Nation-Building in Memory and Space a Case Study of Memorial Sites in the Municipality of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Home , Coat of arms of Serbia, Memorial (society), Serbian cross, Trnopolje camp

Nation-Building in Memory and Space A Case Study of Memorial Sites in the Municipality of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Thomas Hammer

Peace and Conflict Studies Department of Global Political Studies Bachelor Thesis 12 credits Spring semester 2021 Supervisor: Ivan Gusic

Abstract

Ethnic nationalism produces conflicts through constructing identities that include certain groups and exclude or marginalize others. This process often continues in post-war periods and hinders inter-ethnic reconciliation. Political actors proceed with constructing ethno-national identities and (re-)writing national narratives in the realm of remembering. This thesis seeks to understand how memorial sites are used for nation-building processes in post-war contexts, based on the municipality of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This single instrumental case study analyzes two memorial sites through fieldwork, newspaper articles, and archival records. The theoretical framework builds on concepts from nationalism studies, memory studies, as well as cultural and political geography. The analysis demonstrates that the studied memorial sites are used as follows: 1) to depict the nation's objects of identification for demarcating the national Self from the Other; 2) to promote myths of victimization for unifying the group and justifying atrocities; 3) to silence narratives and memories that contradict or challenge those of the own group; and 4) to mark territory as an integral part of the spatial narrative in which public places are transformed into “owned” places. All four practices are closely interrelated and give the memorial sites meaning and authority to convey the Bosnian-Serbian nation-building project.

Key words: Nationalism, Identity, Memorial sites, Space, Post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina

Words: 13.998

List of Abbreviations

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina BIRN Balkan Investigative Reporting Network CNA Center for Nonviolent Action FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IRMTC International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals RS Republika Srpska UN United Nations VRS Army of Republika Srpska (Vojska Republike Srpske)

List of Figures

Figure 1: Monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city center of Prijedor .... 28 Figure 2: Chapel next to the monument “For the Honorable Cross” ...... 29 Figure 3: Memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in front of the former Trnopolje camp ...... 30 Figure 4: Detail view of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” (front side) .. 32 Figure 5: Serbian Cross on coat of arms ...... 32 Figure 6: The Serbian Cross used at the Church of the Holy Trinity in Prijedor .. 32 Figure 7: Culture Center in Miska Glava with nearby memorial ...... 39 Figure 8: Memorial plaque in Stari Kevljani ...... 40 Figure 9: Memorial complex at Kevljani Cemetery ...... 40 Figure 10: Hoisted RS flag at the border of the RS, at the entrance to the city of Prijedor, and in front of the city hall in Prijedor ...... 42 Figure 11: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” ...... 46 Figure 12: Stickers on the memorial “Mining Park Composition” ...... 47 Figure 13: Chalk painting on the monument’s pedestal ...... 47 Figure 14: Pollution on the monument ...... 47 Figure 15: Rusted chain fence and flagpoles at the memorial site in Trnopolje ... 48 Figure 16: Back view of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” ...... 61 Figure 17: Monument “For the Honorable Cross” with chapel ...... 61 Figure 18: Detail view of the depicted men on the monument ...... 62 Figure 19: City fountain “Jereza” with the lighted monument and chapel ...... 62 Figure 20: Chapel with inscription plaque next to the monument ...... 63 Figure 21: Detail view of the inscription on the outside wall of the chapel ...... 63 Figure 22: Inside view of the chapel ...... 64 Figure 23: Detail view of the inscription plaque on the left in the chapel ...... 64 Figure 24: Detail view of the inscription plaque on the right in the chapel ...... 64 Figure 25: Memorial “Memorial to the fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” ...... 65 Figure 26: Detail view of the memorial in Trnopolje ...... 65

iii

Figure 27: Detail view of the inscription plaques on the memorial in Trnopolje .. 66 Figure 28: Memorial plaque in front of the former detention camp Keraterm ...... 67 Figure 29: Detail view of the inscription at the former Keraterm camp ...... 67 Figure 30: Kozarac Central Memorial ...... 68 Figure 31: Memorial plaque in Stari Kevljani ...... 69 Figure 32: Memorial complex with stone plaques at Kevljani Cemetery ...... 70 Figure 33: Memorial site at Kamičani-Kozarac Shahid Cemetery ...... 70 Figure 34: Unmarked atrocity site: Public security station in Prijedor ...... 71 Figure 35: Unmarked atrocity site: Former detention camp Trnopolje ...... 71 Figure 36: Unmarked atrocity site: Culture Center in Miska Glava ...... 72 Figure 37: Unmarked atrocity site: Ljubija Football Stadium ...... 72 Figure 38: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” in Prijedor ...... 73 Figure 39: “Memorial wall” of the memorial “Mining Park Composition” ...... 73 Figure 40: Memorial plaque on the memorial “Mining Park Composition” ...... 74 Figure 41: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” with inscription plaque ...... 74 Figure 42: Museum of Kozara ...... 75 Figure 43: Church of the Holy Trinity in Prijedor...... 75 Figure 44: Statue of Mladen Stojanović at the Liberation Square ...... 76 Figure 45: Busts near the monument in Prijedor ...... 76 Figure 46: The flag of RS at the borders of RS and the city of Prijedor ...... 77 Figure 47: The flag of BiH in FBiH ...... 77 Figure 48: Serbian Cross at memorial sites ...... 78 Figure 49: School next to former detention camp Trnopolje ...... 78

List of Maps

Map 1: Immediate surrounding of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city center of Prijedor ...... 44 Map 2: Locations of memorial sites visited during fieldwork and of former detention camps ...... 60

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Research Problem ...... 2 1.2. Aim and Research Question ...... 2 1.3. Relevance to Peace and Conflict Studies ...... 3 1.4. Outline of the Thesis ...... 4

2. Previous Research ...... 6 2.1. Nationalism and the Construction of National Consciousness ...... 6 2.2. Memory and Memorial Sites in Post-war Contexts ...... 7 2.3. Spatiality in Peace Research ...... 8 2.4. Positioning this Thesis ...... 9

3. Theoretical Framework ...... 10 3.1. Nation and Nationalism ...... 10 3.1.1. Defining Nation and Nationalism ...... 10 3.1.2. The Nation and its Boundaries ...... 11 3.1.3. Heroism and Victimization ...... 12 3.1.4. Operationalization of the Nation’s Boundaries and Victimization .. 13 3.2. Memorial Sites ...... 13 3.2.1. Collective Memory and Sites of Memory ...... 13 3.2.2. Memorialization and the Role of Memorial Sites ...... 14 3.2.3. Counter-Memory ...... 15 3.2.4. Operationalization of Remembering and Forgetting ...... 16 3.3. Spatiality...... 16 3.3.1. Territoriality and the Politics of Place ...... 16 3.3.2. The Production of Ethno-National Geography ...... 17 3.3.3. Operationalization of the Spatiality in Nation-building ...... 18

4. Methodology ...... 20 4.1. Research Design ...... 20 4.2. Case Selection ...... 21 4.3. Data Collection and Material ...... 23 4.4. Analysis of Material ...... 24 4.5. Ethical Considerations ...... 25 4.6. Delimitations ...... 25

5. Analysis ...... 27 5.1. The Memorial Sites under Study...... 27 5.2. Boundaries of the Nation ...... 30 5.3. Heroism and Self-Victimization ...... 33 5.4. Remembering and Forgetting ...... 36 5.5. Territorial Marking and the Production of Place ...... 41

6. Conclusion ...... 49

7. Bibliography ...... 52

Appendix: Field Photographs and Notes ...... 60

vii

1. Introduction

[T]he nation […] is hardly the realization of an original essence, but a historical configuration which is designed to include certain groups and exclude or marginalize others – often violently.1 Prasenjit Duara

There are many different types of nationalism (see Kecmanovic, 2013; Smith, 1969). On the one side of the spectrum, there is civic or liberal nationalism, that strives to secure civil liberties and unites people with a shared political identity. And on the other side, there is ethnic nationalism that derives its force from a sense of kinship and has a proclivity to domestic and/or interstate violence (Kecmanovic, 2013; Roshwald, 2015). An example for the latter is Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), where, in the late 20th century, ethnic nationalisms constructed identities based on ethnic attributes that differentiate the national Self from other groups. Due to this relational aspect in differentiation, Prasenjit Duara (1996:163) conceives nationalism as relational identity – national identification is defined at any point in time by a the Other who is (then) excluded or marginalized. After Josip Broz Tito’s death in 1980, nationalist movements in Yugoslavia mobilized people along ethnic lines for independence and separation. In BiH, nationalist leaders inflamed rivalries between the three main ethnic groups – Bosniaks2, Croats, and Serbs –, and the declaration of independence of BiH as well as the proclamation of the Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 eventually triggered the so-called Bosnian War. In 1995, the involved parties officially ended the war by signing the Dayton Agreement and divided BiH into two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS).3

1 Quoted from “Historicizing National Identity, or Who Imagines What and When” (Duara, 1996:163). 2 Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 3 There is also the Brčko District in western BiH, which is a self-governing district (see e.g., Office of the High Representative, 2000).

However, since there was no victor in the war, the three nation-building projects continued to proceed side-by-side. Regional governments, political actors, and other groups within the two newly formed entities continued with constructing ethno-national identities and (re-)writing exclusive national narratives. To this end, they used, among others, the school curriculum, public places that were filled with ethno-national symbols, and memorial sites. In spheres like these, national governments are still promoting divisive and repressive messages with the aim to unite “their” people as a nation by excluding and marginalizing other groups.

1.1. Research Problem

Nationalism is considered as an ideological movement that aims for unity and a shared identity while simultaneously excluding Others by defining boundaries of the nation(-to-be). This means that nationalism has the potential to create unity, but it can also foster division and produce conflict. Researchers have studied various means used by states or national movements for constructing national identities, on the one hand, and the multiple roles of memorial sites in post-war contexts, on the other. Even though nationalism and memorialization are directly linked to spatiality and all three converge in memorial sites, a combined perspective on the utilization of memorial sites in post-war contexts has not been considered to a greater extent. In the aftermath of ethnic conflicts, such as in BiH, one way of promoting and realizing nation-building projects is through constructed places, including memorial sites. How memorials and monuments are being used to dictate a one-sided history and to construct an ethno-national identity is essential to fully comprehend post- war societies and practices that hinder (re)building their social fabric.

1.2. Aim and Research Question

The aim of this study is to explore how memorial sites (monuments and memorials) in the RS have been used in the ethnic nation-building process after the Bosnian War. The focus is on the municipality of Prijedor and on memorial sites that were

built, financed, or co-financed by the municipal administration. My research question proceeds from this and is as follows:

How have memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor been used to promote the ethnic nation-building process of the RS?

The operational questions that are deduced from relevant literature in the theoretical framework and guide the analysis are the following: 1. What are the (linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.) boundaries for the alleged “nation-to-be” that are represented on the memorial sites? 2. How are heroism and victimization reflected in the memorial sites? 3. Whose historical past is being told and remembered – and whose past is silenced? 4. How are the memorial sites being used to give them authority and meaning?

1.3. Relevance to Peace and Conflict Studies

Memorial sites erected during or after ethnic conflicts can adopt two main functions regarding national developments. First, they can promote ethno-national identities and narratives that help to sustain ethnocentrism4, which, in turn, is the source and driver of ethnic conflicts, as Donald Horowitz (2008) demonstrates. After a violent conflict without a clear victor, as it was the case in BiH after 1995, memorials and monuments often serve as political tools to impose an artificial collective identity with certain objects of identification on the nation, which simultaneously marginalizes other groups (Naidu, 2004). Memorial sites can serve as zones of symbolic politics where national governments promote divisive or repressive messages in ways they may cannot in other spheres (see Brett et al., 2007:3). This can “have a negative effect of deepening divisions between groups or perpetuating distinctions between perpetrators and victims as fixed identities of the whole group” (Đureinović, n.d.).

4 A strategy of identity formation that typically includes in-group favoritism and inserts positive values into one’s self-image and negative values into the image of the Other (see e.g., Rüsen, 2012).

Second, memorials and monuments can promote inclusiveness that fosters reconciliation within a divided society. Here, they have the potential to recast the national identity and to repair damaged relations among groups (Barsalou and Baxter, 2007). They can serve as loci for interactive exchanges among the members of a society about their shared past and for public education and debate (Blustein, 2012:22). In this sense, memorial sites are central in reconciliation—which, according to Paul Lederach (1997:34–5), represents a social space where people come together and where relationships between antagonists are (re-)built. Public memorial sites can open spaces for dialogue (Brett et al., 2007), and, thus, allow encounters between the open expression of the painful past and the search for a common future (see Lederach, 1997:23–35, on reconciliation). By examining memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor, this study contributes to the understanding of how memorial sites are used in post-war ethnic nation-building processes. This understanding is essential for peace-building activities that aim to create inclusive societies and to convert exclusive ethno- national memorial sites into “shared public places” (Komarova and O’Dowd, 2016:266). Peacebuilders need to understand the memorial sites’ current purpose and their transmitted messages first, before these sites can effectively be transformed into “sites of conscience” that open public dialogue about the past and foster reconciliation (see Brett et al., 2007).

