The Denial of Bosnia

by Mahmutcehajic, Rusmir; Jones, Francis R.; Bowder, Marina

• ISBN13: 9780271020303
• ISBN10: 027102030X
• Format: Hardcover
• Copyright: 2000-09-01
• Publisher: Pennsylvania State Univ Pr

Summary

In 1997, Rusmir Mahmutcehajic, one of Bosnia's leading public intellectuals, was scheduled to lecture on Bosnia at Stanford University but was unexpectedly denied an entry visa by American authorities. This book, first published in Bosnia in 1998, is an expanded version of that lecture. It is an indictment of the partition of Bosnia, formalized in 1995 by the Dayton Accord. It is also a plea for Bosnia's communities to reject ethnic segregation and restore mutual trust. For the first time, English-speaking readers can hear this important voice of dissent from within Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Mahmutcehajic (pronounced "ma-moot-che-HI-itch") argues for the history and reality of a Bosnia-Herzegovina based upon a model of "unity in diversity". He shows that ethnic and religious cultures have coexisted in Bosnia for centuries. Partitioning of Bosnia, therefore, should have been unthinkable except that a multi-ethnic, multi-faith Bosnia stood squarely in the way of Croatian and Serbian leaders determined to enact their own nationalist programs. The decisive moment came

Author Biography

Rusmir Mahmutcehajic has held both governmental and academic posts in Bosnia since receiving his Ph.D. in science from Zagreb University in 1980. A dissident during Yugoslavia's communist years, he was elected vice president of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Government in 1991, serving under Alija Izetbegovic. He played a critical role in attempts to gain international recognition for Bosnia-Herzegovina but resigned from all government functions at the end of 1993, in protest against the acceptance by the greater part of the political establishment that Bosnia be divided into ethnic parts. Since then he has returned to academia and helped found the International Forum Bosnia, a nongovernment organization that brings together leading intellectuals of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in order to create and strengthen civil society. He is now co-editor of the journal Forum Bosnae and lectures widely

Table of Contents

Foreword	vii
Ivo Banac
Preface	xiii
Scheming for Destruction	1	(4)
Two Histories	5	(4)
The Christian Model of Europe	9	(6)
A Third History	15	(4)
Exclusiveness and Universality	19	(4)
The Islamic Enigma	23	(6)
The Denial of Bosnia	29	(6)
Evidence From The Latest War	35	(6)
Smearing Bosnian Policy	41	(4)
A ``Muslim State''	45	(12)
Genocide	57	(8)
The Christ Killers	65	(8)
The Mutilation of the State	73	(6)
Incompatible Civilizations	79	(10)
Building a Nucleus	89	(6)
Trust	95	(4)
Two Renewals	99	(6)
Renewals and Sustainable Growth	105	(6)
The Riddle of Europe's Future	111	(8)
Afterword	119	(10)
Appendix: The Deadly Game of Maps	129	(22)
Index	151	(6)
About the Author	157

Excerpts

Chapter One

SCHEMING F0R DESTRUCTION

Any study of the events in Bosnia during the final decade of the second Christian millennium will sooner or later reveal the strategies that caused and controlled them. The destroyers of Bosnia prefer to call these events a "civil war" or a "war of religion." Those who see themselves as its defenders usually employ the term "aggression by neighboring states." But any analysis quickly shows that there was a deliberate plan for the annihilation of the country known as Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    The strategy as formulated and planned was a highly complex and consistent matrix, which materialized in a torrent of events. Analyzing it is far from easy. However, no positive outcome from the current situation is possible without studying this matrix. Finding out what actually took place in Bosnia is a task of intellectual and moral significance. The chief facts, many of which are now visible to the eye because of the destruction and disintegration they have brought about, must be gathered together and studied as a whole. This will give us a clear understanding of the "destruction model," its achievements, and its future prospects.

    The present world order was and is the setting in which these events took place, from the international recognition of Bosnia as a state to its destruction (or, rather, what destruction its destroyers were able to wreak, given the unexpected resistance they encountered). Hence, the matrix underlying these local events should be surveyed and interpreted within the framework of events in the wider world.

    The most significant episodes clearly bear witness to an intention to destroy Bosnia with all means at hand, including the erasure of its Bosniak population by means of genocide. Among the most visible effects of this campaign is the fact that Bosniaks today live only in places where they were able to defend themselves (and these places contain far fewer members of the other two nationalities than formerly). Meanwhile, what is left of the mangled Bosnian state survives only because the destroyers were unable to crush the unexpectedly determined resistance put up by those condemned to disappear.

    Among the deliberately intended effects was the destruction of all explicitly Bosnian values as embodied in traditional concepts and practices. This was to be accompanied by the creation and propagation of non-Bosnian or anti-Bosnian concepts and practices. The intended result was that Bosnia as a state should be seen as relevant to only one "faction," thus justifying the mutilation and dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    The reorganization of Europe at the end of the Second World War was inspired by a simplistic model of multiplicity and diversity. Then, with the onset of the Cold War, the forces ranged against ideological totalitarianism looked for allies among those traditional elements that have always put up a strong resistance to change. Thus outsiders, dissidents, and opposition groups in the Communist world generally centered their resistance on traditionalist values. These were usually connected with a particular (often religious) denomination, which usually had little or no focus on nonsectarian, transcendent values. Thus, many dubious ideologies, fundamentally incompatible with the democratic or liberal ideals usually seen as "pro-European," received explicit or implicit encouragement from the West. These ideologies were encouraged, or at least tolerated, because they were perceived as more acceptable than the Communist establishment, and as strong and cohesive enough to act as a stable substitute. This connivance is the key to many of the causes and consequences of the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide.

    In Bosnia: A Country Handbook , produced by the American military service, a short summary of local history is introduced: "In the Balkans, past history is closely linked with perceptions of the present and future. Religious and cultural animosities have developed over centuries, and are deeply ingrained among the various warring factions. Violence has been, and will likely continue to be, prevalent."

    This historical summary, highly revealing where contemporary misunderstandings of the relationships between peoples and states in this region of the Balkans are concerned, concentrates almost exclusively on two medieval phenomena: the Kingdom of Croatia, established in the tenth century, and the Tsardom of Serbia, which reached its peak in the fourteenth century. In this particular reading of history, there is no mention of any medieval Bosnian state. The promotion of Serb and Croat statehood takes place, by implication, at the expense of Bosnian statehood. Henry Kissinger, on another occasion, reinforced this denial of Bosnia with the following statement: "There was never a Bosnian state on the current territory of Bosnia." The only mention accorded to the Bosniaks in the context of this alleged "Kingdom of the Croats" and "glorious Serb Tsardom" was that they "converted to Islam in great numbers while under Turkish rule."

    This example, highly revealing for the image of Bosnia it promotes, implies a logical matrix with three dimensions. The first dimension is that the contemporary Croatian state and its ethno-national policy maintain an unbroken link with the medieval Croat state. The second is that the contemporary Serb state and its ethno-national policy have unbroken ties with the medieval Orthodox state. The third reduces Bosniak ethno-national policy to that of a group that divorced itself from its origins by its choice of an "incompatible" religion. No other option is given. In this matrix it follows that Serb and Croat politics form part of a continuous and recognizable process of serf-determination, while Bosniak politics cannot make the same claim.

    Though not obvious at first glance, the interpretation that inspired the Dayton Agreement is closely related to this view of the three protagonists. This agreement divided Bosnia into two constitutional entities: the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which covers 51 percent of Bosnia-Herzegovina's territory, and the Republika Srpska, which covers 49 percent. The Washington Agreement, which laid the foundations of the Federation and preceded Dayton by almost two years, specified that the Federation should form special "confederal" relations with the Republic of Croatia. Not long after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the Republika Srpska signed an agreement on special relations with the rump Yugoslavia, now consisting of Serbia and Montenegro. At the end of 1997, the Republic of Croatia issued a proposal for "special relations" with the Federation. The relations proposed could be interpreted as involving the direct incorporation of this part of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the Republic of Croatia.

    Thus the current state of Bosnia-Herzegovina was, so to speak, deliberately set up in order to be parceled out between two powers: the Croat and Serb states, ideological successors to "Tomislav's Kingdom" and "Dušan's Tsardom."

    Systematically identifying the elements that form the basis of today's Bosnia-Herzegovina is therefore a task that is crucial to Bosnia's future. Thus far, rational solutions have been imposed on phenomena that are significantly deeper and more complex than the rational model conveys, suggesting that the apparent halting of the destructive tide may be only illusory. Meanwhile, the same internal forces remain present, waiting to burst out again in a new guise, with perhaps even greater strength than before.