Construction of a Memorial at Omarska

Home , Handshake, Kozarac, Omarska, Omarska camp, Trnopolje camp

Südosteuropa 59 (2011), H . 3, S . 349-372

MANUELA BRENNER

The Struggle of Memory. Practices of the (Non-)Construction of a Memorial at Omarska

Abstract . This article analyzes practices and discourses of various interest groups with regard to the construction of a memorial at the former detention camp of Omarska in Bosnia and Herzegovina . The former camp was run by Bosnian Serb authorities and existed from May to August 1992 . It is estimated that around 800 detainees lost their lives at the campsite . Omarska became part of the Republika Srpska, the Serb entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, following the Dayton Agreement in 1995 . Using hitherto unprocessed material, this article discusses the actors involved in the memorial initiative and the problems they face . Using an actor-centered approach, the article shows that even though it appears at first sight to be an ethnonational conflict about memory, other issues are equally important . For example, the role of outside actors is significant – particularly that of the company ArcelorMittal, the world’s biggest steel producer and owner of the property since 2004, and that of The Soul of Europe, an international organization whose initiators ran a project for a memorial at Omarska in 2005 . The case study of Omarska thus offers insights into the complex relationship between politics of memory and memory culture in Bosnia and Herzegovina .

Manuela Brenner is finishing her teaching degree in History and English at the University of Regensburg .

Introduction

Between May and August 1992, the complex of the iron ore mining company Ljubija, located near the town of Prijedor in northwestern Bosnia, was turned into one of the detention camps run by Bosnian Serb authorities during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Omarska camp . Survivors and family members of the estimated 800 victims who lost their lives in the camp gather for annual commemorations in both May and August . When they did so on 6 August 2011, the event marked the 19th anniversary of the closure of the former camp . The local and international media hardly reported anything about the commemoration, aside for some Balkan-focused media outlets who ran headlines such as 350 Manuela Brenner

“Bosnia Marks 19 Years of Omarska Camp Closure”,1 “Prijedor Victims Recall Infamous Camps”,2 or “Deadly Detention Camp Forgotten”3 . It is words like infamous and forgotten which indicate a key issue of the commemoration of the former camp: the fear among survivors and family members of victims that the Omarska camp will eventually fall into oblivion . Eldin Hadžović, a contributor to the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network’s (BIRN) Justice Report, commented on the occasion of the anniversary of 6 August that “[e]ach year fewer and fewer former detainees visit Omarska […] [a]s hopes fade away among resigned detainees and their families that a worthy memorial will ever be erected” .4 As of yet, no memorial has been established at the former camp site . Even though the number of participants in the annual commemorations dwindles, survivors and family members of victims continue to fight for the construction of a monument . However, their efforts have met little to no success thus far . Amongst other difficulties, their memories meet resistance from the Bosnian Serb population 5. Even today the opinion remains widespread among the Serb public and in political discourse that no crimes were committed that would need to be brought to justice and that, even if atrocities occurred, they were fully justified . Symptomatic of such a stance is the fact that the cooperation between Serbs and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague proved to be difficult for a long time 6. As political scientist Sabrina P . Ramet puts it, groups which committed a large number of crimes often tend to collectively deny these acts and even blame the victims . Ramet labels the combination of selective perception, memory, and interpretation as

1 Eldin Hadžović, Bosnia Marks 19 Years of Omarska Camp Closure, Balkan Insight, 6 Au- gust 2011, available at . All internet sources were accessed on 1 September 2011 . 2 Aida Alić, Prijedor Victims Recall Infamous Camps, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, 8 August 2011, available at . 3 Eldin Hadžović, Deadly Detention Camp Forgotten,Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, 9 August 2011, available at . 4 Ibid . 5 Valuable research has been carried out on the clashes between memorial spaces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, cf . Stef Jansen, Remembering witha Difference: Clashing Memories of Bos- nian Conflict in Everday Life, in: Xavier Bougarel / Elissa Helms / Ger Duijzings (eds .), The New Bosnian Mosaic . Identities, Memories and MoralClaims in a Post-War Society . Farnham 2007, 193-210; Armina Galijaš, Eine bosnische Stadt im Zeichen des Krieges . Ethnopolitik und Alltag in Banja Luka (1990-1995) . München 2011; Craig E . Pollack, Returning to a Safe Area? The Importance of Burial for Return to Srebrenica, Journal of Refugee Studies 16 (2003), n . 2, 186-201; Sabina Ferhadbegović, Vom Nachteil der Historiographie für das Leben in Bosnien-Herzegovina, in: Ulf Brunnbauer / Christian Voss (eds .), Inklusion und Exklusion auf dem Westbalkan . München 2008, 131-140 . 6 Cf . the overview in Katrin Boeckh, Serbien . Montenegro . Geschichte und Gegenwart . Regensburg 2009, 236-242 . The Struggle of Memory 351 the denial syndrome . For some individuals and groups this mechanism paves the way to cope with guilt, yet it must be understood on a more or less unconscious level as a refusal to become aware of the guilt in which one is entangled . Other individuals accused of atrocities try to exercise their power over the victim even after they have been accused of a given crime . Such denial of atrocities or the witnessing of atrocities in fact leads to many perpetrators not being held responsible for their deeds in court . Ramet’s denial syndrome introduces an important and powerful tool at work in Omarska .7 In the following, I analyse the actor groups involved in the efforts to create a memorial at the former camp of Omarska and the issues that they face . At first sight the struggle appears to simply be an ethnonational conflict . While it certainly is this, other issues are equally important, including the involvement of actors like ArcelorMittal, the world’s biggest steel producer and owner of the property since 2004, and The Soul of Europe, an international organization whose initiators ran a project concerning a memorial in 2005 . The analysis is based on participant observation, interviews, materials provided by former camp detainees and activists in the effort to establish a memorial, statements and materials contributed by other actor groups involved, official documents, as well as analyses conducted by other scholars dealing with the topic of war memory in general and specifically in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Prije- dor region . First, the study provides background information on the outbreak of the war in northwestern Bosnia, the establishment of the detention camps in the area, and the history of the Omarska camp . Second, it gives an impressionistic account of the memorial initiative .8 Third, the different actor groups involved in the efforts to establish a monument are analyzed, including a brief account of the returnee situation in Prijedor . Lastly, the article presents the most recent

7 Sabrina P . Ramet, The Denial Syndrome and Its Consequences: Serbian Political Culture Since 2000, in: eadem, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia at Peace and at War . Selected Writings, 1983-2007 . Wien et al . 2008, 135-156; cf . Edina Bećirević, The Issue of Genocidal Intent and Denial of Genocide . A Case Study of Bosnia and Herzegovina, East European Politics & Societies 24 (2010), n . 4, 480-502; Eric D . Gordy, Postwar Guilt and Responsibility inSerbia . The Effort to Confront It and the Effort to Avoid It, in: Sabrina P . Ramet / Vjeran Pavlaković (eds .), Serbia Since 1989 . Politics and Society Under Miloševic and After . Seattle/WA et al . 2005, 166-191; idem, What Does It Mean to Break With the Past?, in: Florian Bieber / Carsten Wieland (eds .), Facing the Past, Facing the Future . Confronting Ethnicity and Conflict in Bosnia and Former Yugoslavia . Ravenna 2005, 85-101; Stanley Cohen, States of Denial . Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering . Cambridge 2001 . 8 I took part in an excursion to Bosnia and Herzegovina in May 2010, and the impressions gathered during this journey prompted my further investigation . The excursion will be quoted as: Excursion, Omarska / Trnopolje, 24 May 2010 . For more information cf . Heike Karge, Projektbeschreibung der Studienexkursion “Kriege erinnern . Warum ‘Kriege erinnern’?”, available at . I sincerely thank Heike Karge and Ulf Brunnbauer for their full-hearted support of my research and with the compilation of this article . 352 Manuela Brenner efforts involved in the memorial initiative, including a participant observation of a commemoration initiative carried out in Kozarac and Omarska on 8 and 9 May 2011 9. Although different political actors with their own interests exist in every society, societies with an authoritarian and/or war-torn past all feature at least three specific groups: representatives of the old regime (offender groups), surviving victims and relatives, and the new (democratic) government . The representatives of the old regime may have inflicted physical and emotional suffering upon their victims, including rape, torture, and maltreatment . The perpetrators often continue to have access to considerable power resources and physical means of inflicting violence . These groups, albeit heterogeneous, are hesitant to take responsibility for their actions and try to stay in power even though the political system has changed and, in the best case, turned democratic . The surviving victims and relatives of victims, on the other hand, are interested in punishing the perpetrators and search for reparation and compensation . For its part, the new government’s main goal is to secure its position of power and avoid threatening the political consolidation process . It usually supports the victims’ stance 10. Indeed, a variation of this categorization undertaken by Schmidt, Pickel, and Pickel does apply to Omarska . The first and the second group, the perpetrators and the surviving victims and relatives, can be identified accordingly: the Bosnian Serb authorities who ran the camp in 1992 and those imprisoned in it . The third group, the new government, is to be found on a local as well as on a broader level that includes the local authorities, the governmental body of the Republika Srpska, the Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina, the compound state, as well as the international community . It is an intricate matter to show how these groups were involved – or not involved – in the efforts to create a memorial at the former camp Omarska . The question whether or not the perpetrators are willing to confront the past is, as shall be demonstrated, not merely a rhe- torical one . Many survivors and members of the victims’ families are involved in the efforts to create a memorial at the former campsite . With respect to the third level, the new government, those involved are not limited to the various policy-makers within the state apparatus in Bosnia and Herzegovina . It also includes ArcelorMittal, a global steel company headquartered in Luxembourg which has owned the former mining complex since 2004, with local authorities

9 The impressions gathered during the commemorations will be quoted as Observation, Kozarac / Omarska, 8 and 9 May 2011 . I sincerely thank Katharina Schalk for sharing her impressions with me . 10 Siegmar Schmidt / Gert Pickel / Susanne Pickel, Einführung: Thesen zur Signifikanz des Umgangs mit der Vergangenheit, in: eadem (eds .), Amnesie, Amnestie oder Aufarbei- tung? Zum Umgang mit autoritären Vergangenheiten und Menschenrechtsverletzungen, Wiesbaden 2009, 7-22, 11f . The Struggle of Memory 353 holding 49 % of the shares . Furthermore, the international organization The Soul of Europe acted as a mediator between the different interests groups with regard to the establishment of a memorial at the former camp site . The present article is the first attempt at scrutinizing memory practices related to the Omarska camp . As such, it contributes to a lively and valuable thread of existing memory research on Bosnia and Herzegovina . As Ger Duijzings states, “[o]ne of the characteristics of post-war Bosnia is that there is a wide gap in terms of how Muslims and Serbs perceive the war, which is underpinned by narratives produced by historians, journalists and politicians for ‘consumption’ within their own communities”, and although “[v]ery similar in style and rhetoric, most Muslim and Serb accounts of the war tell completely different stories, documenting suffering among members of their own nation, while ignoring victims on the other ‘side’” .11 Elvira Mandić also writes about three different interpretations that amount to three different “truths” concerning the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 12. This phenomenon can also be observed in the Prijedor region . A number of returnees, mostly Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, today constitute sizable population groups in the area once again and are vested with a minority status . It is mainly (although not exclusively) these returnees that wish to commemorate the Omarska camp and all other camps established during the war . However, members of the ethnic majority group living in the Prijedor region, the Bosnian Serbs, are largely in charge of the local bodies of authority . A wide gap exists between the majority and the minorities with regard to how they perceive the war, its local events in particular, and how these events are either remembered or left for oblivion . Omarska confirms what has been validated in other case studies, i . e . the existence of divided memories in Bosnia and Herzegovina . Yet, this study takes things a step further by also taking into account the role played by international actors, thereby opening up and diversifying any monoethnically coined perspectives 13.

11 Ger Duijzings, Commemorating Srebrenica: Histories of Violence and the Politics of Memory in Eastern Bosnia, in: Bougarel / Helms / Duijzings (eds .), The New Bosnian Mosaic (above fn . 5), 141-166, 145 . 12 Elvira Mandić, Geschichte und Politik in Bosnien-Herzegowina . Aufarbeitung oder Politisierung der Geschichte?, in: Julian Plänke et al . (eds .), Gegenwart der Vergangenheit . Die politische Aktivität historischer Erinnerungen in Mitteleuropa . Baden-Baden 2007, 123- 130, 127; cf . more generally Ed Cairns / Micheál D . Roe (eds .), The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict . Basingstoke 2003 . 13 Cf . Timothy G . Ashplant / Graham Dawson / Michael Roper, The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration . Context, Structures and Dynamics, in: eadem (eds .), The Politics of Memory . Commemorating War . New Brunswick/NJ, London 2000, 3-86 . 354 Manuela Brenner The War in the Prijedor Region

The northwestern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which today is mainly inhabited by Serbs, had a different demographic structure before war broke out in 1992 . About 160,000 Bosniaks and close to 50,000 Croats lived there . The census carried out by the Prijedor municipality in 1991 counted 44 % Bosniaks, 42 .5 % Serbs, 5 .6 % Croats, 5 .7 % Yugoslavs, and 2 .2 % Others . The Prijedor municipality spanned 71 small towns and villages, including Kozarac, Omarska, and Trnopolje with more than 3,000 inhabitants each 14. Serb forces seized control of Prijedor on 30 April 1992 15. Immediately there- after a systematic approach was taken against the non-Serb population: The local government was overthrown, the mayor and the president of the municipal council were arrested, the population was cut off from electricity and telecommunication supplies, communication nets were controlled, non-Serbs lost their jobs, and the population was disarmed . No one was allowed to leave town without permission . After opening fire in Kozarac on 24 May 1992, Serb troops immediately began with the “ethnic cleansing” of the Prijedor region 16. Large numbers of the Bosniak and Croat population were arrested and taken to one of the surrounding camps of Omarska, Keraterm or Trnopolje, which the Bosnian Serb authorities had erected between 22 and 30 May . While Trnopolje was primarily used as a transit camp for the deportation of large numbers

14 Dennis Gratz, Elitozid in Bosnien und Herzegowina 1992-1995 . Baden-Baden 2007, 177-179 . 15 Ibid ., 183 . For a detailed description of the seizure cf . the Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Annex V: The Prijedor Report, S/1994/674/Add .2 (vol . I), 28 December, 1994, available at . 16 According to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the crimes committed in Srebrenica in July 1995 are to eb classified as the only instance of genocidal intent in the wider “ethnic cleansing” campaign that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, cf . Heike Karge, Nie wieder Srebrenica: Eine Dokumentation der Srebrenica-Erklärungen und ihrer Wirkungen, Südosteuropa. Zeitschrift für Politik und Gesellschaft 59 (2011), n . 1, 128- 167 . Still, there does exist a debate whether the term ethnic cleansing is the one to use for all other incidents, or whether genocide is in fact applicable to other atrocities as well, cf . ICTY Against Radislav Krstić, Case No . IT-98-33-a, available at ; Edina Bećirević, The Issue of Genocidal Intent and Denial of Genocide (above fn . 7); Gratz, Elitozid (above fn . 14), 24-52; Sonja Biserko, Forced Migra- tion, Mass Flight and Expulsion after the Cold War . Politics of “Ethnic Cleansing”, in: Dieter Bingen / Włodzimierz Borodziej / Stefan Troebst (eds .), Vertreibungen europäisch erinnern? Historische Erfahrungen – Vergangenheitspolitik – Zukunftskonzeptionen . Wiesbaden 2003, 188-193; Bette Denich, Dismembering Yugoslavia: Nationalist Ideologies and the Symbolic Revival of Genocide, American Ethnologist 21 (1994), n . 2, 367-390; and, more generally, Adam Jones, Genocide . A Comprehensive Introduction . London 2006 . The Struggle of Memory 355 of women, children, and elderly people,17 Keraterm and Omarska served as detention camps .18 A word on this denomination: During my research, I observed that the inter- viewee Satko Mujagić, a former detainee, used the term death camp . Journalist Eldin Hadžović applies both the term death camp and detention camp . The ICTY generally refers to the camp as a detention camp,19 yet documents that contain the term death camp are also to be found 20. Dennis Gratz uses the termextermination camp (Vernichtungslager) .21 Isabelle Wesselingh and Arnaud Vaulerin suggest using the expressions concentration camp, detention camp, ethnic cleansing camp, or ethnic purification camp . The terms death camp and extermination camp, they argue, “refer almost exclusively to the Holocaust with its institutionalized and absolute character” . In the following, I refer to the camps in the Prijedor region as detention camps 22.

The Omarska Camp

During socialist times, the Omarska camp terrain was part of an industrial site at the largest iron ore open pit in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ljubija . The camp near the town of Prijedor existed from the end of May to the end of August 1992

17 “Prisoners were detained in a cluster of buildings, including a school, cultural hall and cinema, and on the surrounding grounds . The conditions at the Trnopolje camp were also abject and brutal . The general living and hygiene facilities were grossly inadequate . […] Both male and female prisoners were killed, beaten and otherwise physically and psychologi- cally maltreated by the camp personnel and others who were allowed into the camp for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily and mental harm on the prisoners . In addition, many of the women detained […] were raped, sexually assaulted, or otherwise tortured by camp personnel . […] Trnopolje camp served as the staging point for most of the convoys that were used to forcibly transfer or deport the Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs from Prijedor municipality .” ICTY against Miroslav Kvočka, Milojica Kos, Mladen Radić, and Zoran Žigić, Case No . IT-98-30/1, available at ; cf . Prijedor Report (above fn . 15), Part Two, VIII . The Concentration Camps, C . Logor Trnopolje . 18 “In most respects, Logor Keraterm resembled Logor Omarska . The two camps had much the same status and organization . In a sense, it is probably correct to consider Keraterm almost like a smaller, but basically not better, extension of Omarska .” Prijedor Report (above fn . 15), Part II, VIII . The conentration Camps, B . Logor Omarska; cf . Gratz, Elitozid (above fn . 14), 183-186; Muhidin Šarić, Keraterm . Erinnerungen auseinem serbischen Lager . Klagenfurt 1994 . 19 E . g . ICTY against Milan Kovačević, Case No . IT-97-24, available at . 20 E . g . The International Tribunal for the Formerugoslavia Y Charges 21 Serbs with Atroci- ties Committed Inside and Outside the Omarska Death Camp, Press Release CC/PIO/004-E, The Hague, 13 February 1995, available at . 21 Gratz, Elitozid (above fn . 14), passim . 22 Isabelle Wesselingh / Arnaud Vaulerin, Raw Memory . Prijedor, Laboratory of Ethnic Cleansing . Paris 2003, 63-65, quotation 64 . 356 Manuela Brenner and is known to have been the most brutal of the camps established during the Bosnian war . Details about its functioning have been described elsewhere: New- comers were divided into three groups, with detainees who were categorized into Group A running a particular risk because they belonged to Prijedor’s elite . The members of this group were guarded in a particularly close manner and many were killed, which is why the crimes at Omarska have also been classified as an elitocide 23. As for the total number of detainees, the literature mentions the number of between 2,500 and 3,000 people,24 yet the exact number of victims remains unclear, amounting to an estimated 800 people killed within the three months of the camp’s existence .25 Many were killed immediately upon their arrival . Those who did not suffer this fate were kept under inhumane conditions 26. Generally, they lived in five locations: the administration building, in which women were confined and where interrogations ookt place; the hangar or garage; the so-called Bijela kuća (White House), in which detainees were beaten and tortured; a small building known as Crvena kuća (Red House), from which, it is said, nobody emerged alive; and the Pista, a cement courtyard between the buildings .27 As a result of poor hygiene and general living conditions, many people died from infections, diseases, starvation, or the violence afflicted onto them by Serb guards . Castration, forcing cannibalism, gouging eyes, displacing noses, and cutting off ears and sexual organs rank ongam the gruesome methods of torture to which camp detainees were exposed 28. The White House has often been described as a torture chamber in which many people lost their lives 29. 37 women were kept separately from male prisoners and repeatedly abused and raped, five of them losing their lives under this torture .30 Roy Gutman, an

23 Ibid ., 50f .; Gratz, Elitozid (above fn . 14), 190-195 . 24 Roy Gutman, Augenzeuge des Völkermords . Reportagen aus Bosnien . Göttingen 1994, 142f . 25 Research and Documentation Center Sarajevo, Bosnian Atlas of War Crimes, available at . In an e-mail to the author, the former detainee Satko Mujagić mentioned a number of 700 to 900 victims, 18 May 2011 . According to him, the actual number might be even higher . 26 Cf . the account of Stipo Šošić, Zur Hölle und zurück . In den Lagern der Furcht und des Grauens – Keraterm, Omarska, Manjaca . Köln 1996 . 27 ICTY, Case No . IT-98-30/1 (above fn . 17) . 28 Gutman, Augenzeuge des Völkermords (above fn . 24), 149f .; Šošić, Zur Hölle und zurück (above fn . 26), 47 . 29 Gutman, Augenzeuge des Völkermords (above fn . 24), 141; Rezak Hukanović, The Tenth Circle of Hell . A Memoir Of Life in the Death Camps of Bosnia . Oslo 1993; Kemal Pervanić, The Killing Days . London 1999 . 30 Concentration Camps in Former Yugoslavia: Jasenovac Concentration Camp, Omarska Camp, Sremska Mitrovica Camp, Sajmiste Concentration Camp . Memphis/TN 2010, 35-43; Jadranka Cigelj, Appartment 102 Omarska . Ein Zeitzeugnis . Zagreb ³2005; Wojciech Toch- mann, Like Eating a Stone . Surviving the Past in Bosnia . London 2008 . The Struggle of Memory 357

Pict . 1: The Red House . Pict . 2: The White House . Omarska, 24 May 2010 (Source: Exkursion “Kriege erinnern”, Tagebuch Prijedor, available at .

American journalist, started to report on the camps in July 1992; on 5 August, a British television team led by Penny Marshall and accompanied by the journalist of the Guardian and the Observer Ed Vulliamy, among others, managed to reach the Omarska and the Trnopolje camps . It was at the Trnopolje camp where the television team photographed the emaciated Fikret Alić and other camp detainees behind a barbed wire fence, a picture that made its way around the world and became a symbol for the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina . The picture contained certain inaccuracies, as journalist Thomas Deichmann has shown, for it was not Fikret Alić but rather the journalists themselves who stood behind the barbed wire . Still, the worldwide media attention aroused by these reports put pressure on the Bosnian Serbs who ran the camps and eventually led to the closing of the Omarska camp at the end of August 1992 31.

31 Thomas Deichmann, The Picture that Fooled the World, Living Marxism 97 (1997); cf . the collected materials on the issue, Das täuschende ITN-Bild und der Prozess gegen LM, Novo-Magazin, available at ; cf . Wesselingh / Vaulerin, Raw Memory (above fn . 22), 0f5 .; David Campbell, Atrocity, Memory, Photography: Imaging the Concentration Camps of Bosnia – the Case of ITN versus Living Marxism, Part I, Journal of Human Rights 1 (2002), n . 1, 1-33; Part II, Journal of Human Rights 1 (2002), n . 2, 143-172 . Recently, Penny Marshall returned to Kozarac and Omarska and produced a documentation on what she calls Bosnia’s “Unfinished Business” . She met Fikret Alić and other former camp inmates, following up on their lives 20 years later . Unfortunately, also this latest production does not refrain from feeding on stereotypes and superficiality with regard to the research done . Cf . Večeras sa Trevor McDonaldom Bosnia .Unfinished . Business, two parts, available at and . The documentation also contains images from the 2011 commemorations at Omarska and Kozarac referred to in this article . 358 Manuela Brenner The Memorial Initiative

Omarska and Trnopolje, May 2010

In the course of an excursion entitled “Commemorating Wars . The Memory of the Second World War and the War 1992-1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina” organized by the University of Regensburg in May 2010, a group of participants, including myself, visited the former camp sites of Omarska and Trnopolje . In Kozarac, a town close to Omarska, we first met Satko Mujagić, a former camp detainee and an activist involved in the efforts to install a monument there . Mujagić invited us to the Kuća mira (House of Peace) where he provided us with background information on the war in Kozarac, his hometown, and his experiences in the camp 32. The walls of the room we sat in were covered with pictures of people from Kozarac who went missing during the war . After this introductory meeting, Mujagić took us to the former camp site . A special access permit had to be obtained from ArcelorMittal, the company which has owned the property since 2004 .33 We entered the property through a back entrance . As we got off the bus, we could see theWhite House, the Red House, the hangar and the administration building – the places where former camp detainees were kept, abused, raped, tortured, and in many cases killed . Access to the White House was allowed, but not to any other buildings . The camp survivor Satko Mujagić pointed out to us the atrocities which took place in the small White House . Not only did ArcelorMittal deny us access to the building, but there were also no signs of commemoration of the victims of the Bosnian war 34. Omarska was not unique in this respect . When Mujagić took us to the nearby former camp of Trnopolje on the same day, we learned that no memorial exists there either . Weeds grew around the camp’s main building, a former school; the ground was littered with garbage, and the place gave an overall impres- sion of neglect . A soccer field is behind the former camp building and a school right next to it, which, according to Mujagić, is attended only by Bosnian Serb children who know nothing about the history of the house next to their school:

32 The Kuća Mira (House of Peace) is the headquarters of an association founded in Zagreb in December 1992 by female refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina . Initially it bore the name Women’s Association B&H Women, changing it to Initiation of Women from B&H – Through Heart to Peace in October 1996, when it transferred its head office to Sanski Most, about 25 kilometres south of Prijedor . The association has helped NGOs to organize, has supported returnees, has offered psychological and material assistance, and has also been active in the efforts of creating a memorial at the former camp site . Cf . the organisation’s website, available at . 33 In 2004, the property of the former camp was sold to MittalSteel; in 2006, Mittal Steel and Arcelor fusioned to create the world’s largest steel producer, now called AreclorMittal. Cf . the company’s website, available at . 34 Excursion, Omarska, 24 May 2010 . The Struggle of Memory 359

Pict . 3: Monument for Serb Soldiers, to Pict . 4: Former camp building . the left side of the former camp building . Trnopolje, 24 May 2010 (M . Brenner) . Trnopolje, 24 May 2010 (M . Brenner) .

“You came all the way from Germany to hear that story . The Serbs over there have no clue .“35 It would be wrong to say that there is no evidence of the past at all, but there is nothing to remember the former camp . A memorial, a stone pillar with a cross and the wings of an angel, was placed on the left side of the former school building . The monument “is not for Bosniak and Croat civilians who were killed there, but for Bosnian Serbs who died elsewhere during the war” .36 Those engaged in fighting for a commemoration of the victims of the former camps in the area feel insulted: “Can you imagine a monument for Nazis in front of Auschwitz?”37

The Initial Efforts in Creating a Memorial at the Former Camp Omarska

No initiative for a memorial existed until 2004 .38 When the complex was sold to Mittal Steel in April 2004, then the world’s largest steel producer,39

35 Talk with Satko Mujagić, Excursion, Trnopolje, 24 May 2010 . 36 Rachel Irwin / Velma Širić, Calls for War Memorials Divide Bosnia, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, 6 December 2010, available at . 37 Talk with Satko Mujagić, Excursion, Trnopolje, 24 May 2010 . 38 Satko Mujagić, E-mail to the author, 9 October 2010 . 39 “A 51 % controlling share in the mining complex was bought by Mr . Mittal […], 49 % remaining with the RZR Ljubija company, owned by Republika Srpska itself . Mr . Mittal committed to invest $40m in order to develop the mines, in an area badly needing employment .” Ed Vulliamy, Fresh Battle Over Serb Death Camp,The Guardian, 2 December 2004, available at ; .cf Snje- žana Mulić, Iron Ore Enriched With Human Bones, Ex-Yupress (originally published in the newspaper Dani), 15 April 2005, available at . 360 Manuela Brenner survivors and family members of victims contacted the new owners . With the reopening of the former mine imminent, they found themselves faced with two main concerns: Their wish to install a monument for commemorating the victims, as well as the possibility that dead bodies might still be hidden on the property . Satko Mujagić, representing the Dutch-based organizationOptimisti 2004 that he helped to found, and Edin Ramulić, on behalf of the Prijedor NGO IZVOR, wrote letters to the new owners40 . They suggested that survivors and family members should be allowed to rent the area around the White House and thereby obtain the possibility to build a memorial . A meeting between Roeland Baan, the company’s Chief Executive Officer for Europe at that time, and representatives of the foundation Optimisti 2004 took place in Rotterdam on 14 January 2005 . The interlocutors agreed that the White House should indeed remain untouched and be transformed into a memorial center . Furthermore, it was established that access to the former camp should be granted to the public on any day, and especially on 25 May and 6 August, the days that symbolize the camp’s establishment and closure 41. The company responded accordingly and their European Office commissioned the involvement of the international organization The Soul of Europe .42

The Soul of Europe and Its Project

Donald Reeves, the founder of The Soul of Europe, and Peter Pelz, its director, agreed to act as mediators between Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks with regard to the issue of creating a memorial at the former camp of Omarska . Their goal was to reach a solution all parties could agree upon . heT organization received a total

40 The foundation Optimisti 2004, along with other activities, promotes the establishment of a Memorial Center at the former camp site of Omarska . The primary mission of the women’s association Izvor is to gather data about missing persons . It is also actively involved in the Omarska memorial initiative . Cf . the organisations’ websites, available at and . Cf ., in this context, also Ajdin Kamber, Dachau Offers Bosnian Survivors Memorial Lessons . Former Detainees from Bosnia Visit Notorious Nazi Death Camp to Learn How Others Commemorate War Victims, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, Report News, International Justice (ICTY), 25 March 2011, available at . 41 Satko Mujagić, Gastarbeider [sic] in Sarajevo, blogger.ba, 19 April 2011, available at . 42 Established in 2000, the organisation identifies tselfi as working “as catalysts and mediators to ensure a peaceful resolution to conflicts – particularly in the Balkans . […] The Soul of Europe describes itself as being ‘honest brokers’ bringing people together to help them begin to take steps towards justice and reconciliation .” Among other projects, theSoul of Europe has been engaged in a project to rebuild the famous Ferhadija mosque in Banja Luka . Currently it is most involved in Kosovo, mediating between Serbs and Albanians . Cf . the organisation’s website, available at . The Struggle of Memory 361 of £ 100,000 from Mittal Steel to achieve their aims 43. Two of their preliminary activities were to ensure that “the invitation for mediation was acceptable to all parties” and to establish “a reference group from the international community for advice and reflection” .44 This group included representatives from the Or- ganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Office of the High Representative (OHR), as well as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina . The meetings organized in 2005 included survivors of the Omarska camp, representatives both of the workers and the management of the steel company, politicians and influential leaders of the local, regional, national and international levels . These representatives then divided into Bos- niak, Croat, and Serb subgroups, each working on a proposal for a memorial 45. Disagreements surfaced relatively quickly . Reeves’ and Pelz’ initiative was subject to severe criticism by former camp detainees and the family members of victims . They were confronted with the following accusations: that they had not kept the promises they had made; that major participants in the project had been kept ill-informed; and that they tried to include Marko Pavić, the mayor of Prijedor, in the project despite his being accused of having committed war crimes against the non-Serb population in 1992 .46 The survivors and family members of the victims felt that alleged war criminals were granted more influence than themselves . They also felt as if Reeves and Pelz tried to rush things to a quick solution . Those who did not agree with the project and its development were simply ignored or expelled, with lack of transparency being another key issue . Another aspect that was severely criticized was the fact that the process “looked like a reconciliation process instead of a process of recognition” 47. On 1 December 2005, ArcelorMittal and The Soul of Europe presented the solution they preferred during a press conference in Banja Luka . The plan was to turn the White House into a memorial, including 34 ha of the surrounding property which was to be separated from the rest of the mine complex and financed byArcelorMittal .48 Prijedor’s mayor Pavić did not attend the press conference although he was invited . The representatives of the steel company attended only reluctantly, which the survivors and family members of victims interpreted as a rejection

43 Mujagić, Gastarbeider in Sarajevo (above fn . 41) . 44 Donald Reeves / Peter Pelz, The Process for the Omarska Memorial Project, Soul of Europe’s website, available at . 45 Ibid . 46 The mayor was accused, yet never convicted of war crimes . He did play a key role in the taking over of power by Serb forces in Prijedor in 1992 . Prijedor Report (above fn . 15), Part Two, II . Opština Prijedor – General Description, F . Political and Administrative Structure . 47 Satko Mujagić, E-mail to the author, 19 May 2011 . 48 Mujagić, Gastarbeider in Sarajevo (above fn . 41) . 362 Manuela Brenner

Pict . 5: Planned memorial complex, presented by ArcelorMittal and The Soul of Europe at the press conference in Banja Luka on 1 December 2005 . Sources: blogger.ba, available at ; “Omarska Memorial” – Mittal Press Conference, Banja Luka, 1 December 2005, film clip of the press conference, available at . of the plan . In addition, former inmates were not allowed to talk about their experiences at Omarska because the organizers wished to avoid making Serb participants feel that they were being attacked . Immediately after the press conference, Pavić announced that he no longer wished to be part of the project . Another meeting took place in Rotterdam on 19 December 2005, during which Pelz and Reeves admitted that two other individuals accused of war crimes against the non-Serb population were involved in the project . They also explained that the memorial should belong to ArcelorMittal and the local Serb authorities, rather than becoming a strictly Muslim memorial, a decision that was definitely not in the survivors’ interests . They additionally stated thatAr- celorMittal would permit access to the former camp ground only twice a year .49 Feeling betrayed, many, yet not all, of the survivors and family members of victims started to oppose The Soul of Europe’s project at this point .50 Lee Bryant,

49 Satko Mujagić, E-mail to the author, 18 May 2011 . 50 Conversations with former camp detainees, February and March 2011 . The Struggle of Memory 363 activist in the memorial initiative, and Kemal Pervanić, former camp detainee and author of The Killing Days, created the website , promoting a petition asking for sign ups from those who voted in favor of a memorial initiated by the survivors .51 In February 2006, Bryant, Pervanić and Mujagić sent another letter toArcelorMittal , again suggesting that the victims and their representatives be allowed to rent the area around the White House . They also severely criticized the measures undertaken by Pelz and Reeves 52. That same month ArcelorMittal halted the project, arguing that those involved could not reach an agreement . The company announced its disappointment over these developments 53. BBC News reported that the project was cancelled for the following reasons: Many Bosnian Serbs in the area thought the memorial unnecessary; many Bosniaks insisted on saving the dead bodies which supposedly were still on the property; they also wished the memorial to include the whole property and not only parts of it .54 Peter Pelz and Don- ald Reeves echoed the company’s disappointment, pointing out that they still managed to gather people at round tables to talk, in spite of all the difficulties . They remained optimistic that the mayor of Prijedor could have eventually been convinced to back the project again . They concluded in their elaborate account of the negotiations that the differences between survivors who had moved back to the Prijedor region and those who had remained in the diaspora constituted the main reasons for the project’s failure .55 However, many of those involved actually hold Pelz’ and Reeves’ procedural method responsible for the project’s demise, summing up exasperatedly: “[…] they tried to superimpose a religious reconciliation project over a legitimate campaign led by the victims of Omarska to be recognised . […] In reality, their knowledge of the history and culture of the situation was so utterly limited that they should never have placed themselves in this position . Reconciliation has its own rhythm and is anyway going on in lots of small ways […] – it does not need some pompous English priest to come and make money from it (which is what they did – cf . their total lack of interest in following through when the funding ran out) .”56

51 Mujagić, Gastarbeider in Sarajevo (above fn . 41) . Headgroups .com is not online anymore . For an accurate and comprehensive account of the negotiations reconstructed here, hinting also at the Headgroups petition, cf . Chris Keulemans, Omarska 15 godina kasnije, Dani, 15 June 2007, available also in Italian as Omarska, 15 anni dopo, Osservatorio balcani e caucaso, available at . 52 Lee Bryant, Omarska Memorial Project: A Briefing for Mittal Steel . Rotterdam Febru- ary 2006 . 53 Mujagić, Gastarbeider in Sarajevo (above fn . 41) . 54 Nick Hawton, Bosnia War Memorial Plan Halted, BBC News, 20 February 2006, available at . 55 Peter Pelz / Donald Reeves, The White House . From Fear to a Handshake . Alresford, Hampshire 2008, 191 . 56 Lee Bryant, Facebook Message, 11 October 2010; cf . generally on this issue Veit Strass- ner, Versöhnung und Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung – ein Vorschlag zur Begriffsbestimmung 364 Manuela Brenner

Further (Non-)Developments

No major developments have been achieved since ArcelorMittal’s halting of the project led by The Soul of Europe in February 2006, in spite of several meetings and public discussions that have been organized 57. Following the disappointing cutback of the memorial process, the survivors and family members of victims discovered that the White House had been painted . Satko Mujagić, on behalf of Optimisti 2004, severely criticized this development in a letter to ArcelorMittal of 29 May 2007 .58 When I enquired with the company’s new person in charge, Felicidad Cristobal, about the status of the creation of a memorial on the property of the former camp site, she responded that “[n]either ArcelorMittal nor the Foundation will enter into political matters concerning the Memorial”59 . The company founded the ArcelorMittal Foundation in May 200760 . The Foun- dation has supported several projects: the Kozarac Youth Center, a maternity hospital, the local branch of the Anemona Association for Asthma Patients, as well as folklore groups in Prijedor and Zenica, among others . With regard to the Kozarac Youth Center, the company’s website notes that it directs its initiatives towards young people “[who] can become agents for change in the community, overcoming old mindsets and promoting peace and reconciliation between communities still divided by politics” 61. The website does not mention the memorial project, even though, according to Satko Mujagić, the furtherance of the process is one of the Foundation’s tasks . The survivors and family members of victims still gather for commemorations on 25 May and 6 August, the days symbolizing the camp’s establishment and its closure, as ArcelorMittal had previously agreed .62 und Konzeptionalisierung, in: Schmidt / Pickel / Pickel, Amnesie, Amnestie oder Aufarbei- tung? (above fn . 10), 23-35 . 57 Mujagić, E-mail to the author, 18 May 2011 . 58 Satko Mujagić, Memorial Omarska . Letter to Mr . Roel and Mr . Baan from Mittal Steel Europe B .B . in Rotterdam, 29 May 2007 . The letter is available online at , and contains also a detailed chronology of the events described above . 59 Felicidad Cristobal, E-mail to the author, 2 November 2010 . 60 “The purpose of the Foundation is to promote and co-ordinate the policies of the Arce- lorMittal Group in the following areas: Art and Culture, Environment, Education, Sports, Social promotion and Health and Safety . The foundation will pursue its objectives through its own projects as well as through the support of projects of other entities dedicated to similar objectives .” Cf . the company’s website, available at . 61 Cf . the company’s website, available at . 62 Satko Mujagić, E-mail to the author, 9 October 2010 . The Struggle of Memory 365

Returnees in Prijedor

As a consequence of the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, the municipality of Prijedor is part of the entity of the Republika Srpska . Approximately 50,000 people were expelled from the Prijedor area due to the war, resulting in a situation in which only one percent of the population is Bosniak and there is no Croat population at all 63. Their houses had been either destroyed or occupied by Serb refugees or displaced persons, who amounted to about 37,000 at the end of the war . Several events then provided for the beginning of the returnee process: “The first event was the so called Tango operation,carried out by SFOR in July 1997 . This was the first attempt by SFOR to arrest indicted war criminals in BIH . […] As a lucky coincidence, the second important event took place a few weeks later: the municipal elections . Following the rules foreseen yb the Dayton Peace Agreements, all the 1991 residents of Prijedor could elect the new municipal bodies . This allowed the renewal of the war time political leadership and the creation […] of new municipal bodies, which contained a significant representation of Bosniaks, belonging to the Coalition for a Democratic and Unitarian BIH . […] DPs and refugees claimed their right to go home or at least to repossess their properties . The International Community could not fail them and the 1998 [sic], following the Peace Implementa- tion Conference, it was declared the ‘year of return’ . […] In a memorable meeting, in February 1998, displaced persons from Prijedor and Sanski Most, Bosniaks and Serbs respectively, joined their forces and stated clearly their intention to return to their homes, asking for the support of local authorities and of the International Community . The event, known as the ‘Prijedor-Sanski Most Declaration’ marked the beginning of the return process in the area .”64 Since 1998, the number of returnees, mostly to the Kozarac area, has grown 65. In 2002, an estimated 20 % of the non-Serb population had returned .66 In 2010, reports conveyed that more than 40 % of the previous inhabitants had returned

63 Massimo Moratti, The Return Process in Prijedor: Experiences of a Human Rights Officer, Network Migration in Europe e . V ., 2004, available at ; Gratz, Elitozid (above fn . 14), 189f . 64 Moratti, The Return Process in Prijedor (above fn . 63), 1f . 65 Gratz, Elitozid (above fn . 14), 189f . No census sha been conducted in Bosnia and Herze- govina since 1991 . Demographic statements have been estimates since the changes brought about by the war . For 2011, a census was planned, yet the authorities in charge failed to reach an agreement on how to translate it into practice . Bosniak politicians feared that questions concerning ethnic and religious affiliation could add to legitimizing the ethnic “cleansing” of the years 1992 to 1995 and reproached Serb politicians for insisting on such questions in order to prove the close-to ethnic homogeneity of the Republika Srpska . Milan Sutalo / Belma Fazlagić-Sestić, Volkszählung in Gefahr, DW World, 12 January 2011, available at . 66 Wesselingh / Vaulerin, Raw Memory (above fn . 22), 91f . 366 Manuela Brenner and that close to 100 % of the property had been given back to their owners .67 The former Human Rights Officer in Prijedor, Massimo Moratti, calls the town “probably the most successful return area in the whole of BiH” 68. As promising as these figures may sound, a considerable disproportion between the number of returnees and the restituted property remains, as not all of those who got their property back did in fact return . Houses often remain empty .69 For those who actually return, life is not easy . Their political influence is rather low; many are unemployed; their cultural heritage was mostly destroyed .70 The negotiations regarding a memorial at the former camp site have occurred in the midst of these difficulties faced by the returnees .

Issues of a Planned Commemoration

On 9 May 2011, Murat Tahirović, president of the Union of Camp Prisoners of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Savez logoraša u Bosni i Hercegovini), planned to pay tribute to Omarska 71. His intention was to organize a round table in the canteen of the former camp site, the place where detained women had to pass out food to the imprisoned men in 1992 . Among the guests invited for the round table were the Belgrade artist Milica Tomić, the Radna grupa “Četiri lica Omarske”

67 Nansen Dialogue Center Sarajevo, NDC Prijedor project, 15 December 2010, available at . 68 Moratti, The Return Process in Prijedor (above fn . 63) . Cf . Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker, Bosnien, Rückkehr – allgemeine Angaben, available at . 69 Ibid . 70 Cf . Florian Bieber, Power Sharing, Political Presentation and Group Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in: idem / Wieland (eds .), Facing the Past, Facing the Future (above fn . 7), 151-162; Gratz, Elitozid (above fn . 14), 190; Amnesty International, Bosnia and Herzegovina . Behind Closed Gates: Ethnic Discrimination in Employment, EUR 63/001/2006, 26 January 2006, available at ; Ekrem Tinjak, RS Police Continues to Intimidate the Bosniaks of Prijedor, Bosnia Report 36 (October-December 2003), available at ; Sandro Contenta, A Survivor Faces Her Tormentor, Bosnia Institute News & Analysis, 30 March 2004, available at ; Hannes Grandits, Misstrauen statt Eigenverantwortung? Alltagshintergründe politischer Blockaden in Bosnien am Beispiel der Stadt Trebinje, in: Brunnbauer / Voss (eds .), Inklusion und Exklusion auf dem Westbalkan (above fn . 5), 65-81; Hariz Halilovich, Beyond the Sadness: Memories and Homecomings Among Survivors of “Ethnic Cleansing” in a Bosnian Village, Memory Studies 4 (2011), n . 1, 42-52; Sabina Ferhadbegović, Vom Nachteil der Historiographie für das Leben in Bosnien-Herzegovina, in: Brunnbauer / Voss, Inklusion und Exklusion, 131-140; András J . Riedlmayr, Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1992-1996 . A Post-War Survey of Selected Municipalities . Cambridge/MA 2002 . 71 The association, located in Sarajevo, operates a Center for Information and Documention (CID) active in the fields of research and documentation as well as information and education, cf . the association’s website, available at . The Struggle of Memory 367

(Working Group “Four Faces of Omarska”), and members of the organization Žene u crnom (Women in Black), also based in Belgrade 72. The visit was meant as an act of art and commemoration, but it evoked many problems from the start . One of the main issues was how to get access to the property of the former camp site . Discussions about this topic became heated following an incident that occurred when a group of German students from the Fachakademie für Sozialpädagogik (Academy for Social Pedagogy) in Munich visited the camp as part of a project conducted by the school 73. The company, again, allowed access only to the White House, rather than to the entire site, jus- tifying this decision by stating that it was impossible to interrupt production for this purpose . The students visiting the property were accompanied by Sudbin Musić, an Omarska survivor . They witnessed sheep grazing around theWhite House . Feeling insulted, the former camp detainees contacted the company and discussions became heated 74. When the negotiations with ArcelorMittal about the planned commemoration began, the situation was already tense . Representa- tives of the company met with members of the Association of Camp Prisoners “Prijedor 92” (Udruženje logoraša “Prijedor 92”) on 20 April 201175 and denied access to the property on 9 May, the date envisaged for the round table .76 Ensu- ing negotiations with the company above the local level with Felicidad Cristobal did not lead to a more satisfying solution . The organizers decided that they would participate in the round table even without an entry permission, in an altered manner . After yet more negotiating, Mr . Mukherjee, the local contact

72 Milica Tomić opened an exhibition entitled “One Day” in Belgrade on 10 September 2010 . At its center stood the project “Four Faces of Omarska”, which she had started two months earlier together with a so-called working group of mainly young people active in various branches such as art, film, or political sciences .he T working group organized a public meeting entitled “Two Faces of Omarska: Prison Camp as the Site of Memory Production Based on Solidarity and Equality” on 11 September 2010, at the Salon of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade, in which former Omarska camp detainees took part . Another round table was organized in Banja Luka on 31 October 2010 . Milica Tomić, Four Faces of Omarska . Memorial as a Social Sculpture – Artwork as Common Good and Property, available at the artist’s website ; Dejan Sretenović, One Day, available at the Museum of Contemporary Art’s website . The website ofŽene u Crnom is available at . 73 The students were accompanied by their professor Manfred Patermann . He annually organizes an excursion that teaches about a post-war society . Telephone interview with Patermann, 10 June 2011 . Cf . Eldin Hadžović, Bosnia: Visit to Former Detention Camp High- lights Dispute, Balkan Insight, 11 April 2011, available at . 74 Hadžović, Bosnia: Visit to Former Detention Camp Highlights Dispute (above fn . 73) . 75 The organization was established in 2006, with Mirsad Duratović and Sudbin Musić as president and secretary . Among other activities, it is involved in creating memorial centers at former camp sites . Cf . the organisation’s website, available at . 76 Mujagić, Gastarbeider in Sarajevo (above fn . 41) . 368 Manuela Brenner person concerning entry permission, eventually granted access on 3 May over the phone . This was followed by a written permission77 . Other local actors disapproved of the planned commemoration as well . Above all was Marko Pavić, the mayor of Prijedor . He claimed that he feared the activities could be interpreted as a provocative endeavor by the Bosnian Serb citizens, the majority in the Prijedor municipality . To him, such commemorative gather- ings had a negative impact on people of different ethnic identities and living together in this area . Pavić found it especially inappropriate to combine the “Day of Victory over Fascism” (Dan pobjede nad fašizmom), traditionally celebrated on 9 May, with a commemoration of the victims of Omarska on the same day .78 The local branch of the Federation of the Veterans’ Associations of the People’s Liberation War of Yugoslavia (Savez udruženja boraca narodnooslobodilačkog rata Jugoslavije, SUBNOR) and the local Veteran’s Association issued an open letter to ArcelorMittal and to the Ministry of Interior of the Republika Srpska opposing the date of the planned commemoration .79 On 2 May, Pavić and the former camp detainees Mujagić and Musić met . The mayor repeated that he opposed the planned meeting . The organizers however insisted on the date of 9 May, given that in 1998 the date had been chosen as the Day of Camp Prisoners of Bosnia and Herzegovina . The three men also debatedabout the planned visit of Bakir Izetbegović and Željko Komšić, members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina . Pavić was disturbed by the thought ofpoliticians giving speeches at the commemoration . The meeting ended without an agreement . On 8 May, the former camp detainees, Milica Tomić, the working group “Four Faces of Omarska”, members of Women in Black, as well as a small international group coming from the United Kingdom, Portugal, Germany, and Australia met at the House of Peace in Kozarac . Expecting resistance from the opposing groups to become even more insistent on the following day, they discussed safety issues .

77 Access to the property was permitted on the day the artists obtained media attention in the political TV magazine CRTA, 3 May 2011, available at . 78 The Day of Victory Over Fascism is annually celebrated in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 9 May . Only the Republika Srpska celebrates it as a non-working holiday, though . Gesetzliche Feiertage für Bosnien-Herzegowina, available at ; cf . Vjeran Pavlaković, Red Stars, Black Shirts: Symbols, Commemorations, and Contested Histories of World War Two in Croatia . Seattle 2008, who examines how various commemorative events have taken on new meanings and significance in post-communist Croatia, including the Day of Victory Over Fascism . 79 In the Republika Srpska, both SUBNOR and the Veterans’ Association are based in Banja Luka . Cf . the website of the World Veterans Federation, available at . Satko Mujagić, Welcome to Omarska, But Not Now, blogger. ba, 5 May 2011, available at ; Prijedorske vlasti protiv obilaska logora Omarska, source.ba, 5 May 2011, available at . The Struggle of Memory 369

Pict . 6: Monument, Kozarac, 8 May 2011 . Pict . 7: Monument, Kozarac, inner view . (M . Brenner) .

They decided that, if the safety for the participants in the commemoration proved to be at risk, then it would take place at the memorial for the victims of 1992-1995 in the center of Kozarac . This memorial is dedicated to all the victims of the war of 1992-1995 from Kozarac, not only to those killed at Omarska in 1992 . It was officially opened in July 2010 and financed by inhabitants of Kozarac and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina living in the diaspora . The monument is built from several stone plates which form a circle surrounded by water on its inside and outside . Electric candles are attached to the exterior of the stone plates . Within the circle, the names of 1,226 citizens of Kozarac who were killed during the war are inscribed .80 Another key issue related to the planned commemoration was the reading of the “Declaration on the Continuation of the Struggle against Fascism” (Dek- laracija o nastavku borbe protiv fašizma), issued for the occasion of the gathering on 9 May and initiated by Women in Black, the working group “Four Faces of Omarska”, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, theGrupa Spo- menik / Monument Group and the Centre for Women’s Studies, and supported by the Association of Concentration Camp Detainees in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Association of Concentration Camp Detainees “Prijedor 92” 81. The dec-

80 Financijski izvještaj GO So-Kozarac, 21 August 2010, available at the website of the Ko- zarac municipality ; Irwin / Šarić, Calls for War Memorials Divide Bosnia (above fn . 36) . 81 The text of the Deklaracija o nastavku borbe protiv fašizma / Declaration of anti-fascist struggle’s continuation [sic] is available at . Apart from the websites already mentioned cf . those of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, available at ; Grupa Spomenik / Monu- 370 Manuela Brenner laration is addressed to “the authorities of the Republic of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska and the Prijedor municipality, the public in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and throughout former Yugoslavia” 82. It draws “attention to the present day politics of the Republic of Serbia which negates war crimes and the existence of concentration camps during the 1990s . […] These politics of negation, denial and impunity of crimes is being produced and implemented by national institutions, extreme right-wing organizations and supporting groups, thus encouraging violence and hatred” .83 Even though the organizers were aware of the fact that representatives of the Bosnian government who had intended to join the commemoration might refrain from coming if the declaration were to be fully read,84 the former camp detainees Rezak Hukanović, Sudbin Musić and Mirsad Duratović as well as others involved agreed that it should be read out loud in its entirety .85

The Commemoration on 9 May 2011

The commemoration on 9 May began at the memorial in Kozarac . While some people gathered inside the memorial and laid down flowers, others gave interviews . People set off towards Omarska, although graffiti had appeared in Prijedor earlier that morning that read “Gypsies and Muslims to Concentra- tion Camps” 86. The police had erected roadblocks to allow the line of cars to travel to Omarska without disturbance, but also to prevent a clash between the opposing parties . A man sitting in a café greeted the passing cars with three extended fingers, a symbol used by nationalist Serbs .87 An old man yelled angrily at the cars driving by and a group of five or six youngsters lined up somewhat menacingly along a side path . People wishing to informally attend the commemoration did not obtain access . At the former camp site of Omarska, the participants gathered around the White House . Milica Tomić emphasized that it was a shame that the atrocities committed by Serbs in Omarska were still met with denial . People applauded when Staša Zajović of Women in Black finished ment Group, available at ; Centar za ženske studije, available at . 82 Deklaracija o nastavku borbe protiv fašizma (above fn . 81) . 83 Ibid . 84 Hadžović, Bosnia Marks 19 Years of Omarska Camp Closure (above fn . 1) . 85 Observation, Kozarac, 8 May 2011 . 86 Murat Tahirović, Public Statement – Reaction to Commemoration of the Day of Con- centration Camp Detainees, Sarajevo, 11 May 2011 . 87 Originally, this gesture indicated the “Serbian religious way to signify the Holy Trinity” . Prijedor Report (above fn . 15), Part II, VIII The Concentration Camps, A . Logor Omarska; cf . Duizings, Commemorating Srebrenica (above fn . 11), 161: “[…] local Serbs continued to ex- press discontent with the commemorations, jeering the arriving mourners, welcoming them with the three-finger Serb nationalist salute and holding up pictures of Mladić and Karadžić .” The Struggle of Memory 371 reading the Declaration of the Continuation of the Struggle Against Fascism . An emotional speech by Satko Mujagić followed . The two representatives of the Bosnian presidency spoke next . Bakir Izetbegović gave a short speech, after which he and Željko Komšić gave interviews . After that they both left . They had been invited to Kozarac to lay down flowers at the memorial for all the victims of Kozarac, but declined and apologized due to time constraints . After their departure the commemoration was over .88

Conclusion

This article assesses the efforts to create a memorial at the former camp site of Omarska . While many questions remain unanswered and await deeper analysis, the investigation reveals that ethnic conflict plays an important role among the different actor groups involved, but is by no means the exclusive trigger for the problems described . It seems that Schmidt, Pickel, and Pickel’s approach needs to be expanded in order to grasp all facets relevant in Bosnia and Herzegovina, firstly because there are groups involved that go beyond their envisaged scheme, and secondly because these groups cannot be treated as monolithic actors . In addition, this article gives insight into the difficulties that arise if an international organization – in this case The Soul of Europe – seeks to impose a project of reconciliation when one of commemoration was requested and needed . It was the Bosnian Serb authorities who ran the camp in 1992 and it is among them that the perpetrators are to be found . During the period whenThe Soul of Europe was active in the memorial process, it in fact sought to involve people who were accused of having committed war crimes, towhich the survivors and family members of victims reacted with dismay . Furthermore, the article shows the ways in which local mechanisms of power are entangled in the memorial project, i . e . the interests of the company Arce- lorMittal to remain on good terms with those who hold political power in the region . The extent to which the whole matter seems to be treated exclusively by either international or local actors (those of the Republika Srpska or European mediators) is astonishing . Neither the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nor the compound state nor the OHR have been involved in any substantial way . The findings of the present research arouse further questions: Is it in fact (still) impossible to institutionalize a culture of war remembrance in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Or should the ways that have been sought to deal with the past be reflected upon further? Are there ways to eliminate the mechanisms through

88 Observation, Omarska, 9 May 2011; cf . Erduan Katana, Dan pobjede obilježen sjećanjem na stradanja u Omarskoj, Slobodna Evropa, 15 May 2011, available at . 372 Manuela Brenner which commemoration becomes a political instrument mostly imposed by one local authority – the most powerful, in this case the Bosnian Serbs – in combination with international actors who harbor either economic or proto-colonial interests and attitudes?