1.4. Outline of the Thesis

The study is organized into six chapters. The introduction presented the context of the study and stated the research problem as well as the research aim and question. The second chapter addresses relevant previous research on nationalism, memory and memorial sites, and spatiality in post-war contexts. The third chapter presents the theoretical framework that is based on concepts within the fields of nationalism studies, memory studies, as well as cultural and political geography. After that, chapter four describes the selected research design, the data collection method, and the analysis of the material. Chapter five consists of the analysis, which is guided and structured according to the operational questions deduced from relevant

literature in the theoretical framework. The last chapter presents the findings of the study and ends with suggestions for future research.

2. Previous Research

The following chapter offers an overview of relevant, previously conducted research and is divided into four sections. It starts with research within nationalism studies that discusses the state’s role in constructing national consciousness and continues with previous studies on memory and memorial sites. Thereafter, the spatiality in peace research and in terms of memorial sites is addressed before, lastly, the thesis’ positioning within relevant fields of research and its contribution to them will be addressed.

2.1. Nationalism and the Construction of National Consciousness

Many scholars wrote about nationalism and tried to define what it is that represents a nation, and how national consciousness emerges. While some scholars argue that nationalism as an ideology “invents” nations where they do not exist (Balibar, 1990; Gellner, 1964), others claim that nationalism is the awakening of nations to self- consciousness (Anderson, 2006; Smith, 1989). Within this discussion, there is further disagreement about whether nations possess an ethnic base on which the nation rests naturally (Smith, 1989) or whether it is constructed by the modern state (Balibar, 1990). Either way the formation and continued existence of a nation depend on the raising of consciousness of a common identity that is reinforced through education, legal codes, and administrative centralization (Balibar, 1990; Duara, 1996; Smith, 1989). There is an agreement among scholars that nations and nationalism are modern phenomena that did not exist in pre-modern times. It needed mass media and the modern state apparatus with centralized education, administration (bureaucracy), and legislative to form and sustain nations, nation- states, and the entire nation-state-system (Anderson, 2006; Balibar, 1990; Duara, 1996; Hroch, 1993; Smith, 1989).

Within nationalism research, the construction and maintenance of national consciousness and identity through the state is addressed in different ways. Duara (1996), for instance, discusses the forging of cultural signifiers through symbols, practices, and narratives, while Balibar (1990) identifies the state’s political intervention into the family and school as principal means to “fabricate” national consciousness and unity. In terms of BiH, Torsti (2004) demonstrated that in BiH’s public history, cultural symbols are drawn from the past and used to impact people’s identity and to make claims in the present. Baranovicé (2001) examined school textbooks in BiH and concluded that those contribute to ethnocentric identities. Other scholars addressed the use of flags to foster a sense of national unity among people (Kolstø, 2006; Pauker, 2012), the politics and general political landscape (Zdeb, 2019), museums (Lozic, 2011; Taylor, 2012), and to some extent memorial sites – which I will address in the next section. Basically, all these studies confirm the influence of the state apparatus – represented through the two entities in BiH – on constructing common identity for one of the competing nation-building projects.

2.2. Memory and Memorial Sites in Post-war Contexts

It became widely accepted within the field of memory that memorial sites often serve to write history, to erase a traumatic past, and to construct identity (see e.g., Hite and Collins, 2009; Ahonen, 2012). This affected other research fields as well, and material and non-material sites of memory5 became topic of discussions in several studies about nationalism and the construction of national identity (e.g., Edensor, 1997; Ingimundarson, 2007; Light and Dumbraveanu‐Andone, 1997; Sumartojo, 2016). In the fields of Peace and Conflict Studies and Human Rights Studies, memory and memorial sites in post-war contexts have mostly been addressed in terms of their role in transitional justice processes and their effects on victims. Scholars discuss, among others, the aspects of providing symbolic reparation to victims, affirming the moral imperative of “never again”, symbolizing a nation’s

5 See section 3.2.2.

commitment to values, such as democracy and human rights, and the powerful moral, psychological, and social effects on victims and their relatives (see Barsalou and Baxter, 2007; Blustein, 2012; Magarell, 2011; Naidu, 2004). However, some studies also discuss how memorial sites either promote or hinder (re)building the social fabric of post-war societies. In this regard, King (2010) and Clark (2013) examine the memory landscape after the wars in Rwanda and Croatia, respectively. Both revealed that in the memorial landscape certain aspects of the past are not addressed by the states to sustain a particular narrative and identity, but also mention that “too much memory” can negatively affect interethnic reconciliation. Similar research in BiH was performed by Sokol (2014), in which she compared memorials of the three main ethnic groups in the Bosnian War (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks). Sokol’s conclusion was that memorial sites construct and reinforce mutually exclusive narratives, and that only rare memory initiatives are directed towards civic nation-building that includes all groups. The reviewed literature discussing memory in post-war BiH often has its primary focus on contrasting the war narratives and memorials of the three main ethnic groups in a more general way (see e.g., Ahonen, 2012; Božić, 2019; Sokol, 2014). In-depth studies with a particular focus on the use of memorial sites for the individual nation- building projects are, by contrast, rather rare.

2.3. Spatiality in Peace Research

Memorials and monuments are also of central interest in cultural and political geography. It is acknowledged that the construction, interpretation, and contestation of spaces and places play an important role in the politics of remembering, but also in exercising power (Alderman et al., 2020; Hoelscher, 2009). Several scholars have examined street names, memorial sites, and other public places to conceive their political functions as well as the normative social order proceeding from them (e.g., Alderman, 2003; Brasher et al., 2020; Dwyer, 2002; Hoelscher, 2006). Since the “spatial turn” in peace research, scholars have also been discussing the significance of the organization of space for the structure and function of peace and war (see e.g., Björkdahl and Buckley-Zistel, 2016a; Gusic, 2019). Demmers

and Venhovens (2016) and Doevenspeck (2016) illustrate that there is a clear connection between space, meaning, and the power exerted by political actors. Through the “production” of place and territory, the state aims to gain control over people, things, and the relations between them. This also applies to memorial and atrocity sites, since these spaces are inextricably linked to memory, memorialization, and identity. They remind people of what has happened in the past and mediate how this relates to the present and the future (Alderman et al., 2020; Michael et al., 2016; Naidu, 2004). However, although spatiality in postwar condition has received more attention in peace research the recent years, the studied literature suggests that memorial sites seem to remain a less explored area in this respect.

2.4. Positioning this Thesis

The reading of relevant literature points to the fact the use of memorial sites for nation-building in post-war contexts, and particularly in terms of BiH, has not been fully addressed yet. Previous studies often lack to address the spatial dimension of memorial sites and do not provide a comprehensive in-depth study on that matter. Since nation-building, memorialization, and spatiality converge in memorial sites, I argue that these interrelated aspects should be closely examined together in order to gain better insights into how memorial sites have been utilized. This thesis aims to partially close this gap by conducting a case study on the municipality of Prijedor.

3. Theoretical Framework

This chapter discusses selected theoretical concepts from the fields of nationalism studies, memory studies, as well as political and cultural geography. First, the concepts of nation and nationalism are defined, followed by a discussion on the constructed boundaries of the former and the role of memory in the latter. Second, memorial sites are defined and their relation to memorialization and identity formation is explained. Third, the spatial aspect in memorialization and in ethnic nation-building practices is introduced.

3.1. Nation and Nationalism

3.1.1. Defining Nation and Nationalism

In order to analyze the utilization of memorial sites in a nation-building project, it is necessary to define nation and nationalism. In the field of nationalism studies, a nation is understood as a vast solidarity of people who developed a collective consciousness as a community with the desire to live together (Hroch, 1993; Renan, 2018). The most frequently used definition of a nation, and which I use in this thesis, is that of an “imagined community” by Benedict Andersson (2006). The nation is “imagined” because its members will never meet or know most of their fellow- members; and it is a “community” because regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail within a nation, it is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Nationalism is defined as an ideology that determines the attitudes and sentiments of national consciousness and gives absolute priority to the value of the nation over all other value and interests (Hroch, 1993:6). In contrast to the defensive nature of patriotism, which does not aim to impose devotion to a particular place and a way of life on others, the nature of nationalism is regarded as being aggressive: it wants to acquire as much power and prestige as possible for its nation

on a defined “homeland” (Orwell et al., 1968:362) for which it seeks political self- administration, first in the form of autonomy and ultimately of independence (Hroch, 1993:6; Smith, 1989:342–3). At its core, nationalism can be referred to as “an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining the autonomy, unity and identity of an existing or potential ‘nation’” (Smith, 1989:343) that is constructed or visioned by nationalist (or other) elites (ibid.).

3.1.2. The Nation and its Boundaries

The nation is a historical configuration which is designed to include certain groups and exclude or marginalize others – often violently (Duara, 1996:163). This includes that national group identity is subjective, and the national Self is a social construction that depends on the perceptions of both in-group and out-group members (Duara, 1996; Takei, 1998:60; Rusciano, 2003). Within an existing community, groups always have some sort of boundaries in relation to other groups, but their members are sometimes so unselfconscious of their differences that these neither pose a threat to coexistence nor play a significant role in the perception of the Self and the community or nation. The groups tolerate the sharing of some and the non-sharing of other boundaries (Duara, 1996). Duara (1996) calls these boundaries “soft boundaries”. An incipient nationality is developing when the perception of such soft boundaries transformed into “hard boundaries”. This happens when national movements, with the goal to form a distinctive political community, define and mobilize a community by privileging particular symbolic meanings and cultural differences. This could be, among others, religious and spiritual practices, or forms of artistic expression. The members of the groups then privilege their disparity and tend to develop an intolerance and suspicion towards the Other’s practices. Intellectuals and politicians develop and advance a narrative that links history to differentiation of the Self to the Other and push the nation(-to-be) towards a cohesive ideal with particular objects of identification (Duara, 1996:168–9). Religion, cultural practices, and other group affiliations transform into symbols of aspiration and sense of identity—and thereby from soft to hard boundaries.

3.1.3. Heroism and Victimization

As scholars emphasize (e.g., Hroch, 1993; Renan, 2018), common historical memories are essential – or even a precondition – in forming and sustaining a nation. Identification with a national group includes the construction of a personalized image of the nation, and the glorious past of this personality comes to be lived as part of the individual memory of each citizen (Hroch, 1993:15). Although there is some disagreement on whether the nation’s self- consciousness is awakened or invented, most scholars agree that intellectuals (re- )discover the past and provide the nation-to-be with its genealogy and purpose (see Hroch, 1993; Renan, 2018; Smith, 1989). The capital stock upon which a national idea usually is based, is on a heroic past, great men, and full of glory (Renan, 2018:261). It requires the narration of history as a series of foundation and liberation myths and as a cult of heroes for the political mobilization of the people (Smith, 1989:357). At the same time, nothing mobilizes and unites more than a common enemy (Duara, 1996:169) and common suffering (Renan, 2018:261). “Having suffered in common” not only unites more than joy does, but it also imposes duties and common efforts – such as to achieve liberation. Therefore, grief is of greater value than triumph where national memories are concerned (ibid.). Common suffering and grief in post-war contexts often emerge in a national narrative of victimization. This narrative ascribes the guilt of the war to the Others and contributes to a sense of superiority and “we-ness”. It is important for the imagined community to know who “we” are as distinct from the Others, and what obliges “us” and the Others. Myths organize the duties and obligations of its members, and myths of guilt and victimization are the most common kind of socially obligating myths. And they are exclusive as they convey that “we” are the victims, and the other party must then be the perpetrators (Ahonen, 2012:17–20). Ana Mijić (2020:3–5) states that collective self-victimization in post-war contexts has three functions. First, it constructs and stabilizes the historically consolidated symbolic and social boundaries between in-group and out-group and constitutes to a deep-rooted “we-ness”. Second, it promotes a moral superiority, as in the post- war victim-perpetrator dichotomy collective self-victimization reduces feelings of guilt by depicting the own group as the “good” party and the counterpart to the “evil” perpetrator(s). Third, it fosters support and sympathy of third parties.

