direction of Serbia and Montenegro in order to support Bosnian Serbs in their 'fight' for independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina. But more importantly, the notion of an outside aggression had been often brought in conjunction with the use of military equipment belonging to former "Yugoslav People's Army (JNA)". So the Serbs had been using military equipment from the JNA. If the Serbs had been aggressors partly because they had used JNA military equipment, then the then Bosnian government would have acknowledged the ownership over the JNA military equipment as belonging to the rest of former Yugoslavia - to Serbia and Montenegro. In my opinion this equals to the sanctioning of the theft for the sake of argument's validity. Therefore, the only way to view behavior of the Bosnian Serbs is via the notion of separatism. This is further reinforced through Serb's 'dreaming' about 'Greater Serbia'.
What we have tried to clarify in previous paragraphs may well have left a reader more confused then a reader was confused before. Let us therefore recapitulate the above mentioned confusion, whilst keeping in mind that any argument put forward by any of the sides, backfires immediately, i.e. possesses its implicit side, which then can be interpreted either as unintentional confession or self-centered action that denies the same to the other side/s. Firstly, from the perspective of Serbs in Yugoslavia, and in particular of those in Croatia and Bosnia, developments in former Yugoslavia have been those of separatism. Reaction of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia has been the one of separatism as well. Willingness of Bosnian Serbs to live in a multicultural Yugoslavia has been met by their unwillingness to live in multicultural Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their unwillingness to live in multicultural bosnia and Herzegovina speaks in favor of them, Bosnian Serbs as pursuing an argument of "Greater Serbia", which then in turn, justifies separatism of the former Yugoslav republics - Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. Secondly, Serb's insistence that Bosnian Muslims are either Serbs or Croats turned Muslims implies that the nature of Bosnian conflict has been the religious one. In other words, Bosnian war is then to be understood as a war fought predominantly between Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Serbs. As such it is a religious war fought within one state and one ethnic group and hence bears most of the hallmarks of a civil war. And finally, the separatism of Bosnian Serbs militarily supported by the Serbs outside of Bosnia not only shows Bosnian Serbs as separatists but also presents them as aggressors against newly established independent state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Claims of aggression made by Bosnian government essentially sanction a theft committed by Serbs.
How do we then classify a war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The above presented paragraphs seem to justify either of classifications usually heard in conjunction with this war. So, and as we haver earlier suggested, if the war could be 'either of the above', then it is most likely that it is none of the above. And if the war is presented in one way by one side of the conflict, in a way that is unacceptable to other sides involved in conflict, then its one-sided nature does not allow for a fuller understanding of the whole issue. Therefore, we need to look for answers elsewhere. We need to go beyond signification process, which partly also belongs to the process of socialization. This iconographic play of signification process we have also posited as a 'mind set' (pre-modern, modern and post-modern) of a developing consciousness. Hence the Bosnian war may also present a "clash of civilizations" in which the young post-modern mind has fallen a victim to the strength of a nation-state entrenched modern mind that draws its strength from a pre-modern 'blood-line' set of mind. However with the war behind us, it is up to a post-modern mind to resurrect and impose itself as a determining denominator if the lessons are to be learned and more importantly, if the animosities are to be buried - for good if possible. It is up to a post-modern mind to get rid of masks, which are used in order to justify and accomplish acts belonging to a time long gone by.
What our next chapter will try to do is to propose a look into a 'human nature' that can provide answers or at least generate a further discussion when dealing with conflicts of a war-like nature, such as the one we are dealing here. Our discussion aims to make use of a learning path in a sense that it identifies signification process and its iconography and then attempts to categorize the same between what is essential and what is artificial, essential as being a part of human being and artificial as a construction that serves certain purpose.
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar