Beyond Reconciliation: Social Reconstruction After the Bosnian War Marita Eastmond and Anders H

THEME SECTION

Beyond reconciliation: Social reconstruction after the Bosnian war Marita Eastmond and Anders H. Stefansson

INTRODUCTION: Reconciliation, reconstruction, and everyday life in war-torn societies

Marita Eastmond

Abstract: This special section of Focaal explores processes of social recovery and peacebuilding in the aftermath of radical violence and political upheaval. The articles draw on detailed ethnographic case studies from Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country that was shattered by war and ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, and raise issues of relevance to other post-conflict situations. Challenging “reconciliation” as a moral discourse with universalist claims, the articles highlight the dynamics of its localization in different contexts of intervention in post-war society. The four contributions explore different facets of this dynamic as it is played out in the key areas of justice, the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and NGO peace-building activities. They illuminate what happens when the global paradigm of reconciliation encounters and filters through meanings and motivations of actors in local contexts. They also note that everyday interactions between former adversaries take place not as a moral engagement with reconciliation but as part of rebuilding a sense of normality. The findings point to the need to critically investigate the conditions under which such encounters may empower or prohibit the rebuilding of social relations and trust in post-war societies. Keywords: Bosnia and Herzegovina, reconstruction, reconciliation, peacebuilding, justice, refugee return

Building peace: The interventionist emerged as a pair forming the cornerstones of a paradigm paradigm of externally initiated peace-building interventions to promote stability, democracy, In the past decades, the question of how soci- and good governance. These interventions are eties may recover from conflicts and massive grounded in a longer tradition of Western pow- violence has been a central concern in world ers seeking to build modern nation states based politics, in response to events in places such as on the liberal model, but have intensified since Cambodia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, and former the end of the Cold War when failed states and Yugoslavia. In these and other post-conflict so- ethnic conflicts came to constitute a major chal- cieties,reconstruction and reconciliation have lenge to the international community. The stated

Focaal—Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 57 (2010): 3–16 doi:10.3167/fcl.2010.570101 4|Marita Eastmond aim is to transform the structures of the past, external assistance in state reconstruction and which led to violence and breakdown, and to lay post-conflict reconciliation” (2006: 1). The con- the ground for a new beginning, based on lib- cerns raised by the contributions engage criti- eral democracy, a market economy, and human cally with reconciliation as a discourse imple- rights. However, after 9/11, such interventions mented without much attention to historical and have increasingly become coercive operations, cultural contexts of particular post-war societies, challenging established principles of territorial or to the profoundly changing socio-political and political sovereignty. The ideological un- reality in which people in many of these societies derpinnings of this engagement have been de- seek to rebuild their lives. In BiH, this entails scribed by critics as “interventionism” in which a constant battle with “precariousness” (Jansen Western powers rebuild state order and recon- 2006: 183), a term used by ordinary Bosnians1 struct war-torn societies for the sake of global to characterize everyday life following the war stability and security (Duffield 2007). In a sim- and the transition to a liberalized economy. The ilar vein, the dramatic increase in the interest in political realities in post-war BiH add to the rebuilding post-conflict societies has been re- complexity: a parallel system of government is ferred to as a “global reconciliation industry” made up of external agencies engaged in state- (Wilson 2003: 383). As Wilson notes, ordinary building—a semi-protectorate in which key de- people are greatly affected not only by state col- cisions are being taken by the Office of the High lapse and massive violence, but also by the inter- Representative (OHR)—and internal national- ventions of international organizations to rebuild ist elites with stakes in continued ethnic separa- and reconcile them with their former enemies. tion. Observers note that fifteen years after the Although both research and practice have end of the war and despite massive economic often focused on state-building and institu- investments, there has been little progress in tional reconstruction, considerably less is known BiH in terms of reconciliation and rebuilding of the ways in which the intended beneficiaries social trust (Fletcher and Weinstein 2002, 2004; make sense of and deal with the various exter- Kostic; 2007; Meernik 2005). The contributions nal efforts at reconciliation and the outcomes of illuminate some of the challenges involved in such encounters. In this special section of Fo- peace-building in a context of continuous divi- caal, the anthropological gaze is directed at the sion and profound social transformation, and interaction between the international reconcili- inquire into the local meanings of reconcilia- ation discourse on key issues such as justice and tion given the social realities and moral worlds the return of displaced persons, and the percep- in which ordinary people operate. tions and priorities of local actors. The articles reflect on the meaning and relevance of external reconciliation initiatives for populations who, Reconciliation: Global discourse, living in a post-war society, face a range of every- post-war local realities day challenges. The ethnographic cases of the contributions are all drawn from Bosnia and Reconciliation has emerged as a master narra- Herzegovina (BiH), a country that was shattered tive of our time, offering a promise to remedy by war and ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, but the harm done and heal both society and indi- the issues they raise also speak to other post- viduals from the experiences of violence and conflict societies. Peace-building in BiH has been conflict (Scheper-Hughes 1998). The academic the most comprehensive international project of literature has answered the question of how a its kind so far, in terms of external involvement society moves from a past of conflict and divi- and money spent, and, according to Chandler, sion to a shared future in very different ways. A “has become widely seen as a template for new distinction has been made between “thick” and experiments in international administration and “thin” notions of reconciliation (Crocker 2000; Introduction: Reconciliation, reconstruction, and everyday life in war-torn societies |5

Wilson 2001); the former looks more thor- tral part of government policy, Eltringham notes oughly at the quality of relationships to be re- the salience of a virtual model of how reconcil- stored and posits the mutual understanding iation should proceed, and that it can only pro- and unity to be formed around a common past ceed within that visible, officially sanctioned and a shared future. To this end, truth and jus- model (2009: 5). In his observations, facilitation tice, acknowledgement and forgiveness, are seen in reconciliation workshops by international as vital components in social as well as individ- organizations in Rwanda was based on a psycho- ual healing (e.g., Amstutz 2005; Lederach 1997). analytic idiom that made little sense to the The “thin” and less idealistic form of reconcili- Rwandans present (“this is not our culture”). As ation refers to a more open-ended and frag- has often been pointed out in the academic de- mented process (rather than a linear movement bate, norms of justice, human rights, and peace toward a harmonious end). It is based on a “de- are not neutral and may be dissonant with local parture from violence” but one in which legal understandings of how security and peaceful accountability or the “settling of accounts” is relations are restored (e.g., Jansen 2006; Wilson central (Borneman 2002). To others, a prag- 2003). Perhaps it is expected that these popula- matic stance of “peaceful co-existence”—that tions will habituate to the norms and values in- is, a certain level of social interaction and co- troduced, while the targeted cultural milieux operation between former enemies—is, after a may be resistant to this kind of habituation or mass atrocity, the only realistic scenario, at least may only selectively incorporate these norms. in the short term (e.g., Chayes and Minow Instead new influences may filter through and 2003; Sampson 2003; Stefansson, this volume). become digested into values and power patterns In some societies emerging from war and vio- in ways that reinforce the very cleavages and in- lent conflict, this pragmatic view also reflects equalities they set out to eradicate (Kent 2009). the emic understandings of post-war relations. Out of a similar concern but examining the In contemporary Rwanda, Eltringham notes, comprehensive external involvement in democ- political discourse of the Rwandan government racy building in Cambodia, Öjendal and Lilja is replete with references to future “unity”— (2009) analyze the complex dynamic of social based on an inferred past unity, and to forgive- reconstruction and the clash of political cul- ness and reconciliation. These “thick” official tures there. They argue that liberal democratic terms are shed by local actors in favor of their forms of governance have largely been reinter- own “thin” understandings (Eltringham 2009: preted and absorbed into traditional forms of 6; Zorba 2009: 134). Similarly, as the articles in power and patronage by the Cambodian gov- this special section show, the understanding of ernment; legitimacy may be sought within the many Bosnians is a more pragmatic one: “peace- new “liberal democracy” and locally inflected ful coexistence” in the sense of restoring respect- interpretations of other global discourses, as ful relations and “life together” (suzivot= )reflects well as by reference to old discourses of power the politically unresolved division and general and authority. However, both traditions are in- insecurity in Bosnian post-war society; it also evitably changed by the interaction, creating a resonates with historical experiences of accom- kind of “hybrid democracy”. modation after periods of communal strife. As a highly normative formula with univer- Embedded in a global moral discourse of so- salist claims, the reconciliation discourse tends cial healing, reconciliation is a framework that to make context a blind spot. In eclipsing the invokes the notion of a common humanity. At specific characteristics of each post-conflict sit- the same time, it is applied to a broad range of uation it leaves out the social conditions, uncer- post-war settings. Writing on such interven- tainties, and power asymmetries that mediate tions in Rwanda, where the global discourse of how its measures are interpreted and acted on “reconciliation” has also been adopted as a cen- by the various local actors involved. Instead, as 6|Marita Eastmond this Introduction argues, there is a dynamic in- Localizing reconciliation terplay, or “friction”—to use Anna Tsing’s term (2005)—of the universalist reconciliation dis- Transitional justice has been a key strategy in course and the particular local realities at the coming to terms with a legacy of large-scale past sites of intervention, which are mutually consti- abuses in international peacebuilding and en- tutive. Thus, the position taken here is to see suring accountability and stability.2 The main reconciliation as a situated practice, played out argument of this paradigm is that the violent in different contexts and with different out- past has to be settled before a real transition to comes—whether oppressive or empowering. sustainable peace can be made; for this purpose The analytical focus of the articles is on a close the mechanisms of truth and justice are seen as examination, through ethnographic fieldwork pivotal and have been implemented in a wide in BiH, of the moral sensibilities and practical range of post-conflict societies since the 1980s. priorities of Bosnians in the different contexts Justice can be retributive, in which case crimi- of justice, return, and NGO peace-building ac- nal tribunals are set up to punish those respon- tivities. This examination illuminates under sible for gross human rights violations and to what circumstances they find it relevant to in- establish a factual record, as in the case of the scribe themselves into the reconciliation dis- ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the course. In such processes, as Helms’s article on former Yugoslavia) or its counterpart the ICTR Bosnian women’s NGOs illustrates, pre-war (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). social institutions can be reinvented by the par- The main tenet of transitional justice is that the ticipants for new purposes in the post-war con- prosecution of perpetrators individualizes guilt text, sometimes in ways that are at odds with and thereby puts an end to the demonizing of the aims of donor organizations. whole groups (e.g., Minow 1998: 40; Teitel 2000: The articles in this special section inquire 34). Restorative justice in the form of Truth both into what reconciliation interventions do Commissions, such as in the formerly authori- and what they do not do as they seek to engage tarian regimes of Latin America (e.g., Argen- members of the local population. Jansen’s con- tina, Chile) or the South African Truth and Rec- tribution thus problematizes the emphasis on onciliation Commission, is based on exposing particular kinds of relations (in the case of BiH, the truth and naming perpetrators, but lacks inter-ethnic relations) that easily reproduces the judicial powers to prosecute. The focus is on the categories it seeks to overcome, and neglects the victims, rather than on the perpetrators, other relations of inequality such as class and with an emphasis on acknowledging suffering gender. His article also throws light on the every- and eliciting forgiveness and individual healing. day forms, in which former adversaries interact The main argument, drawing on religious and and find common ground without necessarily therapeutic discourses, is that—through ac- being motivated by a moral concern with rec- knowledgement and forgiveness—societies and onciliation. Both practitioners and researchers individuals can “heal” (e.g., Lambourne 2001; of reconstruction tend to overlook such inter- Lederach 1997; Minow 1998). actions where no third party or intervening Whether transitional justice actually leads to agency is involved. Nevertheless, they are useful reconciliation as envisaged has been disputed in reminders of the multifaceted nature of social recent scholarly debate (e.g., Gloppen 2005). identities in all societies, particularly those com- Studies indicate that there is a gap between the ing out of ethnic conflict, and of the fact that aspirations of transitional justice and the expe- the salience of ethnicity is always contextual. riences and needs of local communities (e.g., They also suggest that sites with a particular po- Shaw 2007; Stover and Weinstein 2004; Wil- tential to promote positive relationships along son 2000). In a comprehensive study of com- other lines and for other purposes need to be munities that had suffered mass atrocities and recognized. inter-ethnic conflict in former Yugoslavia and Introduction: Reconciliation, reconstruction, and everyday life in war-torn societies |7

Rwanda, Stover and Weinstein concluded that are represented in the local context by political there is stakeholders and understood by the public. In many post-conflict societies, political players “no direct link between criminal trials (inter- directly or indirectly implicated in the mass national, national, local/traditional) and recon- atrocities have become part of the current na- ciliation, although it is possible that this may tional government or political elite, and under- change over time. In fact we found criminal tri- mine the credibility of such procedures by als, especially of local perpetrators, often fur- playing on continuing insecurities and a sense of ther divided small multi-ethnic communities victimization among the population. In Rwanda by causing further suspicion and fear. Survivors as well as in Cambodia, national governments rarely, if ever, connected retributive justice with have a strong hold over the national judiciary reconciliation” (Stover and Weinstein 2004: 323). and over media flows (Öjendal and Lilja 2009; Reyntjens and Vandeginste 2005). A 2002 sur- Analyzing the failure of the ICTY to generate vey in Rwanda showed that the vast majority of confidence among the population of BiH, the Rwandan population had little or no knowl- Fletcher and Weinstein (2004) point to the gap edge about the ICTR (Longman, Pham and between the high aspirations of the interna- Weinstein 2004). Even if the Rwandan govern- tional community and actual practice. Justice as ment has made reconciliation and the elimina- an instrument of reconciliation was conceived tion of ethnicity a central policy, its stated aim of by UN diplomats and promoted by the wider blatantly contradicts its nepotistic style of poli- international community in response to the tics. The contradiction reinforces mistrust and horrors of the mass atrocities in the early 1990s, division along ethnic lines, some observers note, in Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. The ICTY, how- and dampens expectations of reaching justice, ever, defined its mandate in more narrow terms, whether trials are international or domestic that is prosecuting war criminals and restoring (Apuuli 2009; McLean Hilker 2009).4 Cambo- peace and security, terms that did not include dia represents an extremely elitistic case where any linkage to the broader project of rebuilding only a handful of (possible) Khmer Rouge lead- social relations. As a result, “international jus- ers are prosecuted by the tribunal of the Extra- tice and national social reconstruction occu- ordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia pied separate spheres” (Fletcher and Weinstein (ECCE) tribunal.5 The scant effort, for instance 2004: 33) in which the latter task has been left to by NGOs, to make the trials more accessible to a range of other, mainly international actors, the public also reinforces the view that the trials without much coordination between them. really are for international consumption; inter- Also, these observers argue, placing the ICTY nal dynamics, instead, become embedded in a and the ICTR abroad, under international con- less explicit process that relies on “gradual dis- trol—thus removing it geographically and appearance” and “time” (McGrew 2009; Öjen- legally from the populations concerned and from dal, pers. comm.). The tribunal is currently the the national judiciary system—undermined a major focus of reconciliation efforts in Cambo- sense of local influence. This affected the ability dia, yet for ordinary Cambodians, even if there of these courts to play a central role in post-war is a widespread desire to know why they suf- reconstruction. However, as the Rwandan case fered and who was responsible, expectations of suggests, coordination between international justice are low (McGrew 2006).6 Many contend and national justice systems is often made diffi- that real, broad-based reconciliation rests on the cult by national political interests and a politi- re-establishment of trust and that Buddhism is cized national judiciary in a post-conflict society probably the most appropriate vehicle for achiev- (Des Forges and Longman 2004).3 ing this (Chea 2003).7 However, in present-day Thus, legitimacy of such international judi- Cambodia religion is also vulnerable to coopta- cial procedures is also an outcome of how they tion by politicians and its future moral trajec- 8|Marita Eastmond tory remains uncertain. In former Yugoslavia, is not a universal panacea to the moral problem Subotic (2009) argues, the international efforts of illegitimate social violence, either for society to establish accountability for war crimes have or for the individual. Truth-telling, like silence, produced a similar, paradoxical result: being hi- are cultural categories and related in complex jacked by local political elites for their own – ways to power and agency; whether it makes and very different – goals, such efforts of tran- sense to speak or to remain silent depends on sitional justice rather deepen political instabil- what the social stakes are for a particularly posi- ity and division than resolve them. tioned actor in a particular post-conflict context. Mannergren Selimovic’s contribution illus- For individual victims, as Fiona Ross’s (2002) trates the interplay among international aims, study of women victims of violence in South nationalist political interests, and local moral Africa demonstrates, telling the truth does not sensitivities in BiH. When representatives of the necessarily heal, and many victims suffer after ICTY addressed audiences in Bosnian towns, public testimony. There are aspects of pain and they found themselves on trial, as their credibil- suffering that fall outside of inquiries and thus ity, neutrality, and competence in meting out outside of accountability. As found among justice were severely questioned. In BiH, there is refugees from Bosnia, victims of sexual abuse a long-standing skepticism of the ICTY and the may resort to silence as both a personal and a stakes of European non-Bosnian actors, with cultural strategy of maintaining family relation- the Hague tribunal perceived as an attempt by ships and public respect (Eastmond 2005). The the outside world to counter criticism for not Truth Commission for Sierra Leone related having stopped the war. More important, the truth to reconciliation in a way that made little ICTY discourse clashed with local ideas about sense to local participants (Shaw 2007). The justice. As underlined by the settings chosen anthropological literature on community-level (two communities that were sites of extreme vi- reconciliation also provides examples of social olence in the war), the ICTY entered an already silencing as part of a collective symbolic strat- well-established discursive terrain of guilt and egy toward closure of a painful and divisive past. innocence in BiH, one in which Bosnian na- Rural villages in Mozambique and Angola use tionalist elites hold substantial political stakes. healing rituals to restore peace and rebuild so- Transitional justice, based on attributing indi- cial relations after massive violence (Honwana vidual guilt, was then reinterpreted within and 2005). Through these rituals, organized to undo folded into these dominant ethno-political nar- the polluting effects of violence on individuals ratives about collective guilt and innocence. and the community, the troublesome and po- However, on the level of the individual partici- tentially harmful past is “left behind,” allowing pant, these collective narratives were often con- participants to attend to the concerns of the tested and strained by individuals’ specific present and look toward the future (Honwana stories, positioning individuals much less firmly 2005: 96). Although Cambodian villagers said on one “side.” they would welcome the punishment of the Truth and public testimony also figure promi- Khmer Rouge leadership (Etcheson 2005), the nently in the attempts of transitional justice to reintegration of ex-Khmer Rouge soldiers into deal with the legacy of war and violence; the ex- their former villages depended more on their posure of “truth” is usually seen as a necessary attitude of regret than on the actual truth of step on the road to reconciliation and “national their deeds being known and accounted for healing.”This conception was at the heart of the (Eastmond and Öjendal 1999). In a similar vein, South African Truth and Reconciliation Com- the successful return and reintegration of for- mission, emphasizing that through confession mer refugees into their villages in East Timor and forgiveness truth would lead to the healing depended on their willingness to come together of the wounds and closure, common currency with their former adversaries and accept culpa- in reconciliation work. However, truth-telling” bility, not on truth as a means to serve justice Introduction: Reconciliation, reconstruction, and everyday life in war-torn societies |9

(Babo-Soares 2004). The examples point to the gration and livelihood on returning “home.”8 need to take account of the particular world- The international repatriation discourse has of- views, such as the cosmological striving for ten portrayed such movement within an essen- social harmony and peace as in the cases of tialized conception of identities as rooted—as Cambodia and East Timor, from which local people returning to their “natural” homes (see practices draw their meaning and moral force. Malkki 1995)—and predicated on an idealized For those coping with co-existence after vio- notion of pre-war local life. The idea of rural lent conflict, silence does not necessarily have to villages as harmonious and close-knit units, as mean denial but can be a practical strategy in imagined by those planning the Cambodian vulnerable relations to avoid embarrassment and repatriation in 1994 (Eastmond 2002), or of conflict. Stefansson’s research in Banja Luka sug- multi-ethnic communities of pre-war BiH as gests that, in face-to-face interactions across eth- revealed in the approach of international aid nic boundaries, eschewing subjects related to personnel (Black 2001), appear more as roman- the war can be seen as a form of unarticulated ticized visions than an accurate picture of pre- empathy; such encounters are characterized by war realities. It does not mean that returnees respect, awareness of difference, and care to cannot be drawn by a strong sense of attach- maintain relations by emphasizing that which is ment to their place of origin. But rather than shared rather than the potentially divisive. Ac- assuming rootedness we need to—as anthro- cording to Stefansson, in BiH—with its history pologists of place-making have been advocat- of violent conflicts followed by periods of peace- ing—see belonging and attachment to place as ful coexistence—there is deep-seated cultural contingent on wider social and historical proc- knowledge of living with difference and compe- esses through which people lay claim to a place tence in managing potential conflict in inter- and call it home (Gupta and Ferguson 2001; personal relations. At the societal level in Bos- Malkki 1995). As studies on refugees have shown, nia, however, as Mannergren Selimovic reminds rather than a “natural” reincorporation, those us,“truth” about the war, its causes, responsibil- returning to their former homes often find them ity and guilt, is plural and contested by different vastly transformed, physically and socially, and “sides,” framed by the nationalist non-concilia- have to negotiate their re-entry in quite differ- tory political rhetoric. However, as Jansen cau- ent contexts of power and inequality (Ranger tions, seen in the context of the present liberal 1994). Thus, as Jansen and Löfving (2007) argue, transformation of BiH, the consensual silencing re-emplacement after violence and disruption and polite avoidance may not hold much prom- must be understood in the context of economic ise in terms of developing deeper social bonds or and political transformation. Such large-scale evoking a sense of building a common future. transformations intersect with the changes in The return of refugees and displaced persons individual and social trajectories (Jansen and to their former home communities is also a Löfving 2007). strong priority of international peace-building International commitment linking refugee efforts in war-torn societies. This is evident from return to reconciliation has been particularly the sustained engagement by the UN, donor prominent in BiH, and was enshrined in the governments, and other international agencies, Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA) in 1995. There, from the early 1990s on. Return has been linked the driving force behind this policy was righting to social reconstruction, sometimes depicted as the wrong of a war perceived as one of/for eth- the healing of the disrupted and dismembered nic cleansing. However, return was a more com- social body by reinserting its missing parts. plex undertaking than envisioned in the DPA or However, such internationally driven returns— by the external agencies involved. Although the as shown in the case of Cambodia and East peace agreement ended the war, it has also been Timor (McDowell and Eastmond 2000)—often charged with institutionalizing ethnic divisions fail to protect refugee rights and insure reinte- created by it. BiH today is divided into two con- 10 | Marita Eastmond stituent units, the Federation populated mainly fansson also notes how Bosniac returnees and by Bosniacs and Croats, and Republika Srpska internally displaced Serbs, both being outsiders with a predominantly Serb population. Special in the eyes of the majority (although in differ- priority was given by the international agencies ent ways), developed some degree of coopera- to the so-called minority returns. These refer to tion and a certain willingness to recognize the people who, in the post-war demography, have Other. For many other minority returnees, a become members of the ethnic minority in common strategy—given the economic and po- their former home areas. However, the strong litical obstacles to social reintegration—has been policy focus on return disregarded other issues to sell their property and move to an area where vital for social reintegration, in particular liveli- they form part of the majority, or engaging in hood and welfare prospects in new post-war translocal residence patterns that entail maxi- circumstances (Black 2001). Even if substantial mizing opportunities and keeping options open numbers of people have returned and their in different places (Eastmond 2006; Jansen 2007). properties have been restituted, the impact in Jansen thus points to the differential household terms of ethnic remixing has been limited. The and generational strategies employed in dealing reality for those seeking to re-establish them- with the transformed socio-political context, selves has been complex, including obstructions and highlights the ways in which certain condi- by local nationalist leaders in many communi- tions in post-war settings come to be seen as ties (Jansen 2006; Stefansson 2006). An evalua- more feasible than others in the remaking of tion in 2004 of support provided by SIDA home. As Thiranagama argues (2007) in her an- (Swedish International Development Coopera- alysis of home-making in the aftermath of vio- tion Agency) to minority return in BiH found lence in Sri Lanka, it is not merely ideas about that although assistance was effective in im- the past but particularly ideas about the future proving material conditions, it entailed few fu- that inform the possibility of being at home. ture prospects and had little bearing on social These findings resonate with those of other an- trust between ethnic groups. It concluded that thropological studies of return in post-war soci- “since interaction is so rare, one could hardly eties, which note the desire of people to rebuild speak of social reintegration and certainly not their lives in places that offer some prospects for of reconciliation” (C+ukur et al. 2005: 126). a future. To achieve that, many circumvent pol- Against this backdrop, Tone Bringa’s positive icy directives where possible in search of better account of return to a village in central BiH alternatives (Allen and Morsink 1994; East- stands out as an exception (also because there mond and Öjendal 1999). are so few mixed communities in today’s BiH): Initiatives for return and inter-ethnic recon- before the war, she had done long-term field- ciliation in BiH have often been assumed by work in this village, which had come under the NGOs and encouraged by international institu- control of Bosnian Croat forces during the war. tions and donors who bring their own concep- She describes the return of displaced Bosniacs tions to bear on the projects to be realized. In to their village, initially motivated by a strong the Balkans, assistance to such projects seems to desire for justice, and how return gradually al- have largely failed in addressing the complexity lowed people to exchange experiences and to of inter-ethnic relations, tending to act as plat- establish understanding and friendship based forms that reinforce rather than transcend com- on common experiences that cut across ethnic munal interests (Sörensen 2009). Helm’s article identifications.9 (this volume) illuminates the complex interplay Stefansson’s study (this volume) of return to at work in many such NGO initiatives. Although Banja Luka is probably closer to the experience the organizations studied were underpinned by of most minority returnees, with many settling a view of women as natural peacebuilders, the in ethnic enclaves that allow very limited inter- women themselves invested their own mean- action with the majority population. But Ste- ings and purposes in the organization; in doing Introduction: Reconciliation, reconstruction, and everyday life in war-torn societies |11 so, they promoted conservative and nationalist many Bosnians have to rely on the informal la- understandings of gender and ethnic difference bor market for survival.11 that were contrary to stated goals (see also Reflecting these realities, a recurring notion Helms 2003). Although reconciliation in the in much ethnographic literature on post-war deeper sense of forgiveness and restored trust BiH is the desire for people to resume “normal was illusory, women’s attempts to return and life” (e.g., Jansen 2007; Stefansson 2004).12 Jan- resume relations with former neighbors, were sen (this volume), during his fieldwork in vil- drawing on pre-war cultural notions of co-exis- lages in the north-eastern part of BiH, observed tence (suzivot= ) and good neighborly relations that informal social relations across the former (komsiluk= ) in order to negotiate their way back. frontline had become a regular occurrence after In this process, they reinterpreted the general the war—not however, perceived as reconcilia- humanitarian aims popular with donors to suit tion but rather part of rebuilding a sense of issues of more practical relevance to their own normality. The notion of “normal life”13 can be problems and in ways that made sense in the linked to notions of family welfare that devel- context of their own social reality and moral oped with modernization and urbanization in world. post–World War II Yugoslavia. It refers to the striving of families to build a materially and socially secure basis of welfare and status, part of Beyond reconciliation: The struggle the larger developmental vision of Yugoslavia for “normal life” (Eastmond 2006, 2007). It was embedded in sets of reciprocal social relations (Bringa 1995), From the perspective of everyday life, reconcili- but it was, above all, contingent on the State as ation with former enemies is not always the a provider of welfare services and a main agent foremost preoccupation for people trying to in social and economic development. The liberal make a new start after a devastating war. Al- economy introduced in the mid-1990s promotes though a number of accomplishments have a very different role for the State (e.g., Sörensen been made in BiH after the war—with regard to 2009).14 Before the war, work and work-related physical reconstruction, the absence of major housing were not only key components in the violence, several democratic elections, property promotion of family welfare and sociality but restitution, and the return of refugees and dis- also provided a basis for inter-ethnic interaction. placed people—many insecurities about the fu- Paula Pickering (2006) analyzes the role of ture remain. For instance, a survey of attitudes mixed (urban) workplaces in the building of among victims who had suffered major loss and inter-ethnic social relations in today’s BiH. She violence—drawn from different ethnic groups points to the importance of repeated horizontal in BiH—indicated that a majority believed that interaction around particular tasks, in which war would re-emerge (Kiza, Rathgeber, and other identities and capacities (such as profes- Rohne 2006: 129). The economic reforms to- sion or gender) become prominent.15 Obviously, ward neoliberal marketization launched in BiH workplaces—though often overlooked by donors in 1995, which included the privatization of and advocacy groups—offer opportunities for state-own industries, undermined economic ordinary Bosnians to address their concrete and and political reconstruction. In the institutional pressing needs (Pickering 2006). Mannergren vacuum the reforms “strengthened the power of Selimovic in a forthcoming study in Foc=a, also the very nationalist groups who were least in- found that a mixed work place (the police force), terested in achieving interethnic reconciliation in spite of initial misgivings, had recreated a in Bosnia” (Paris 2006: 435; see also Chandler sense of collegiality. Furthermore, men’s recre- 2008).10 Job development has not been a prior- ational associations, which had existed before ity of these economic reforms (Woodward 2000); the war, provided opportunities for forging re- employment opportunities remain scarce and lations based on organized masculine activities, 12 | Marita Eastmond such as rafting and hiking. Jansen’s article (this the implications for the rebuilding of lives and volume) also highlights encounters between men social relationships in Bosnian post-war society. that straddled former front lines in the course Achieving a stable and peaceful society after of everyday life; however, in so doing, this inter- massive and violent conflict is a formidable task action marked or reinforced other divisions. In and a long-term challenge in the complex and Jansen’s example, men with different ethnic back- contentious reality of any post-conflict society; grounds displayed performative competence by whatever policy approach taken it is apt to fail using strong cultural motifs of a hegemonizing on a number of counts. This Introduction has masculinity. Thus, although “ethnic” differences drawn particular attention to the dynamics in- were at least partially overcome such encounters volved as normative and universalist discourses tended to reproduce hegemonizing gender pat- such as the reconciliation discourse are local- terns. Mannergren Selimovic, like Stefansson ized in post-war contexts. It means that, as situ- (this volume), also describes the circumstances ated practice, reconciliation interventions in which practical assistance and economic co- generate different outcomes in the variety of operation between individuals, based on mutual local contexts of implementation. As they filter need, opened the way for some degree of social through local experiences and moral sensibili- interaction and recognition of the “other.” ties, such initiatives will be reinterpreted and What these examples suggest is that reconcil- invested with the meanings and strategies of lo- iation, with its narrow reference to particular cal actors, at times at odds with the aims and kinds of relationships and activities, tends to ideologies of the external organizations and eclipse the shifting bases of mutual recognition donors. Another key point made is that, given that are part of everyday social interaction in the everyday problems of people in post-war any complex society. They also suggest that ex- settings, reconciliation with former enemies may ternal reconciliation initiatives seem to be curi- not be seen as a primary concern. The theme ously at odds with the primary concerns of many permeating post-war life in BiH was rather the Bosnians, as they struggle to find their bearings striving for a sense of normality—not so much in a profoundly changing socio-political reality. by consciously engaging in inter-ethnic recon- This experience, as demonstrated from other ciliation, as by invoking and practicing widely post-war settings, is not unique to the Bosnian shared norms such as those of economic secu- case. As long as their lives were marked by pov- rity and neighborhood sociality. Although a erty, unemployment, and lack of permanent fraught process in the politically unresolved di- housing, Stefansson’s informants told him that vision in BiH, such practices evoke historical reconciliation remained too abstract and of less experiences and cultural competences of deal- priority to them to take a serious interest in. ing with difference among erstwhile enemies. The recurring view was that improving the socio- However, the future of such normalization on economic situation would facilitate inter-ethnic the ground, without the support of a larger vi- relations, and for many individuals this way of sion and an institutional framework providing rebuilding a “normal life” was a far greater mo- hope out of social insecurity and economic tivating force than what can be referred to as deprivation, appears highly uncertain. “identity politics.” This view echoes the realist scholarly position that emphasizes the rebuilding of functioning social relations in the daily Acknowledgments life of ordinary people as a way to bridge differences and recreate trust. Thanks are due to the anonymous reviewers of The contributions to this special section, this special issue and to Alexandra Kent, Joakim each in its own way, address the critical disjunc- Öjendal, and Jens Sörensen for inspiration and ture between perspectives on reconciliation and constructive comments. I am also grateful to Introduction: Reconciliation, reconstruction, and everyday life in war-torn societies |13

Anders Stefansson for valuable input to an ear- included the ICTR, established by the UN on lier version of this Introduction. behalf of the international community; and two domestic forms of trials—the National Geno- cide Trials carried out in the established na- Marita Eastmond is associate professor in Social tional courts, and the Gacaca courts, modeled Anthropology at the School of Global Studies, on traditional forms of popular litigation. University of Gothenburg, and a professor of 5. The Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Public Health at the Nordic School of Public Cambodia, a solution negotiated between the Health, Gothenburg, Sweden. Her areas of Cambodian government and members of the research are forced migration and exile; the pol- international community, finally began official itics of asylum, integration and return; recon- operations in 2006. The 1991 peace accords did not include accountability, but a process to put struction and repatriation in post-conflict the leaders of the Khmer Rouge on trial began societies. Her fieldwork areas are Chile, Cambo- in 1997. dia, and BiH, including the transnational con- 6. Justice and forgiveness carry vastly different nections to global diasporas. She is the author connotations in the Cambodian context than of The dilemmas of exile (1997), co-editor of what is assumed in the globalized reconciliation Globala familjer.Transnationell migration och discourse. For one, traditional conceptions of släktskap (Global families. Transnational migra- power and autocratic rule (Ovesen 2005) would tion and kinship) (2007) and has co-edited the rule out the idea that the powerful can be held special issue of International Migration on Sus- accountable. Cosmologically justice, like moral tainable return in the Balkans: Beyond property redemption, is a more complex and long-term restitution and policy (2006). matter in the individual realm. 7. Revived Buddhism has been at the heart of a Postal address: Department of Social process of spiritual and moral recovery among Anthropology, School of Global Studies, ordinary Cambodians, providing a sense of se- University of Gothenburg, PO Box 700, curity and moral order that promote social re- SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. lations (Kent 2006). E-mail: [email protected]. 8. In fact, the most successful are those who return unassisted, even when the home country is still at war, because of the ability to retain control Notes and their intimate knowledge of the circumstances (Eastmond 2002). 1. “Bosnians” refers to the population of the state 9. The study was made into a film (see Bringa and of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereas “Bosniacs” Loizos 2001). are used to refer to Bosnian Muslims. 10. The neoliberal reform package of democratiza- 2. See Gloppen (2005) for an overview. tion and marketization that is part of most 3. The plural understandings of justice, within peace-building operations today tends to have courts and between courts and members of the adverse effects in societies with limited or non- population can also diminish legitimacy. South existent governmental institutions (Paris 2006). Africa’s famous Truth and Reconciliation Com- In Chandler’s (2006) view, viable institutions mission (TRC) is often heralded as one of the must be built from within, with respect for the most successful exercises in national healing. domestic political process. However, in a study of local townships, Wilson 11. Although statistics from BiH are somewhat un- (2000: 84) found “profound disdain for the certain, the rate of unemployment in January, TRC” and its “softer” form of restorative justice, 2010 was over 40 percent (Agency for Statistics where the interests of the locals instead centered of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2010 www.bhas.ba). primarily on revenge and retribution. 12. Opinion surveys during the first two years after 4. In Rwanda, the processes were established at the war revealed overwhelming preferences for different levels to deal with issues of justice and a job above anything else, followed by resolu- reconciliation after the 1994 genocide. These tion of property issues (Woodward 2000: 163). 14 | Marita Eastmond

13. The idea of “normal life” was a recurring fea- Bringa, Tone, and Peter Loizos. 2001. Returning ture and a strong motivation in the settlement home: Revival of a Bosnian village. Sarajevo: Saga process of Bosnian refugees to Sweden and else- Film. where (Eastmond 2005). Chandler, David. 2006.Introduction: Peace without 14. Vetta (2009: 86–87) argues that the rise of na- politics? In Peace without politics? Ten years of in- tionalism in Serbia after 2000 must be explained ternational state-building in Bosnia, ed. David by the profound social transformation of the Chandler, 1–15. Abingdon: Routledge. past twenty years. In the absence of an organized Chayes, Antonia, and Martha Minow, ed. 2003. left, the nationalist Radical Party provides the Imagine coexistence: Restoring humanity after vi- most serious critique of global capitalist restruc- olent ethnic conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. turing and promises a return to normality that Chea, Vannath. 2003 Reconciliation in Cambodia: strongly resonates with the material and sym- Politics, Culture and Religion. In reconciliation bolic needs of a wide range of the population. after violent conflict: A handbook, ed. David 15. In narratives of Bosnian refugees on pre-war Bloomfield, Teresa Barnes, and Luc Huyse, social life, colleagues are frequent in most peo- 49–53. Stockholm: International Institute for ple’s social networks (especially women’s) and Democracy and Electoral Assistance. social interaction extended beyond the work- Crocker, David A. 2000. Truth commissions, transi- place (Eastmond 2007). tional justice and civil society. In Truth vs. Jus- tice: The morality of truth commissions, ed. Robert E. Rotberg and Dennis R. Thompson. References 99–121. Princeton: Princeton University Press. C+ukur, Melita, Kjell Magnusson, Joakim Molander, Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Hans Skotte. 2005. Returning Home: An (BHAS), 2010. Registered unemployment, Bul- Evaluation of Sida’s Integrated Area Pro- letin No 1. Sarajevo (www.bhas.ba). grammes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sida, Allen, Tim, and Hubert Morsink, ed. 1994. When Stockholm: Sida Evaluation Report 05/18. refugees go home. Geneva: UNRISD. Des Forges, Alison, and Longman, Timothy. 2004. Allen, Tim, and David Turton. 1996. Introduction. Legal responses to genocide in Rwanda. In My In In search of cool ground: War, flight and home- Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in coming in Northeast Africa, ed. Tim Allen, 1–22. the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, ed. Eric Stover Geneva: UNRISD. and Harvey M. Weinstein, 49–68. Cambridge: Amstutz, Mark R. 2005. The healing of nations: The Cambridge University Press. promise and limits of political forgiveness. Lan- Duffield, Mark. 2007. Development, security and un- ham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. ending war. Governing the world of peoples. Cam- Apuuli, Kasaija Phillip. 2009. Procedural due bridge: Polity Press. process and the prosecution of genocide sus- Eastmond, Marita. 2002. Reconstruction and the pects in Rwanda. Journal of Genocide Research 11 politics of homecoming: Repatriation of (1): 11–30. refugees to Cambodia. University of Gothenburg Babo-Soares, Dionisio.2004. Nahe biti: Grassroot Working Paper no. 1, April. reconciliation in East Timor. In Roads to recon- ———. 2005. The disorders of displacement: Bos- ciliation, ed. Elin Skaar, Siri Gloppen, and Astri nian refugees and the reconstitution of normal- Suhrke, 187–99. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ity. In Managing uncertainty. Ethnographic Black, Richard. 2001. Return and reconstruction: studies of illness, risk and the struggle for control, missing link or mistaken priority in post-Dayton ed. Vibeke Steffen, Richard Jenkins, and Hanne Bosnia and Herzegovina? SAIS Review 21: Jessen, 149–71. Copenhagen: Museum Tuscu- 177–99. lanum Press. Borneman, John. 2002. Reconciliation after ethnic ———. 2006. Transnational return and reconstruc- cleansing: Listening, retribution, affiliation. Pub- tion in post-war BiH and Herzegovina. In Sus- lic Culture 14 (2): 281–304. tainable Return in the Balkans: Beyond Property Bringa, Tone. 1995. Being Muslim the Bosnian way: Restitution and Policy, ed. Richard Black, Marita Identity and community in a Central Bosnan vil- Eastmond, and Saskia Gent, 141–64. Interna- lage. Princeton: Princeton University Press. tional Migration (Special Issue) 44(3), 141–166. Introduction: Reconciliation, reconstruction, and everyday life in war-torn societies |15

———. 2007. Familjens välfärdsprojekt. In Globala tion: Movement, violence and the making of familjer: Transnationell migration och släktskap, home. Focaal 49: 3–14. ed. M. Eastmond and L. Åkesson, 45–70. Kent, Alexandra. 2006. Reconfiguring security. Bud- Hedemora: Gidlunds. dhism and moral legitimacy in Cambodia. Secu- Eastmond, Marita, and Joakim Öjendal. 1999. Re- rity Dialogue 37 (3): 343–61. visiting a repatriation success: The case of Cam- ———. 2009. Trying to get it “just right”: The bodia. In The end of the refugee cycle? Refugee Khmer Rouge tribunal and social healing in repatriation and reconstruction, ed. Richard Cambodia. Project description, Swedish Science Black and Khaled Koser, 38–55. Oxford: Research Council. Berghahn Books. Kiza, Ernesto, Corene Rathgeber, and Holger C. Eltringham, Nigel. 2009. Introduction.Journal of Rohne. 2006. Victims of war: An empirical study Genocide Research 11 (1): 1–5. on war victimisation and victims’ attitudes to- Etcheson, Craig. 2005. The limits of reconciliation wards addressing atrocities. Hamburg: Ham- in Cambodia’s communes. In Roads to reconcili- burger Edition. ation, ed. Elin Skaar, Siri Gloppen, and Astri Kostic;,Roland. 2007. Ambivalent Peace. External Suhrke, 201–24. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. peacebuildning, Threatened identity and recon- Fletcher, Laurel E., and Harvey M. Weinstein. 2002. ciliation in BiH and Herzegovina. PhD diss., Violence and social repair: Rethinking the con- Uppsala University. tribution of justice to reconciliation. Human Lambourne, Wendy. 2001. Justice and reconcilia- Rights Quarterly 24 (3): 573–639. tion: Postconflict peacebuilding in Cambodia ———. 2004. A world unto itself? The application and Rwanda. In Justice and Coexistence, ed. Mo- of international justice in the former Yugoslavia. hammed Abu-Nimer, 311–38. Oxford: Lexing- In My neighbor, my enemy: Justice and commu- ton Books. nity in the aftermath of mass atrocity, ed. Eric Lederach, Jean Paul. 1997. Building Peace. Sustain- Stover and Harvey M. Weinstein, 29–49. Cam- able reconciliation in divided societies. Washing- bridge: Cambridge University Press. ton, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Gloppen, Siri. 2005. Roads to Reconciliation: A con- Longman, Timothy, Phuong Pham, and Harvey ceptual framework. In Roads to reconciliation, Weinstein. 2004. Connecting justice to human ed. Elin Skaar, Siri Gloppen, and Astrid Suhrke, experience: Attitudes toward accountability and 17–50. Oxford: Lexington Books. reconciliation in Rwanda. In My neighbor, my Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. Culture, enemy: Justice and community in the aftermath power, place: Ethnography at the end of an era. of mass atrocity, ed. Eric Stover and Harvey M. In Culture, power, place, 1–29, Durham: Duke Weinstein, 183–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. University Press. Helms, Elissa. 2003. Women as agents of ethnic rec- Malkki, Liisa. 1995. Refugees and exile: From onciliation? Women’s NGOs and international refugee studies to the national order of things. intervention in postwar BiH-Herzegovina. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 495–523. Women’s Studies International Forum 26 (1): McDowell, Christopher, and Eastmond, Marita. 15–33. 2000 Transitions, state-building and the “resid- Honwana, Alcinda. 2005. Healing and social reinte- ual” refugee problem: The East Timor and Cam- gration in Mozambique and Angola. In Roads to bodian repatriation experience. Australian reconciliation, ed. Elin Skaar, Siri Gloppen, and Journal of Human Rights 8 (1): 7–30. Astri Suhrke, 83–100. Lanham, MD: Lexington McGrew, Laura. 2006. Transition justice mechanisms. Books. In The Extraordinary Chambers, ed. Open Soci- Jansen, Stef. 2006. The privatisation of home and ety Justice Initiative. New York: Justice Initiatives. hope: Return, reforms and the foreign interven- ———. 2009. Reestablishing legitimacy through tion in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Dialectical Anthro- the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of pology 30: 177–99. Cambodia. In Beyond democracy in Cambodia, ———. 2007. Troubled locations: Return, the life ed. Joakim Öjendal and Mona Lilja, 250–96. course, and transformations of ‘home’ in Copenhagen: Nias Press. Bosnia-Herzegovina. Focaal 49: 15–30. McLean Hilker, Lyndsay. 2009. Everyday ethnicities: Jansen, Stef, and Staffan Löfving. 2007. Introduc- Identity and reconciliation among Rwandan 16 | Marita Eastmond

youth. Journal of Genocide Research 11 (1): Stefansson, Anders H. 2006. Homes in the making: 81–100. Property restitution, refugee return, and senses Meernik, James. 2005. Justice and Peace? How the of belonging in a post-war Bosnian town. Inter- International Criminal Tribunal Affects Societal national Migration 44 (3): 115–39. Peace in BiH. Journal of Peace Research 42 (3): Stover, Eric, and Harvey M. Weinstein. 2004. My 271–89. Neighbor, my enemy: Justice and community in Minow, Martha. 1998. Between vengeance and for- the aftermath of mass atrocity. Cambridge: Cam- giveness: Facing history after genocide and mass bridge University Press. violence. Boston: Beacon Press. Subotic, Jelena. 2009. Hijacked justice. Dealing with Öjendal, Joakim, and Mona Lilja, ed. 2009. Beyond the past in the Balkans. Ithaca: Cornell Univer- democracy in Cambodia. Political reconstruc- sity Press. tion in a post-conflict society? In Beyond democ- Sörensen, Jens. 2009. State Collapse and Reconstruc- racy in Cambodia, 1–30. Copenhagen: Nias tion in the Periphery: Political Economy, Ethnicity Press. and Development in Yugoslavia, Serbia and Ovesen, Jan. 2005. In No Peace, No War. An Anthro- Kosovo. Oxford: Berghahn Books. pology of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, ed. Paul Teitel, Rudi. 2000. Transitional Justice. Oxford: Ox- Richards, 24–39. Oxford: James Currey. ford University Press. Paris, Roland. 2006. Bringing the Leviathan back in: Thiranagama, Sharika. 2007. A new morning? Reoc- Classical versus contemporary studies of the lib- cupying home in the aftermath of violence in Sri eral peace. International Studies Review 8, 425– Lanka. Focaal 49: 31–44. 440. Tsing, Anna. 2005.Friction: An ethnography of global Pickering, Paula M. 2006. Generating social capital connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press. for bridging ethnic divisions in the Balkans: Vetta, Theodora. 2009. Revived nationalism versus Case studies of two Bosniak cities. Ethnic and European democracy: Class and “identity dilem- Racial Studies 29 (1): 79–103. mas” in contemporary Serbia. Focaal 55: 74–89. Ranger, Terence. 1994. Studying repatriation as part Wilson, Richard A. 2000. Reconciliation and re- of African social history. In When refugees go venge in post-apartheid South Africa: Rethink- home, ed. Tim Allen and Hubert Morsink, ing legal pluralism and human rights. Current 279–94. Geneva: UNRISD. Anthropology 41 (1): 75–98. Reyntjens, Filip, and Stef Vandeginste. 2005. ———. 2001. The Politics of Truth and Reconcilia- Rwanda: An atypical transition. In Roads to tion in South Africa: Legitimising the Post- reconciliation, ed. Elin Skaar, Siri Gloppen, and Apartheid State. Cambridge: Cambridge Astri Suhrke, 101–28. Lanham, MD: Lexington University Press. Books. ———. 2003. Anthropological studies of national Ross, Fiona, C. 2002. Bearing witness: Women and reconciliation processes. Anthropological Theory the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Lon- 3 (3): 367–87. don: Pluto Press. Woodward, Susan L. 2000. Bosnia after Dayton: Sampson, Steven. 2003. From reconciliation to co- Transforming a compromise into a state. In existence. Public Culture 15 (1): 181–86. Truth v. justice: The morality of truth commis- Shaw, Rosalind. 2007. Memory frictions: Localizing sions, ed. Rotberg, Robert I., and Dennis the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Thompson, 139–166. Princeton: Princeton Uni- Sierra Leone. International Journal of Transi- versity Press. tional Justice (2): 183–207. Zorba, Eugenia. 2009. What does reconciliation af- Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 1998. Undoing: Social suf- ter genocide mean? Public transcripts and hid- fering and the politics of remorse in the new den transcripts in post-genocide Rwanda. South Africa. Social Justice 25 (4): 114–42. Journal of Genocide Research 11 (1): 127–147.