3.1.4. Operationalization of the Nation’s Boundaries and Victimization

The presence and emphasis of both national boundaries and the representation of myths of heroism and victimization to demarcate “us” from the Other and to promote a moral superiority are indicators that confirm the utilization of the memorial sites by the municipality for its nation-building project. The first operational question deduced from the discussed concepts in this regard is: What are the (linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.) boundaries for the alleged “nation-to-be” that are represented on the memorial sites? The focus in the analysis will be on cultural characteristics and ethno-national symbols (used in and before the Bosnian War) that are emphasized in the memorial sites’ visual representation and inscriptions. For example, the cross as religious symbol could signify the Christian faith as an object of identification for the nation. The second operational question concerns the narrative of victimization and heroism, from which the image of the national Self is derived: How are heroism and victimization reflected in the memorial sites? Here, I will look into how inscriptions and visual representations refer to common suffering and the collective efforts that are required to achieve liberation. For example, myths of prolonged suppression can be used to deliver the victimized image of one’s own group to unite its members for liberation attempts and/or to ascribe guilt of the occurred violence in liberation war(s) to the Other.

3.2. Memorial Sites

3.2.1. Collective Memory and Sites of Memory

The concept of collective memory, originally coined by Maurice Halbwachs, illustrates that individual memory is based on social frameworks and shaped by social groups. In other words, it is socially organized and reconstructed (Unfried, 1991:80). Communities, social groups, and nations possess memories of their own and reinforce and secure their collective identity through these shared memories (Ahonen, 2012:14; Ijabs, 2014:992). Collective memory is embedded in social

practices and refers to social knowledge about the past that influence the emergence, transformation, and extinction of social identities (Ijabs, 2014:992). This also includes their social and symbolic boundaries – such as those between different ethnic groups and nations (Mijić, 2018:141). Collective memory is constantly negotiated, reinforced by symbols, rituals, and commemorative practices, and instrumentalized for political purposes (Ijabs, 2014: 992). According to Pierre Nora (1989:18–9), collective memory manifests itself in symbolic representations of the past in material, symbolic, and functional sites of memory (lieux de mémoire). Sites of memory can be physical places, like memorials and monuments, but also non-material “sites”, such as cultural practices and commemorations (Unfried, 1991:81). And they bring to the fore the importance of particular places in the collective memory of nations, communities, and social groups, where the past is remembered, commemorated, and constructed in the present day (Reeves, 2018:65). Although some scholars make a distinction between monuments that are characterized by triumph and memorials that embody loss, both are part of the memorial infrastructure and represent material sites of memory through which social or collective interpretations of the past are constituted (Alderman et al., 2020:40). In this thesis, these two kinds of material sites of memory are consolidated and referred to as “memorial sites”.

3.2.2. Memorialization and the Role of Memorial Sites

Memorial sites and the process of preserving memories of events or people who suffered or died during conflict – known as memorialization (see Barsalou and Baxter, 2007) – serve multiple functions. First, they can provide symbolic reparations for victims in post-war situations and allow spaces for mourning (Naidu, 2004). Memorial sites give meaning to the suffering of victims and express the larger community’s solidarity with them (Blustein, 2012:21). Second, they can document human rights violations and reaffirm the moral imperative of “never again” (Barsalou and Baxter, 2007; Naidu, 2004). Third, they can negotiate common values for the present and future and are important for education and critical engagement with the past (Brett et al., 2007).

However, as we have seen in the previous section, memorialization may also be part of constructing and maintaining collective memory by political agents. This is called politics of history (politics of memory) and understood as the administration of the past in which certain events are highlighted while others are abridged or omitted (e.g., Nora, 1989:8–9). It determines the way history is written and passed on, wherefore it is directly linked to social remembering and forgetting (Naidu, 2004). The official discourses of memory produced by the state’s ideological apparatus serves the interests in the present and are meant to become the hegemonic narrative – in other words, “history”. This hegemonic narrative can be – but does not always have to be – cut off from real experiences (Molden, 2016:134–9). In post-war contexts, the victorious party to the conflict usually imposes what (and how) is remembered and what must be forgotten (Cairns and Roe, 2003:14; Rufer, 2012). Political actors can not only use memorial sites to publicly depict the nation and its boundaries, but also to impose an artificial collective identity on the nation (Naidu, 2004). In a struggle for dominating the narrative of the past, the experiences and narratives of other groups are silenced – an act of “forced forgetting” (see Esbenshade, 1995:74). However, silencing is not only restricted to the views or interpretations of the defeated party or out-group; it is also used to veil, and thus to forget, unpleasant historical facts related to the own group. Both the silencing of atrocities, conducted by members of the own ethnic group, and the concealment of interpretations of the past that are incompatible with the group’s collective memory serve the interest of the nation. It “reinforces the group’s we- ideal and hence consolidates the symbolic boundaries between the ethnic groups” (Mijić, 2018:153).

3.2.3. Counter-Memory

Based on works of Michael Foucault and José Medina, Molden (2016:128) explains that even in places with a hegemonic narrative, there never is one collective memory or history as there never is only one truth. There are always counter-memories and counter-histories of people and groups who remember against the grain and whose experiences and memories are excluded from the official histories. In their struggle for recognition of their memories, these groups build counterhegemonic

monuments6 or transform memorial sites through (re)inscriptions, performances, resistances, or some other forms of counter-commemoration that challenge the dominant narratives and interpretations of the past (Alderman et al., 2020:40–5). This thesis will include counterhegemonic monuments and “counter-activities” to illustrate the silencing of certain memories and experiences.

3.2.4. Operationalization of Remembering and Forgetting

As the previous sections have shown, memorial sites are important symbolic conduits in politics of history. They can determine what is remembered and what forgotten. They not only express certain versions of history but also cast legitimacy upon them (Alderman et al., 2020:40). The operational question in this regard is: Whose historical past is being told and remembered – and whose past is silenced? To answer this question, I will explore the stories told by the memorial sites by using the dominant ethno-national narrative of the RS as a basis and reference point. Further, I will examine the sites’ historical background and “counter- activities” to determine which facts about the past are omitted or altered – in other words, what and who is silenced. Silenced atrocities executed by the own group, and thus the suffering resulting from these atrocities experienced by the Others, indicate that memorial sites are used to “write history” and to construct collective memory only on the behalf of the own group.

3.3. Spatiality

3.3.1. Territoriality and the Politics of Place

Another key element in forming a nation is a common territory or “homeland”, or an association with one (e.g., Duara, 1996; Hroch, 1993; Smith, 1989). Territorial references are central to the construction of Self and the Other (Chojnacki and Engels, 2016:33), and identities are secured and ensured by ascribing them into the landscape (Björkdahl and Buckley-Zistel, 2016b:10). Territory consists of material

6 A monument created to challenge a dominant interpretation of the past (Alderman et al., 2020).

elements such as land, symbolic dimensions such as identity, but also functional elements such as control over a space (Doevenspeck, 2016:50). Hence, the defined common territory is not only important for constructing a nation but also for maintaining the collective identity. Moreover, as Chojnacki and Engels (2016:33) demonstrate, territory is used for exerting authority and domination. Thus, territory can be understood as a social process of making and maintaining identity and exerting power. Territoriality also relates to the concepts of space and place. Demmers and Venhovens (2016:162) argue that social actors in conflict aim to strategically manipulate and resignify the meaning of certain spaces and to turn them into “places” – what they call the politics of place. These places are imbued spaces with meaning; ﬁlled up by actors with practices, objects, and representation. Space is thus not only a physical location, but also a political instrument (Pauker, 2012:289). Places help to “reconstitute an ‘imagined community’ that binds people and place in the service of contemporary politics and ideological hegemonies, and in the marginalization of a disagreeable ‘other’” (Michael et al., 2016:224). Places become collective social symbols with the ability to encapsulate and perpetuate ethno-national identities and claims (ibid.) and serve as mediums for the collective memory’s preservation (Volčič and Simić, 2016:289). The geographic organization and configuration of places contribute to creating a “spatial narrative” in which each element is affecting people’s interpretation of the past (Alderman et al., 2020:40). The memorial site’s placement, with its visibility, accessibility, symbolic elements, and its adjacency to other parts of the landscape, is central for delivering this narrative and for giving it authority. Relevant issues here include its proximity to power-ﬁlled sites such as the central business district, historical markers, parks, other memorials, or streets named after influential individuals (Alderman et al., 2020:40; Dwyer and Alderman, 2008:167–8).

3.3.2. The Production of Ethno-National Geography

The previous discussions illustrate how states are constructing people and unity – in this case, through both the politics of history and the politics of place. However, they not only emphasize the relationship between constructed places (such as sites

of memory) and the construction of society but also the construction of these places through society—especially in terms of its social actors in the state apparatus. A similar point is made by Gusic (2019), who argues that “neither space nor society hold primacy over or are reducible to the other but rather exist in a mutually constitutive ‘socio-spatial dialectic’ through which they produce each other” (2019:49). This means that, on the one hand, society (which includes political actors) is producing ethno-national spaces, and, on the other hand, these ethno- national spaces simultaneously produce societal divisions. In terms of the former, ethno-national geography is materially produced by marking as well as delineating space. With “marking” Gusic (2019) refers to spaces that are marked as “ours” by using material objects to signal “ownership”. These markers are, among others, ethno-national monuments that remember victims and/or glorify war heroes, which are rendered by the “other side” as war criminals, or less evident material objects, such as the exclusive use of “our” alphabet. “Delineating” means the use of material objects to produce borders between “our” and “their” space. This could be, for instance, walls or barbwires to delineate the line beyond which the Other is not welcomed. Important is that the ethno-national geography is not “just there” but produced by the society, and, as demonstrated earlier, the politics of place. Ethno-national perceptions that render what is “our” and what is “their” space, are produced too – and the “production” of fear is particularly efficient in this regard (2019:51–2). In terms of the latter, ethno-national geography is not “passive” – it affects society, which leads to lived parallelism (mutual isolation from the Other). The lack of contact and interaction produces further division. Hence, the ethno-national geography constantly produces the ethnocentric society that produces it (2019:53).

3.3.3. Operationalization of the Spatiality in Nation-building

The combination of “marking” and “delineating” of spaces in Gusic’s framework and the concept of politics of places taken from Demmers and Venhovens allows to examine how the municipality of Prijedor is producing ethno-national places that serve the RS nation-building project. The operational question concerning this aspect is: How are the memorial sites being used to give them authority and meaning? In the analysis, I will address this question by examining the historical

background of the memorial sites’ locations to determine whether and how these sites are used to mark territory. Additionally, I will explore their immediate surroundings and investigate how they are – with their ethno-national symbols and objects filled by the authorities – embedded in a “spatial narrative” about the past. Lastly, I will focus whether and how the memorial sites, are given authority through their placement within constructed “places”.

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Design

The chosen research design is a single instrumental case study. I use a qualitative research design as the aim of this thesis is to explore and understand a socially constructed phenomenon, that is, nation-building, rather than testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables (quantitative research) (Creswell, 2013:70, 2009:4). A case study is “a type of design in qualitative research that may be an object of study, as well as a product of the inquiry” (Creswell, 2013:97). It allows an in-depth exploration of an issue or phenomenon within a contemporary bounded system (bounded by time and place). The focus is on studying a selected case within a real-life, contemporary context or setting and on developing an in-depth description and analysis of that case (ibid.). The research can be either on a unique case (intrinsic) or an issue (instrumental) that is studied on a single or multiple cases (Creswell, 2013:99). The single instrumental study is well suited for answering my research question as it allows to explore an issue in-depth that is illustrated on one selected bounded case. The interest here is not on examining an unusual case itself, as it would be done in an intrinsic case study, but rather on understanding the issue through the chosen case. In this thesis, the issue is the use of memorials and monuments for the purpose of nation-building, while the chosen case is the post- war municipality of Prijedor (1995-2021). Since the core of the present study is on material aspects of memorial sites, the main focus is on the period from their erection until today, that is, from 2000 until 2021. One of the main points of criticism on case studies is that they may not allow generalizability (Yin 2018:20–1). This affects the present research only to a limited extent as the main aim of the study is not to generalize findings. Instead, the in- depth examination of nation-building in the municipality of Prijedor can lead to new, closer insights that otherwise might have been neglected, which indeed can be regarded as a strength of the chosen design. Moreover, when tested in a new case

setting, qualitative case study results can be generalized to some broader theory (Creswell and Creswell, 2018:276). Case study as methodology has also been challenged because it may be a time-consuming approach. However, in accordance with Yin (2018:21), I argue and will demonstrate in my analysis that a case study does not necessarily depend on a laborious collection of ethnographic or participant-observer data. Finally, the difficulty that the researcher’s subjectivity might influence the study, as the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis (researcher bias) (Creswell and Creswell, 2018:278), will be counteracted by employing several validity procedures, which are discussed in section 4.5. Other approaches, such as ethnography or phenomenology, would have allowed to include perspectives and experiences of local people. However, both approaches could not be applied, neither as a strategy of inquiry nor as a method, due to the requirement of direct and/or long-time engagement with participants (interviews and observations) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic7 and the scarcity of time.

4.2. Case Selection

I chose the municipality of Prijedor in the RS as a relevant case for analyzing memorial sites in relation with nation-building processes for several reasons. First, the Bosnian War ended without a victorious party who could have imposed a common narrative and identity on the population of BiH, as it has been demonstrated for other post-war countries.8 Instead, three different nation-building processes subsisted side by side. Second, the municipality of Prijedor was a highly contested area during the Bosnian War. In this region, mass atrocities on civilians took place and (Bosnian) Serb forces established detainment camps9 in which hundreds of detained people had died. While the state is internationally be considered to having the greatest

7 Social distancing regulations did not allow close (physical) engagement with people (especially for a prolonged time) to protect them, but also the researcher, from the coronavirus disease. 8 For example, Ahonen (2012) writes about the aftermath of the Finnish Civil War and how “the Whites” as victorious party dominated the identity construction and narrative in Finland. 9 Also often referred to as “internment camps” or “concentration camps”.

obligation to initiate and support memorialization and inter-group reconciliation under such circumstances (e.g., Blustein, 2012; Brett et al., 2007; UN General Assembly, 2006), for example, through erecting memorials that may serve as places for mourning and symbolic reparations for all war victims, the municipality of Prijedor erected or (co)financed memorial sites that only remember members of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS).10 Third, in contrast to other regions in today’s RS, where non-Serb populations had been expelled during the Bosnian War to a great extent, Prijedor still had a high number of members from the Bosniak ethnic group in 2013 (Statistika.ba, n.d.).11 This coexistence of Serb and Bosniak populations in Prijedor may allow to take into account counter-activities of marginalized groups. The selection of memorial sites for this case is based on the research project “War Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1991)” that had the aim to document the existing culture of remembrance of the Bosnian War in BiH. It was conducted by the organization Center for Nonviolent Action (CNA) between 2012 and 2015 and subsequently published as the book War of Memories – Places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2016 (Franović et al., 2016).12 According to the memorial sites documented in this project, only the monument “For the Honorable Cross”13 in the city Prijedor and the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in the village Trnopolje were either erected or funded by the municipality of Prijedor.

10 The VRS emerged in 1992 from Yugoslav Army units in BiH. 11 According to the census of 2013, 32,5% Bosniaks and 62,5% Serbs lived in the municipality of Prijedor by that time. 12 CNA is a regional peace organization, contributing to the development of lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia by promoting a culture of non-violence and dialogue. For the study “War Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1991)” and its publication, the organization got financial support from the Diakonie Austria and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). 13 The original name is “Spomenik za Krst časni”. While some sources translate the monument’s name as “For the Honorable Cross” (e.g., Sokol, 2014:115) others translate it as “For the Holy Cross” (e.g., Franović et al., 2016:85).

4.3. Data Collection and Material

Using a case study as a methodology requires data collection from multiple sources of information (Creswell, 2013:97). According to Yin (2018:113–26; see also Yazan, 2015), sources that can be used include: interviews, direct observations, participant-observation, physical artifacts, documents, and archival records. This case study uses physical artifacts, documents, and archival records for data collection. During the fieldwork in Prijedor,14 I collected primary data from the physical artifacts, the memorial sites. Personal photographs of the memorial sites and fieldnotes document the collected data and constitute the main source for the analysis. The different types of primary data include inscriptions, material shape and condition, and visual representations of the memorial sites, as well as data about the geographical placement and immediate surroundings. In addition to the collected primary data, I use data from the previously mentioned research project about memorials in BiH conducted by CNA (Franović et al., 2016). These include photographs of the memorial sites, translations of the inscriptions, and other contextual information that inform the sites. To counteract any subjective bias, the data from the CNA project is used to verify the collected primary data. The translations of the inscriptions that were published in War of Memories – Places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina have been reviewed by an external person.15 Other secondary data that is used in this research originates from documentation. Documentation can be relevant to any case study topic and includes, but is not limited to, administrative documents, newspaper articles, and formal studies related to the selected case (Yin, 2018:113). For this thesis, I use newspaper articles and official statements about commemorations, protests, and other activities that took place at and around the memorial sites. Documentation sources often are easily accessible through online searches and are “useful even though [they are] not always accurate and may not be lacking in bias” (Yin,

14 The fieldwork in Prijedor was conducted from May 1 until May 4, 2021. 15 The review of the translations was conducted by Hana Adamović, student at the Study Center for Social Work at the University of Zagreb. For photographs of the inscriptions with their original texts confronted with the used translations see the appendix.

2018:114). It is important to note that even though this does not mean that these sources are unreliable, a researcher must keep in mind that they are written for some specific purpose and some specific audience other than those of the case study being done (Yin, 2018:116). Lastly, archival records from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are used to investigate the sites’ context and historical background in terms of conducted atrocities during the war.16 Through a triangulation of all used sources and comparing them with one another, the thesis aims to reduce the risk of bias as much as possible and to guarantee construct validity (Yazan, 2015).

4.4. Analysis of Material

Essential for both collecting relevant data and conducting a case study analysis is to have an initial analytic strategy (Yin, 2018:200). The strategy to analyze the selected material in this thesis is to follow the four operational questions. These questions shaped the process and types of data collection, as seen above, and yielded analytic priorities. They helped to organize the analysis and pointed to contextual conditions that were relevant to be described, explored, and interpreted (see Yazan, 2015:141; Yin, 2018:167–8). This means that the first step was to collect the data guided by the operational questions, and in the second step answers to these questions were sought by analyzing and interpreting the data. This procedure aimed to avoid bias in terms of only seeking information that would substantiate a preconceived position. Specifically, the operational questions reveal whether and how the memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor are used for the nation-building project of the RS. When the respective indicators – the nation’s boundaries and ethno-national symbols, heroism and victimization, one-sided remembering and forgetting, and territorial marking – can be detected in the data, this strongly indicates that the memorial sites serve as means to pursue the RS nation-building project.

16 Data is used from the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), which took over the role to preserve and promote the legacy of the ICTY after its closure on 31 December 2017.

4.5. Ethical Considerations

Despite this research does neither directly involve any participants nor interferes in their lives, still some ethical issues needed to be considered throughout the study. The main ethical issue to which any researcher conducting a case study is prone to, as they must understand the issue beforehand, is that the findings will be inaccurate if the researcher only seeks to use a case study to substantiate a preconceived position (Yin, 2018:86–7). This refers to the ethical standard of avoiding bias and achieving valid results. In this thesis, I aim to minimize bias as much as possible through staying open as a researcher to contrary evidence that may not fit my own preconceptions (ibid.), being sincere about the research procedures (Chambliss and Schutt, 2019:83), and triangulating gathered information (Creswell, 2009:199; Shenton, 2004:66). To enhance validity, this thesis uses an extensive theoretical framework and also discusses negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes or preconceived position (see Chambliss and Schutt, 2019:82–4; Creswell, 2009:190–2). Finally, photographs of the studied sites, including their inscription plaques with the original text and the translations, are provided in the analysis and/or are attached in the appendix.

4.6. Delimitations

This study is based on material aspects of the memorial sites, secondary sources, and archival records, and the construction of meaning relies on the researcher’s interpretation of the data. Thus, the study does not (or only indirectly) account what meaning local people may give to the memorial sites and what their views on these may be. The thesis does not suggest the deconstruction of any memorial sites that may convey ethno-national narratives, nor recommend any actions for altering the sites so that they become, for instance, more inclusive. Instead, this study could be conceived as a “starting point”, because the sites and their use in terms of promoting ethnic nation-building must be understood before measures can be developed. Moreover, since this study does not involve local people and their views, opinions,

and experiences, their inclusion should be an essential further step before any measures can be commonly elaborated, suggested, and finally implemented. The study is limited to two memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor. Therefore, the findings relate to the case under study and cannot be representative for the entire RS, or even BiH. However, the approach and the findings of this thesis may be used to examine other locations or contexts and to develop a holistic overview and understanding through further research.

5. Analysis

This chapter analyses the memorial sites built and funded by the municipality of Prijedor. It starts with a brief description of the memorial sites, followed by the analysis that is guided by the four operational questions presented in the theoretical framework. Firstly, the national boundaries are examined; secondly, narrated myths of heroism and victimization are explored; thirdly, the indication aspects of remembering and forgetting are discussed; and, lastly, memorial sites will be investigated for the territorial marking and the production of place.17

5.1. The Memorial Sites under Study

The municipality of Prijedor erected or funded only two memorial sites, as it was documented by the study of CNA. It erected the monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city of Prijedor, and it (co-)financed the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in the village Trnopolje with public fundings (see Franović et al., 2016).18 Both memorial sites will be examined in the following study. The monument “For the Honorable Cross” was erected in 2000 and is situated in a park in the center of the city Prijedor, vis-à-vis to the city hall and next to several schools, the Museum of Kozara, and other cultural and gastronomical infrastructure. It was designed by the Serbian sculptor Miodrag Živković, who also established several monuments in BiH dedicated to Serbian victims of WW2 (under

17 All photographs used in the analysis were taken by the author during the fieldwork in Prijedor. The provided maps were created by the author himself using QGIS, OpenStreetMaps (background layer), and collected data from the fieldwork. The translations of the inscriptions are taken from the CNA study, unless it is stated otherwise. 18 In the following analysis, the monument “For the Honorable Cross” is referred to as “monument” while the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” is referred to as “memorial”.

the Ustaša regime) and the Bosnian War.19 The monument in Prijedor is dedicated to the VRS and the local police. It is made of stone (gray, black, and gold colored) and is about 7 meters high. As seen in Figure 1, the monument has the shape of a cross and portrays men in its middle, who are parted through a (not consistent) fissure or hole. On the front and on the back side of the monument, there are several figures of men emerging out of the stone, whose faces have clear contours and who appear to be of different ages. The background of the men’s faces is modelled more indistinctly, with blurred faces and heads, and insinuates that each side represents a larger group of people. On the forwardmost person of both groups, the Serbian Cross, that is, a cross bracketed by four Cyrillic “c” (or “s”), is engraved on either the upper arm or the chest of the man.

Figure 1: Monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city center of Prijedor The monument has no inscriptions, but a plaque is placed on the outside wall of a chapel situated next to the monument. It is dedicated to “the fallen soldiers of the homeland war 1990—1996” by the Veterans Association of the municipality of Prijedor. The inscription is dated to 21 September 2012, which implies that the

19 Such as the “Monument to the Serbian Defenders of Brčko” (1997), the “Monument to the Fighters of Bijeljina and Semberija in Bijeljina” (1998), the “Monument to the Soldiers of the Fatherland War” in Derventa (2002), the “Monument to the Soldiers of the Fatherland” in Mrkonjić Grad (2002), and the “Monument to the Fighters for Freedom” in Modriča (2002) (Sokol, 2014:115).

plaque was attached about two years after the monument had been erected. On the outside wall of the chapel there are seven portrays of saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and an Orthodox cross is placed on its roof (see Figure 2).20

Figure 2: Chapel next to the monument “For the Honorable Cross” In the inside, several memorial plaques are wall-mounted. They include the last, middle, and given names, years of birth, and years of death of those killed, and surround a well in the middle of the room. Two further inscription plaques are put on the inside walls, saying “Heroes standing in formation in death, who gave their lives for their people and for Republika Srpska” and “Let their names be celebrated on Earth, as they are in Heaven”. Such as the inscriptions on the outside wall, the two inscription plagues inside the chapel are facing towards the monument “For the Honorable Cross” and are written in Cyrillic script.21 The second memorial site, the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje”, is placed in a rural area in Trnopolje and was erected in 2000 by the Veterans Association with funds from the municipality budget. It is shaped like an eagle, about 2.5 meters high and 2 meters wide, with open wings made of grey concrete. In the middle of the eagle is an approximately 30 centimeters big cross (see Figure 3). Two inscription plaques are attached around that cross: one above and one on its left handside, on the eagle’s wing. In addition, mounting holes and pictures from the CNA study show that there was another plaque mounted on the right wing too. The inscription on the top is dedicated “To soldiers who gave their lives to build

20 In this paper, “Orthodox” and “Orthodox Church” always refers to the Serbian Orthodox faith and the Serbian Orthodox Church, respectively. 21 For photographs of the inscription plaques and the translations of the texts see the appendix.

the foundations of Republic of Srpska” and the inscription on the left cites verses from Petar Kočić with the prefix “to freedom”.22 Kočić was a Bosnian Serb writer, activist, and politician who is by many Bosnian Serbs considered as a hero who fought for the Serbian people – which also brought him on the Republika-Srpska- Dinar notes during the 1990s war. The removed plaque on the right included verses from Taras Shevchenko, a poet who contributed greatly to the growth of Ukrainian national consciousness (see Rory Finnin, 2011). The latter inscription was the only one that was not written in Serbian language and in Serbian Cyrillic script. It was in Ukrainian language and used the Ukrainian version of the Cyrillic script.23

Figure 3: Memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in front of the former Trnopolje camp The last noteworthy features are two flagpoles that are located at the site and a chain fence with an open entrance that encloses the entire memorial site. Right next to the memorial is the former Trnopolje Cultural Center, which previously served as an internment camp during the Bosnian War.

5.2. Boundaries of the Nation

Several scholarly works (e.g., Bougarel et al., 2007; Maček, 2009) show how pre- war intergroup contact and co-existence stopped during the Bosnian War to a large extent, and how religious belief and practices transformed from soft boundaries to

22 See appendix for the verses from Kočić and their translations. 23 The study by CNA documented the memorial before the plaque was removed (Franović et al., 2016). The translation of the cited verses, used from this study, can be found in the appendix.

hard boundaries. Due to historical manipulations, religion became one of the main objects of identification for each of the three developing nation projects after Tito’s death. Serbian historians, like Smilja Avramov, depicted the Croats and their “Catholic nationalism” as the root of genocidal aggression against the Serbs during WW2 and the Orthodox Church blamed the Catholic Croats for the Serbs sufferings (Ahonen, 2012:126; Hašimbegović and Gavrilović, 2011:22). In the late 19th century, nationalists developed and spread myths about the Serbs as the “chosen people” and the oldest people in the world (ibid.). Moreover, both Croats and Serbs developed a threatening rhetoric against the Muslim population, accusing them of wanting to create an Islamic state on the Balkans (Ahonen, 2012:131). All major political parties utilized religious attachments as means of popular mobilization, resulting that religion became a key marker of group affiliation. It transformed from a private matter towards a public one identifying one another as friend or foe (Maček, 2009:148–67). Religion was increasingly expressed, demonstrated, and promoted in the public to differentiate the national Self from the Other(s). The analysis of the memorial sites shows that the erected or funded sites by the municipality of Prijedor sustain and promote this differentiation through the depiction of the Orthodox religion, but also the Cyrilic script, as identity markers for the RS’s national Self. On both memorial sites, the boundary of the (Bosnian) Serb nation as being Orthodox is clearly demonstrated: both memorial sites use the Christian cross as a symbol for the religious identity of the people to which the memorial sites are dedicated. This cross is either prominently presented at the center of the memorial, or it constitutes the entire shape of the monument. Although the cross as a symbol could represent either the Catholic or the Orthodox faith, several connections between the memorial sites, on the one hand, and both the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Serbian nation, which is considered to be Orthodox,24 on the other, could be established. The most striking instances are the nearby chapel with Orthodox symbols, the use of the Serbian Cross on the men’s chest or upper arm on the monument,25 and the exclusive use of the Cyrillic script on all the

24 According to the 2011 census, 84,59% of the population declared to be Orthodox Christians (Statistical Office of the Republic Serbia, 2017). 25 The Serbian Cross is not only used in the coat of arms of Serbia (see Figure 5) but also the Serbian Orthodox Church (such as on the “Church of the Holy Trinity” in Prijedor near the monument (see Figure 6 and the appendix)).

inscriptions.26 It is also worth to highlight the noticeable similarity between the memorial’s shape to the coat of arms of Serbia or the former coat of arms of the RS, which almost was identical with that of Serbia (see Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6).

Figure 5: Serbian Cross on coat of arms

Figure 4: Detail view of the monument “For the Honorable Figure 6: The Serbian Cross used at the Cross” (front side) Church of the Holy Trinity in Prijedor The mentioned Cyrillic script on the inscriptions is another important ethno- national element (see Sokol, 2014:116). Serbian linguistic nationalism glorified the Cyrillic script and opposed the Latin one, which was used by “the Croats”—the often-depicted arch enemy of the Serbian nation and the Orthodox faith (e.g., Ljubojević et al., 2011:69). In a Catholic/Orthodox-Serb/Croat binary a connection between the script and religion was established (Jovanović, 2018:627). The Cyrillic script was “the locus of national identity, which is consecutively tied to Orthodoxy as an inseparable trinity of script, religion and nationality” (ibid.). This “inseparable trinity” can also be seen at the memorial sites in Prijedor. Both the inscriptions written in Cyrillic and the memorial sites, which are shaped either like a cross or an eagle with a cross in its center, are dedicated to, and honor, the “heroes […] who gave their lives for their people and for Republika Srpska” (monument inscription)

26 All inscriptions use the Serbian Cyrillic script, with one exception: the removed inscription plaque on the right wing of the eagle-shaped memorial was written in Ukraine language and with the Ukrainian version of the Cyrillic script.

and the “soldiers who gave their lives to build the foundations of Republic of Srpska” (memorial inscription). In this way, the Cyrillic script and the Orthodox religion are linked to the RS and highlight them as objects of identification of the aspired nation. This aims to sustain religion and language as hard boundaries and helps to define the identity of one’s own group by demarcating oneself to the Others.27 The present section has shown that the memorial sites reinforce boundaries between the Serbs and other ethnic groups. The memorial sites use Orthodox symbols and the Cyrillic script to sustain religion and language as identity markers of the nation through linking them to the RS. Important in this regard is that memorial sites do not only speak for themselves; it also is the context that matters for their interpretation. It is not surprising that Orthodox symbols are used on the memorial sites to remember and honor fallen soldiers of whom it can be assumed that the majority was Christian Orthodox. But the point here is that these symbols are embedded in a historically developed ethno-national discourse and narrative that promote an ethnocentric nation-building project. And this discourse and narrative, enforced by their associated symbols and myths, invest the memorial sites with a nationalistic purpose and give their messages the intended meanings to the audience.

5.3. Heroism and Self-Victimization

As for the operational question concerning heroism and self-victimization, the memorial sites in Prijedor and Trnopolje transmit the dominant narrative of RS about the Bosnian War that is characterized by the Serbs’ suffering and struggle for freedom. The Bosnian War is presented as a heroic defense of the Serb nation and the RS by the VRS, which is why many monuments are dedicated to the VRS across the whole political entity (Franović et al., 2016; Sokol, 2014:115). Both memorial sites promote myths of the past to victimize the Serbs and to unite the Bosnian-

27 An example of alternative versions of memorial sites that stress civic rather than ethnic nationalism would be the Slana Banja memorial complex in Tuzla, which is silent about the ethnicity of both victims and perpetrators, and thus also about constructed boundaries (see CNA, 2012; Franović et al., 2016:171; Sokol, 2014:120–1).

Serbian people for liberating and protecting the nation. And, ultimately, to justify, or legitimize, the conducted atrocities against “the enemies” or “aggressors”. One of these myths is that of the “homeland war”, which was used by all ethnic nationalist leaders of fractions involved in the Bosnian War. This myth was initially created by the former president of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, and was designed to frame the Balkan Wars as an “all-encompassing people’s resistance to the aggression, uniting all patriotic forces of the same ethnic group against ‘the others’” (Ljubojević et al., 2011:70). The narrative of depicting one’s own nation as a victim to aggressions of the Others was quickly adopted by the Bosnian Serbs under the leadership of Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić and received support by the Serbian Orthodox Church (ibid.). In this way, they framed the Bosnian War as a defensive/patriotic/fatherland war and their own group as a just defender against the enemies’ aggressions (Ljubojević et al., 2011:70–5; see also Ahonen, 2012:122–6). This myth, with its references to the “homeland”, promotes the idea of the RS as a state and/or part of the Serbian nation by additionally legitimizing ethnic cleansing operations against the other ethnic groups on that territory, who are framed as the “perpetrators” of the war and a threat to the nation (Ljubojević et al., 2011:70–5). By dedicating the monument in Prijedor “to the fallen soldiers of the homeland war 1990–1996”, the municipality further advances this idea and underlines the victimization of the Serb nation and the sacrifice of the VRS soldiers – the “heroes […] who gave their lives for their people and for Republika Srpska” (inscription). The martyrdom and sacrifice of the soldiers, or the nation, is also symbolized by the representation of their bodies in the cross (Sokol, 2014:116). The reason for why the beginning of the “homeland war” on the inscription is stated with 1990 instead of 199228 might be the interpretation of Orthodox theologists and publicists, such as Matej Arsenijević, who claim that the beginning of the defense of Serbhood’s mere right to survive began with the uprising of Serbs in Croatia in August of 1990 (see Ljubojević et al., 2011:74).

28 The end of the “Homeland War” is stated with 1996, instead of 1995. The reason for this, or a possible explanation, could not be found over the course of this study. Also Matej Arsenijević considered the “unjust” Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995 as the end of the war (see Ljubojević et al., 2011:74).

The monument’s name and golden-colored shape of a cross also refer to sacrifice and the fight for freedom when one considers the myth of the Serbian prince Tsar Lazar Hrebeljanović and his army, who sacrificed themselves in the battle of Kosovo (1389) against the Ottoman Empire; which provided the Serbs a place in the “Kingdom of Heaven” (Bataković, 2014:38; Rogich, 2001). When they received the Eucharist at the Divine Liturgy prior to battle they all chanted in unison the phrase “for the honorable cross and golden freedom” (ibid.). This phrase is well- known and even used by extremist groups who aim “to justify their actions under vindication of ‘holy’ Orthodox reasons” (Subotić and Mitrović, 2018:27–8). Another symbol referring to the Serbs’ common suffering and need to unite as a nation is the engraved Serbian Cross on the chest and upper arm of the depicted bodies. The symbol consists of an Orthodox cross bracketed by four Cyrillic “c” (or “s”) letters representing the slogan “samo sloga spašava srbe” (“only unity can save the Serbs”) (Pauker, 2012:114). It is left for interpretation, whether the separated bodies with the Serbian Cross refer to the unity with Serbia (which would emphasize past annexation plans), or whether it refers to the unity of the Serb nation in a more abstract way. Either way, other ethnic groups are not addressed in terms of unity (which would promote inclusiveness), which can be seen on the bodies where solely the Serbian symbol is used. Considering that only the forefront men discernibly feature the Serbian Cross,29 the Serbs are at least presented as superior, if not as the “leaders” of the groups. Similar to the monument, the memorial also honors the fallen “soldiers who gave their lives to build the foundations of Republic of Srpska” (inscription). Here again, the memorial refers to the Serbian nation’s struggle for freedom and the creation of the RS in its inscription and by using verses from Petar Kočić and Taras Shevchenko. Kočić was a writer, activist, and politician who started an anti- Austrian nationalist and social revolutionary political movement that represented the Bosnian Serb peasantry and inspired many young Serbs to oppose Austro- Hungarian rule and the Bosnian Muslim landowning class (see e.g., Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage, 2003; Okey, 2007). The cited verses on the memorial are dedicated “to freedom” and read as follows: “Many centuries, many generations and poets have praised you. Much fresh blood was spilled for you

29 It cannot be completely ruled out that no persons of other ethnic groups are represented within the depicted groups on the monument, since the upper arm and chest of the other men are covered.

and in your name.” By considering Kočić’s political activism and literary works, these verses can be regarded as references to the oppression of the Serbs, first by the Ottoman and later the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and their struggle for liberation and self-determination. The verses from the Ukrainian writer and poet Shevchenko on the removed plaque relate to sacrifice and struggle for freedom of a nation, too. They are taken from the poem “Testament”,30 which has been interpreted as an invocation by Shevchenko himself to be buried on a burial mound in his homeland Ukraine, from where he would stand guard over the collective, the Ukrainian nation, until the enemies’ blood from the last battle will have been flushed away (Grabowicz, 2014:11). The analysis in terms of heroism and self-victimization showed that the municipality uses the memorial sites to promote myths of the Serb’s victimization and the need to unify as a nation against an enemy or oppressor. With making references in the inscriptions to the homeland war, the use of symbols, and citing verses from national poets, the memorial sites refer to victimization myths of the past that call for unity and the fight for freedom. The heroic liberation struggles of the nation are emphasized through the depicted and inscripted sacrifices of the VRS for protecting the nation and for building the foundation of the RS.

5.4. Remembering and Forgetting

In the following, I inspect the memorial sites to see how strategies of remembering and forgetting perpetuate the predominant role of victimization in the hegemonic narrative of the RS. In the RS official discourse, the Bosnian War is usually referred to as Defense-Patriotic War. This term shall emphasize, similar to the concept of “homeland war”, that it was a war for the survival of the Serb nation (Sokol, 2014:115). In addition, the RS authorities have been linking the Bosnian War with the Kosovo battle of 1389 between the Serbian Prince Lazar and the Turkish Sultan

30 The name “Testament” (original title is “Zapovit”) is not named on the memorial plaque, but the text could be assigned to this poem during research (see e.g., Grabowicz, 2014:11; Shevchenko and Gregorovich, 2014:138–141).

Murad I., the Serbian antifascist struggle in WW2, and Tito’s regime (Ahonen, 2012:122–3; Sokol, 2014:115). By this, the Serbian narrative of the 1990s war is embedded in an even broader historical narrative of victimhood: the Serbs heroically fought the Turks to protect Europe and “civilization”, resisted the Nazis and Ustašas who conducted a genocide on the Serbian people31, were betrayed by the Tito regime as it denied them their own territorial reward for their partisan loyalty and reduced them to the level of a second class, and, finally, had to protect the Serbian nation in the Bosnian War (see e.g., Ahonen, 2012:123–45; Hilton Saggau, 2019; Sokol, 2014).32 As I showed in the previous section, the two memorial sites in Prijedor manifest the discourse of the RS and the narrative of a defense-patriotic war and homeland war. The Serb nation is depicted as the victim in the war, and the fallen soldiers of the VRS protected the nation and helped to build the foundations of the RS. This relates to acts of remembering and forgetting because nowhere at the memorial sites have the RS and the municipality authorities provided contextual information about the conflict that would tell other and more inclusive stories than the one that is being told by the Serbian narrative. In that sense, these sites cannot be considered as “sites of conscience”, that is, sites that foster dialogue and help citizens to come to terms with the past and understand its relation to the present and future (see Brett et al., 2007). Instead, what can be seen here is that the authorities enforce the dominant RS narrative that conceals and even silences other contradicting interpretations or events. In other words, the memorial sites are used to “write history” and to construct a collective memory only on the behalf of the Serbian people. A distinct example for this is the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” that is located next to the former Trnopolje camp. The camp was one of three established detention camps in Prijedor during the war,33 in which thousands of non-Serb civilians were confined after Serb forces had taken control of the region. The establishment of these camps was, as stated by the IRMTC, “a

31 This narrative is also present in Serbia. An example is the “The Museum of Victims of Genocide”, which is, according to Ahonen (2012:125), presenting the Serbs as the principal victims of the ethnic wars of both 1942–1945 and 1992–1995. 32 The author is aware that this summary can only be a simplified presentation of a highly complex narrative and is included here to foreground the predominant role of victimization in the hegemonic narrative of the RS. 33 The other two camps are the Omarska camp and the Keraterm camp.

result of an intentional discrimination against the non-Serb population, part of a plan to expel non-Serbs from the Prijedor municipality” (IRMTC, n.d.). The inmates were subjected to beatings, rape, sexual assaults, torture, and executions as well as harassment, humiliation, and psychological abuse (ibid.). Several police officers, guards, and members of the VRS were judged guilty by the ICTY for both violation of the laws or customs of war and crimes against humanity (e.g., ICTY, 2017, 2016, 1999). Nevertheless, the municipality neglected memorialization of these events and non-Serb victims in that it did not provide symbolic reparation and ensure a non-reoccurring by sending the message of “never again”. Instead, the municipality co-financed the memorial next to the former Trnopolje camp that honors the VRS who, in addition to the local police and authorities, was responsible for the atrocities happening in the camp as well as for the ethnic cleansing operations in that region (see e.g., ICTY, 2017). In this sense, the memorial can be seen as a means of silencing, or even overwriting, that part of the past that contradicts the RS narrative and that would impair the Serbian group’s moral superiority and “we-ness”. This part concerns exactly those events during which victims of the other groups suffered too, and the fact that Serb forces were indeed involved in atrocities and war crimes. Telling these other stories, too, would challenge the established victim-perpetrator dichotomy and allow a grey zone, and, perhaps, solidarity with the Others. The narrative of victimization combined with the victim-perpetrator dichotomy also silences peaceful pre-war co-existence of the groups and emphasizes the conflicts between them. What is interesting is that although the municipality of Prijedor noticeably intends to silence the memories of the atrocities that happened in the Trnopolje camp, it has not entirely removed the physical reminders of the atrocities. The camp’s remains are still standing there today. The RS and municipality authorities have been frequently accused of hindering the erection of memorials that are dedicated to victims of other ethnic groups at atrocity sites (see e.g., Humanity in Action, 2017; Irwin and Šarić, 2010). Apart from the former Trnopolje camp, there are multiple other unmarked atrocity sites across the municipality of Prijedor where civilians were detained, tortured, or killed during the war. Among them are the Ljubija Football Stadium, the Culture Center in Miska Glava, and the auxiliary facility at the public security station in Prijedor (see e.g., ICTY, 2005, 2003, 2001). Like in the case of the former

Trnopolje camp, there are no plaques that would remember the atrocities and victims, but there is one memorial dedicated to soldiers of Serb-forces standing next to the Culture Center in Miska Glava (see Figure 7) and the monument “For the Honorable Cross” is situated only about 100 meters away from the public security station in Prijedor. Another example is a currently planned memorial in Prijedor that should remember the children who died during the Bosnian War. This project has been a contested topic for more than five years and has not gotten permission by the authorities yet (e.g., Hodzic (ICTJ), 2015; N1 Sarajevo, 2018; Panic, 2016).

Figure 7: Culture Center in Miska Glava with nearby memorial Nevertheless, there are several counterhegemonic memorials in Prijedor, often placed on private lands and funded by survivors and local organizations who aim to resist the “forced forgetting” imposed by the RS and municipality of Prijedor and challenge the dominant historical narrative. Noticeable examples are a memorial plaque and a memorial complex in Stari Kevljani that remember victims, the majority of whom were killed Keraterm and Omarska camp prisoners, found in mass graves at or near their sites of the installations (see Figure 8 and 9; see also Franović et al., 2016:93–95). The absence of remembering the non-Serb victims of the war in the RS discourse and narrative also led to regular commemorations and protest by victims, local actors, and organizations. A well-known example for a protest action is the “White Armband Day”, an annual commemoration that refers to a decree issued by Serbian forces that was broadcast on local radio in May 1992 ordering all non-Serbs to mark their houses with white flags and to wear white armbands when leaving

home. This was the preparation for ethnic cleansing operations (ICTY, 1997:55; Muslimovic and Panic, 2019; Paul, 2018). The commemoration was initiated after the local authorities had banned public commemorations for survivors in 2012 and aims, among others, to direct the attention to atrocities conducted by Serb forces (Muslimovic and Panic, 2019). Although these atrocities were confirmed by the ICTY, the RS and municipality authorities “are trying to make it into something that did not happen” (Muslimovic and Panic, 2019), as the director of Republika Srpska’s Center for the Research of War, War Crimes and the Tracing of Missing Persons told the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).34

Figure 8: Memorial plaque in Stari Kevljani

Figure 9: Memorial complex at Kevljani Cemetery

34 The author refers back to section 4.6 and emphasizes that this thesis does not argue that all the unmarked atrocity sites should, or should not, be marked in a particular way, or that one group’s interpretation of the past stands above another. Instead, the existence of counter-activities are considered as evidence that different interpretations of the past exist. These counter-activities are the results of counter-memories of people who remember against the grain and whose experiences and memories are excluded from the official narrative. However, one should keep in mind that counter-activities can be used as instruments for uniting people in a shared victimhood, and thus for a competing nation-building project, too.

This section illustrated that the memorial sites are used to promote a one- sided narrative of the past. The memorials enforce the hegemonic narrative of the Serbs as victims in the Bosnian War. At places such as the former detention camp in Trnopolje and the public police station in Prijedor near the memorial sites, both the suffering of victims of other groups and the conducted atrocities of the own group are silenced. With the erection of memorials that exclusively honor soldiers of the VRS at these sites and through blocking initiatives to build memorials for other groups, the municipality is suppressing narratives and memories that contradict or challenge the hegemonic narrative of the RS.

5.5. Territorial Marking and the Production of Place

What becomes evident from the previous section is that memorial sites are used to silence aspects of the past that do not accord with the Serbian narrative. In this final section, I will show that the memorial sites in Prijedor and Trnopolje also serve to mark territory, signal “ownership”, and, as a result, provoke other non-Serb groups. Both memorial sites not only remember but also heroize and praise military forces who conducted war crimes in close distance to the sites in Prijedor and Trnopolje. Neither the suffering of the victims from the Trnopolje camp and the public security station are acknowledged, nor the Serbs’ own guilt in the Bosnian War is addressed by the municipality. The combination of the memorial sites’ placements and the obstruction to (allow) erect(ing) memorials that remember the victims of the other groups renders the territory as if it belongs to the Bosnian Serbs, and on which the Other is not welcomed. Moreover, the same combination renders the territory as not being safe through honoring and heroizing members of VRS, who are considered as perpetrators and war criminals by “the other side”. Especially the memorial in Trnopolje appears to provoke victims and members of non-Serb groups by silencing the victims of those groups and by not conveying the message of “never again”. One survivor of the camp, who was interviewed by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, called this memorial an “additional provocation”, and another felt that the government authorities “are practically laughing at us and mocking us with this act” (Irwin and Šarić, 2010). Satko Mujagić, a former camp

detainee, stated that the memorial “is not for Bosniak and Croat civilians who were killed there, but for Bosnian Serbs who died elsewhere during the war” (Brenner, 2011:359). He further asks, “Can you imagine a monument for Nazis in front of Auschwitz?” (ibid.). The honoring and heroizing of solders of the VRS who “gave their lives to build the foundations of Republic of Srpska”, as it reads on the memorial, can be interpreted as advocating, and even praising their crimes. Another aspect of silencing, and thus “forced forgetting”, is that the memorials contribute to the concealment of the existence of the Other on the very territory, which again marks the territory as “ours” from a Serbian viewpoint. Flags represent another way to signal “ownership”. The flag of RS35 adopted in 1992 can be seen when entering RS territory, the municipality, or the city Prijedor. It is not only hoisted at official buildings and public places within cities and villages but also at memorial sites. The flag of BiH, which commonly is used in FBiH, however, is absent (see Figure 1, Figure 7, Figure 10, and Figure 11). Counterhegemonic memorials on mosques’ properties, by contrast, use the BiH flag in combination with a flag representing Islam36 (see Figure 9).37 This divergence illustrates how flags are used to delineate spaces and to mark territory – also at memorial sites.

Figure 10: Hoisted RS flag at the border of the RS, at the entrance to the city of Prijedor, and in front of the city hall in Prijedor

35 A tricolor of red, blue, and white (see Figure 10). 36 Flag with a white star and crescent on green (see Figure 9). 37 Other counterhegemonic memorials are usually rather inconspicuous, without having any flags hoisted (see Figure 8). Only at the Kozarac Central Memorial – which is one of the only memorials for non-Serbs that has been permitted by officials at a public place (Irwin and Šarić, 2010; see also Franović et al., 2016) – three BiH flags were placed; but no flag representing Islam (see appendix). As a side note, residential homes commonly have not hoisted any flags. During my fieldwork I only came across two residential houses that did so.

What also became apparent during the fieldwork in Prijedor is that the municipality turned the public space, where the monument is located, into a “place”, filled with objects of identification that promote the intended Serbian nation’s identity and narrate stories of Serbian self-victimization and heroism. The inseparable trinity of Cyrillic script, Orthodox religion and Serbian nation is not only reflected in the monument itself, but it is additionally emphasized by the immediate surrounding. As Map 1 illustrates, the monument is placed between streets that are named after prominent Serbian figures: Vuk Karadžić, one of the most important reformers of the modern Serbian language; Saint Sava, the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church; Nikola Pašić, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, who advocated a “Greater Serbia” with Serbs as the master race (e.g., Mackenzie, 1979; Oxford Univerity Press, n.d.); and Mladen Stojanović, a national hero who fought in the Liberation War against the Axis. Also, a school next to the monument site is named after Saint Sava (Gimnazija Sveti Sava). Near the monument, there also is a bust of Jovan Rašković, a psychiatrist and politician who deployed psychoanalytic justification for ethnic separation and spread hatred and prejudice against Croats and Bosnian Muslims, for example, in his book “Luda zemlja“ (see e.g., Bjelić, 2010). The bust with the inscription “A humanist, fighter for rights and dignity of the Serbian people”38 honors these nationalistic thoughts and, together with the other public figures inscribed in the public space, it reinforces ethno-national boundaries, and strengthens the superiority of the Serb nation. The transformed “place” surrounding the monument receives authority not only through the presence of significant, public figures in street names, but also through its location in the city center and its proximity to power-ﬁlled sites. The place is in the middle of the cultural, educational, and gastronomical center of the city, and the monument is placed vis-à-vis the municipal administration and the city hall. In the immediate surrounding of the monument other central institutions can be found, such as the local police station (public security station), the municipal courthouse, the Museum of Kozara, and several schools. Further, the space around the monument is easily accessible, and the park with the city fountain “Jereza” and

38 Translation made by Hana Adamović. See the appendix for the inscription plaque with the original text.

Map 1: Immediate surrounding of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city center of Prijedor

several benches invites visitors to dwell. Other visual effects that underline the place’s importance and authority are that the monument is spotlighted by night, and the raised RS flag next to it that is also used in the same way in front of the public institutions within the place. In terms of the spatial narrative, it can be said that the monument represents only a small piece in the mosaic of narrating the Serb’s victimization and the struggle for freedom. The victimization during WW2 and the fight for freedom, for instance, is manifested in the statue of Mladen Stojanović at the “Liberation Square”39 vis-à-vis the monument. According to a board next to the statue, Mladen Stojanović was the son of the “priest’s family of Stojanovića, a role model in a battle for national freedom”, and a “national World War II hero, an organizer of a rebellion in Kozara and a legendary partisan commander” (fieldwork).40 Not far from it, there is a bust of Josip Mažar Šoša, another national hero and partisan commander in the National Liberation War against the Axis, who took part in the defense of Kozara in 1942 (Kozara Offensive). The battle of Kozara is central in the narrative of the Serb’s resistance against the Nazis and Ustašas, who sent Serbian civilians from Kozara to the Jasenovac concentration camp after the partisans lost the Kozara battles (see Brenner, 2013). The Museum of Kozara, which is located in-between the statue and the bust, collects and preserves the heritage of the National Liberation War and the memory of the Kozara epic (Kozara Museum Prijedor, 2020).41 Across the city hall, there is another memorial in the public H2O park between the streets named after Jovan Rašković42 and Miloš Obrenović – the “Mining Park Composition” (see Figure 11). Obrenović was Prince of Serbia in the 19th century and participated in the First, and led the Second Serbian uprising against the Ottoman Empire, from which Serbia received partial autonomy. The memorial is dedicated “to the fighters for freedom of the Serbian people 1990- 1995”43. The placement of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” at the city square and the discussed spatial attributes – the busts and statues of national heroes,

39 “Trg oslobođenja”/“Трг ослобођења”. 40 The Text on the board is printed in local languages (written in Cyrillic and Latin script) as well as in English. 41 Original text on the Museum’s Website: “Настанак Музеја Козаре датира још 1954. године и уско је везан са развојем нашег града и потребом истог да се сакупе и очувају тековине НОБ- е и сјећање на Козарачку епопеју.” 42 See details about Jovan Rašković on page 43. 43 Translation made by Hana Adamović. See the appendix for the inscription plaque with the original text.

the chapel and another memorial honoring the fallen soldiers who fought for the Serbian people and the founding of RS next to it – give the monument and its messages contextual meaning and further strengthen its symbolic authority.

Figure 11: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” An interesting observation during the fieldwork was that 20 years after their erection, the memorial sites seem to lose some of their significance, even though they are still being used for commemorations (see e.g., Grad Prijedor, 2019; PrijedorDanas.com, 2019; RS Ministry of the Interior, 2017; and laid down wreath at the Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje documented during fieldwork (see Figure 3)). Indicators for a decreasing significance could be the low appreciation of the memorial sites, observable by stickers placed on the memorial “Mining Park Composition”44 (see Figure 12), chalk-drawings on the monument’s pedestal (see Figure 13), and the general conditions of the sites. The monument in Prijedor features pollutions, especially visible on the depicted men (see Figure 14); and while the building of the former detention camp in Trnopolje is under renovation, the rusted and partly damaged chain fence and the flag poles at the memorial site itself have not been renewed yet (see Figure 15). Also, the mounting holes of the removed inscription plaque on the memorial have not been fixed, and the plaque that is missing at least since 2016 has not been replaced.45

44 The stickers are, however, only on that part of the memorial on which neither the memorial plaque nor the plates with the names of the victims are placed (see Figure 11). 45 Photos in newspaper articles show the memorial already without the plaque in 2016 (see e.g., Ljubas, 2016).

Figure 12: Stickers on the memorial “Mining Park Composition”

Figure 13: Chalk painting on the monument’s pedestal Figure 14: Pollution on the monument

Figure 15: Rusted chain fence and flagpoles at the memorial site in Trnopolje This final section of the analysis illustrated that memorial sites are placed at their locations for a purpose and that they are embedded in a spatial narrative which gives them authority and meaning. The municipality of Prijedor uses the memorial sites and national symbols, such as the RS flag, to mark territory and to signal “ownership”. Together with the act of silencing, this practice provokes victims and members of other ethnic groups. With the monument and other spatial attributes, such as busts, statutes, and street names, the municipality of Prijedor transformed the public space in the city center of Prijedor into a place. This place marks the territory as belonging to the Serbs and its elements jointly transmit the hegemonic narrative of the RS. All these spatial elements relate to each other and give each other meaning and authority.

6. Conclusion

The overall aim of this thesis was to identify how memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor, BiH, are used as political tools to support the ethnic nation-building project of the RS. Using a qualitative research design in the form of a case study proved to be a useful choice and led to revealing and multifaceted interpretations of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” in Prijedor and the memorial “Memorial to the fallen RS soldiers in Trnopolje”. By drawing on the collected data from my fieldwork, the research project “War Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1991)”, newspaper articles, and archival records, it was possible to identify at least four different ways how the two memorial sites have been used to advance the Serbo-national project of the RS. First, the memorial sites manifest and depict objects of identification of the aspired Serbian nation and closely link them to the RS. In this way, the municipality of Prijedor as a local authority sustains the Serbian Orthodox religion and Cyrillic script as identity markers of the Serbian nation that allow demarcating the boundaries between the national Self from the Other. Second, through using the Serbian Cross, citing verses from national poets and repeatedly emphasizing the heroic sacrifices of soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska, the memorial sites promote myths of victimization and the Serbian nation’s struggle for freedom with the goals to unify the Serb people and to justify and legitimize violence against the “aggressor(s)”, the Croats and Bosniaks. Third, in the discourse of the RS, the memorial sites are utilized as a means to silence that part of the past that contradicts the RS narrative, that is, the Serbs being the victims of the Bosnian War and just defenders of their “homeland”, and that, in turn, would impair the Serbian group’s moral superiority and “we-ness”. Instead of acknowledging the suffering of the victims of other groups and to send the message of “never again”, the municipality of Prijedor largely blocks initiatives to build memorials for other groups at public places where war crimes were conducted by the VRS or other Serb forces. Fourth and lastly, the physical placement of the memorial sites together with other spatial attributes, such as street names of Serbian prominent public figures, RS flags, and

statues and busts of national heroes, relate to and reinforce each other to define the territory as Serbian. These practices can also provoke and intimidate victims and members of the other ethnic groups. These four strategies of the RS and municipality authorities that could be identified relate to another major implication of this study. Memorial sites do not only speak for themselves and should not be analyzed in isolation from their social, political, historical, and cultural contexts. Apart from the investigation of what and how certain elements are represented on memorials or monuments, it is equally important to examine the discourse about them and their placements and immediate surroundings. The use of constructed historical myths and ethno-national symbols as well as the spatial surrounding invest the memorial sites with meaning and give them the authority that the RS requires to sustain the one-sided Serbian narrative of the Bosnian War. What this thesis could not address, but which would be of interest for further studies, is the relation between the memorial sites and their social context, that is, how society perceives and makes meaning of the memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor. It would be beneficial to build on the findings in this thesis and involve the attitudes, views and opinions of the local population about the memorial sites by conducting interviews and observations on-site. One question that could be addressed is the significance of the memorial sites that appears to be decreasing since the memorial sites were erected more than 20 years ago. Ultimately, the present study sheds light on memorial sites in ethnic nation- building processes in the post-war context of the Bosnian War. It contributes to a better understanding of post-war situations and societies in general, and practices of memorialization and nationalism in the RS municipality of Prijedor after the Bosnian War, in particular. It could be shown that memorial sites and the concept of space are a central means in post-war ethnocentric nation-building processes and thus could be more integrated into peace research and peacebuilding, too, not least because of the associated aspect of exclusion and marginalization of other groups. Finally, I would like to note that not only future research across disciplines could benefit from the presented findings, but also local initiatives could build upon this thesis to find inspirations for transforming ethno-national memorial sites into shared public places and “sites of conscience” that still will remember the victims

of the war but that will also reflect an inclusive society and encourage processes of reconciliation.

7. Bibliography

Published

Ahonen, S., 2012. Coming to Terms with a Dark Past: How Post-Conflict Societies Deal with History. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. Alderman, D.H., 2003. Street names and the scaling of memory: the politics of commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr within the African American community. Area, 35(2), 163–173. Alderman, D.H., Brasher, J.P., Dwyer, O.J., 2020. Memorials and Monuments, in: Kobayashi, A. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Anderson, B.R.O., 2006. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Rev. ed., Verso, London ; New York. Balibar, E., 1990. The Nation Form: History and Ideology. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 13(3), 329–361. Barsalou, J., Baxter, V., 2007. The Urge to Remember: The Role of Memorials in Social Reconstruction and Transitional Justice. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC. Baranovicé, B., 2001. History Textbooks in Post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Intercultural Education, 12(1), 13–26. Bataković, D.T., 2014. The foreign policy of Serbia (1844-1867): Ilija Garašanin’s Načertanije, Special editions. Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade. Björkdahl, A., Buckley-Zistel, S. (Eds.), 2016a. Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Björkdahl, A., Buckley-Zistel, S. (Eds.), 2016b. Spatializing Peace and Conﬂict: An Introduction, in: Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Blustein, J., 2012. Human Rights and the Internationalization of Memory. Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(1), 19–32. Bougarel, X., Helms, E., Duijzings, G. (Eds.), 2007. The new Bosnian mosaic: identities, memories and moral claims in a post-war society. Ashgate, Aldershot, England ; Burlington, Vermont. Božić, G., 2019. Diversity in ethnicization: War memory landscape in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Memory Studies, 12(4), 412–432.

Brasher, J.P., Alderman, D.H., Subanthore, A., 2020. Was Tulsa’s Brady Street really renamed? Racial (in)justice, memory-work and the neoliberal politics of practicality. Social and Cultural Geography, 21(9), 1223–1244. Brenner, M., 2013. The Construction, De- and Reconstruction of History and Memory: Local Memory Practices of the Memorial Complex at Mrakovica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Časopis za povijest Zapadne Hrvatske, 8(1), 65– 83. Brenner, M., 2011. The Struggle of Memory. Practices of the (Non-)Construction of a Memorial at Omarska. Südosteuropa. Zeitschrift für Politik und Gesellschaft, 3(1), 349–372. Brett, S., Bickford, L., Ševcenko, L., Rios, M., 2007. Memorialization and Democracy: State Policy and Civic Action. International Center for Transitional Justice, Santiago, Chile. Cairns, E.A., Roe, M.D. (Eds.), 2003. The role of memory in ethnic conflict. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire. Chambliss, D.F., Schutt, R.K. (Eds.), 2019. Making sense of the social world: methods of investigation, 6th ed. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, California. Chojnacki, S., Engels, B., 2016. Overcoming the Material/Social Divide: Conflict Studies from the Perspective of Spatial Theory, in: Björkdahl, A., Buckley- Zistel, S. (Eds.), Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Clark, J.N., 2013. Reconciliation through Remembrance? War Memorials and the Victims of Vukovar. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 7(1), 116–135. Creswell, J.W., 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, California. Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Creswell, J.W., Creswell, J.D., 2018. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th ed. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles. Demmers, J., Venhovens, M., 2016. Bluffing the State: Spatialities of Contested Statehood in the Abkhazian-Georgian Conflict, in: Björkdahl, A., Buckley- Zistel, S. (Eds.), Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Doevenspeck, M., 2016. Territoriality in Civil War: The Ignored Territorial Dimensions of Violent Conflict in North Kivu, DRC, in: Björkdahl, A., Buckley-Zistel, S. (Eds.), Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Duara, P., 1996. Historicizing National Identity, or Who Imagines What and When, in: Eley, G., Suny, R.G. (Eds.), Becoming National: A Reader. Oxford University Press, New York. Dwyer, O.J., 2002. Location, Politics, and the Production of Civil Rights Memorial Landscapes. Urban Geography, 23(1), 31–56.

Dwyer, O.J., Alderman, D.H., 2008. Memorial landscapes: analytic questions and metaphors. GeoJournal, 73(3), 165–178. Edensor, T., 1997. National Identity and the Politics of Memory: Remembering Bruce and Wallace in Symbolic Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15(2), 175–194. Esbenshade, R.S., 1995. Remembering to Forget: Memory, History, National Identity in Postwar East-Central Europe. Representations, 49(1), 72–96. Franović, I., Vukosavljević, N., Horozović, N., Tanović, U. (Eds.), 2016. War of memories: places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia- Herzegovina. Centar za nenasilnu akciju, Sarajevo ; Belgrade. Gellner, Ernest., 1964. Thought and change. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Grabowicz, G.G., 2014. Taras Shevchenko: The Making of the National Poet. Revue des études slaves, 85(1), 421–439. Gusic, I., 2019. The relational spatiality of the postwar condition: A study of the city of Mitrovica. Political Geography, 71(1), 47–55. Hašimbegović, E., Gavrilović, D., 2011. Ethnogenesis Myths, in: Perica, V., Gavrilović, D. (Eds.), Political Myths in the Former Yugoslavia and Successor States. A Shared Narrative, History of International Relations Library. Republic of Letters Publishing, Dordrecht. Hilton Saggau, E., 2019. Kosovo Crucified—Narratives in the Contemporary Serbian Orthodox Perception of Kosovo. Religions, 10(10), 578, 1–18. Hite, K., Collins, C., 2009. Memorial Fragments, Monumental Silences and Reawakenings in 21st-Century Chile. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 38(1), 379–400. Hoelscher, S., 2009. Landscape Iconography, in: Kitchin, R., Thrift, N.J. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Hoelscher, S., 2006. The White-Pillared Past: Landscapes of Memory and Race in the American South, in: Schein, R.H. (Ed.), Landscape and Race in the United States. Routledge, New York. Horowitz, D.L., 2008. Ethnic groups in conflict, 2nd ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. Hroch, M., 1993. From National Movement to the Fully-Formed Nation. New Left Review, 198(6), 3–20. Ijabs, I., 2014. Collective Memory, in: Michalos, A.C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. Ingimundarson, V., 2007. The Politics of Memory and the Reconstruction of Albanian National Identity in Postwar Kosovo. History & Memory, 19(1), 95–123. Jovanović, S.M., 2018. Assertive discourse and folk linguistics: Serbian nationalist discourse about the cyrillic script in the 21st century. Language Policy, 17(1), 611–631. Kecmanovic, D., 2013. The Mass Psychology of Ethnonationalism. Springer, New York, NY.

King, E., 2010. Memory Controversies in Post-Genocide Rwanda: Implications for Peacebuilding. Genocide Studies and Prevention, 5(3), 293–309. Kolstø, P., 2006. National symbols as signs of unity and division. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(4), 676–701. Komarova, M., O’Dowd, L., 2016. Belfast, ‘The Shared City’? Spatial Narratives of Conflict Transformation, in: Björkdahl, A., Buckley-Zistel, S. (Eds.), Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Lederach, J.P., 1997. Building peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, D.C. Light, D., Dumbraveanu‐Andone, D., 1997. Heritage and national identity: Exploring the relationship in Romania. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 3(1), 28–43. Ljubojević, A., Gavrilović, D., Perica, V., 2011. Myths and Countermyths and the Incorporation of Myth into New National Ideologies, in: Perica, V., Gavrilović, D. (Eds.), Political Myths in the Former Yugoslavia and Successor States. A Shared Narrative, History of International Relations Library. Republic of Letters Publishing, Dordrecht. Lozic, V., 2011. National Museums in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia: A Story of Making ’Us’, in Aronsson P., Elgenius G. (Eds.) Building National Museums in Europe 1750–2010, Eunamus Report No 1, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping. Maček, I., 2009. Sarajevo Under Siege: Anthropology in Wartime. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Mackenzie, D., 1979. Ljuba Jovanović-Čupa and the Search for Yugoslav Unity. The International History Review, 1(1), 36–54. Magarell, L., 2011. Reparations in Theory and Practice. International Center for Transitional Justice, 1–16. Michael, L., Murtagh, B., Price, L., 2016. Where Conflict and Peace Take Place: Memorialization, Sacralization and Post-Conflict Space, in: Björkdahl, A., Buckley-Zistel, S. (Eds.), Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Mijić, A., 2020. Identity, ethnic boundaries, and collective victimhood: analysing strategies of self-victimisation in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina. Identities, 1–20. Mijić, A., 2018. Don’t Talk About the Elephant: Silence and Ethnic Boundaries in Postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina. Human Studies, 41(1), 137–156. Molden, B., 2016. Resistant pasts versus mnemonic hegemony: On the power relations of collective memory. Memory Studies, 9(2), 125–142. Naidu, E., 2004. Symbolic Reparations: A fractured opportunity. Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1–20. Nora, P., 1989. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations, 26(1), 7–24. Office of the High Representative, 2000. Statute of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Legal Materials, 39(1), 879–893.

Okey, R., 2007. Taming Balkan nationalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York. Orwell, G., Orwell, Sonia., Angus, Ian., 1968. The collected essays, journalism, and letters of George Orwell. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., New York. Pauker, I., 2012. War Through Other Means: Examining the Role of Symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in: Simić, O., Volčič, Z., Philpot, C.R. (Eds.), Peace Psychology in the Balkans: Dealing with a Violent Past While Building Peace. Springer, New York. Reeves, K., 2018. Sites of memory, in: Maerker, A.K., Sleight, S., Sutcliffe, A. (Eds.), History, Memory and Public Life: The Past in the Present. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London ; New York. Renan, E., 2018. What is a nation?, in: Giglioli, M.F.N. (Tran.), What Is a Nation? And Other Political Writings. Columbia University Press, New York. Rogich, D.M., 2001. Great-martyr Tsar Lazar of Serbia: his life and service. St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, California. Rory Finnin, 2011. Nationalism and the Lyric, Or How Taras Shevchenko Speaks to Compatriots Dead, Living, and Unborn. The Slavonic and East European Review, 89(1), 29–55. Roshwald, A., 2015. Civic and Ethnic Nationalism, in: Smith, A.D., Hou, X., Stone, J., Dennis, R., Rizova, P. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Oxford, UK. Rufer, M., 2012. Invention, Memory, and Place. InterAmerican Wiki: Terms - Concepts - Critical Perspectives. www.uni-bielefeld.de/cias/wiki/p Politics of Memory.html Rusciano, F.L., 2003. The Construction of National Identity—A 23-Nation Study. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 361–366. Rüsen, J., 2012. Using History: The Struggle over Traumatic Experiences of the Past in Historical Culture. Historein, 11(1), 14. Shenton, A., 2004. Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. Shevchenko, T., Gregorovich, A., 2014. Kobzar: poetry of Taras Shevchenko in Ukrainian, English and French. Taras Shevchenko Museum, Toronto. Smith, A.D., 1989. The origins of nations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12(3), 340– 367. Smith, A.D., 1969. Theories and Types of Nationalism. European Journal of Sociology, 10(1), 119–132. Sokol, A., 2014. War Monuments: Instruments of Nation-building in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croatian Political Science Review, 51(5), 105–126. Subotić, M., Mitrović, M., 2018. Hybrid nature of extremism: Cohesive characteristics of ethno-nationalism and religious extremism as generators of Balkan insecurity. Vojno delo, 70(1), 22–33.

Sumartojo, S., 2016. Commemorative atmospheres: memorial sites, collective events and the experience of national identity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(4), 541–553. Takei, M., 1998. Collective memory as the key to national and ethnic identity: The case of Cambodia. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 4(3), 59–78. Taylor, E.P., 2012. Museums Narrating the Nation: Case Studies from Greece and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, 20(1), 4, 1–17. Torsti, P., 2004. History Culture and Banal Nationalism in post-War Bosnia. South East European Politics Online. Vol V, No 2-3, 142–157. Unfried, B., 1991. Gedächtnis und Geschichte. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften, 79–99. Volčič, Z., Simić, O., 2016. Geographies of Crime and Justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in: Björkdahl, A., Buckley-Zistel, S. (Eds.), Spatializing Peace and Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Yazan, B., 2015. Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152. Yin, R.K., 2018. Case study research and applications: design and methods, Sixth edition. ed. SAGE, Los Angeles. Zdeb, A., 2019. Ethno-nationalism and Political Conflict in Bosnia (Europe), in: Ratuva, S. (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Ethnicity. Springer Singapore, Singapore.

Websites

Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage, 2003. Kočić, Petar [WWW Document]. URL https://www.biographien.ac.at/oebl/oebl_K/Kocic_Petar_1877_1916.xml (accessed 14.05.21). CNA, 2012. Tuzla, Youth Arbour. URL https://kulturasjecanja.org/en/tuzla-yout- arbour/ (accessed 29.04.21). Đureinović, J., n.d. The role of Memorialisation in Reconciliation Processes [WWW Document]. Mem. Sites Hum. Rights. URL https://learn.canvas.net/courses/2165/pages/week-3-who-remembers- memorialisation-as-reconstruction-and-democratisation- tool?module_item_id=213492 (accessed 16.03.21). Grad Prijedor, 2019. Obilježen Dan odbrane grada [WWW Document]. URL https://prijedorgrad.org/sr-EU/vijesti-sadrzaj.html?vid=7160 (accessed 05.05.21).

Hodzic (ICTJ), R., 2015. Flowers in the Square [WWW Document]. Medium. URL https://medium.com/@ICTJ/flowers-in-the-square-1d0fb3d6e911 (accessed 14.05.21). Humanity in Action, 2017. The (Im)Possibility of the Restorative Justice: The Example of Bosnia and Herzegovina [WWW Document]. URL https://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledge_detail/the-impossibility-of- the-restorative-justice-the-example-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina/ (accessed 14.05.21). IRMTC, n.d. Bridging the Gap in Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina [WWW Document]. URL https://www.icty.org/en/outreach/bridging-the-gap-with- local-communities/prijedor (accessed 23.04.21). Irwin, R., Šarić, V., 2010. Calls for War Memorials Divide Bosnia [WWW Document]. Institute for War & Peace Reporting. URL https://iwpr.net/global-voices/calls-war-memorials-divide-bosnia (accessed 26.04.21). Kozara Museum Prijedor, 2020. Kozara Prijedor Museum - Museum, Mladen Stojanović Memorial House, Lapidary, PrijedorNar Library [WWW Document]. URL https://prijedor.muzejkozare.org/ (accessed 05.05.21). Ljubas, Z., 2016. Povratnički život u Prijedoru uz političke i etničke podjele [WWW Document]. DW.com. URL https://www.dw.com/bs/povratnički-život-u- prijedoru-uz-političke-i-etničke-podjele/a-19130261 (accessed 05.05.21). Muslimovic, A., Panic, K., 2019. ‘White Armband Day’ Highlights Bosnia’s Post- War Divisions. [WWW Document] Balk. Insight. BIRN. URL https://balkaninsight.com/2019/05/31/white-armband-day-highlights- bosnias-post-war-divisions/ (accessed 29.04.21). N1 Sarajevo, 2018. Parents of murdered children demand construction of memorial [WWW Document]. N1. URL https://ba.n1info.com/english/news/a263785-Parents-of-murdered- children-demand-construction-of-memorial/ (accessed 14.05.21). Oxford Univerity Press, n.d. Nikola Pašić [WWW Document]. Oxf. Ref. URL https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100 309765 (accessed 14.05.21). Panic, K., 2016. Prijedor’s Serbs Reject Memorial to Killed Children [WWW Document]. Balk. Insight. URL https://balkaninsight.com/2016/06/29/prijedor-assembly-rejects-memorial- to-killed-children-06-29-2016/ (accessed 14.05.21). Paul, J., 2018. Commemorating White Armband Day Transnationally and in Virtual Spaces [WWW Document]. Rememb. Me Chang. Face Memorialisation. URL https://remembermeproject.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/commemorating- white-armband-day-transnationally-and-in-virtual-spaces/ (accessed 29.04.21). PrijedorDanas.com, 2019. Prijedor: Služen parastos poginulim i umrlim radnicima rudnika [WWW Document]. PrijedorDanascom - Prijedor. Gradski Portal. URL http://www.prijedordanas.com/?p=138144 (accessed 05.05.21).

RS Ministry of the Interior, 2017. Marking the Anniversary of Forming the Seventh Squad of teh Former Special Brigade of the Republic of Srpska Ministry of the Interior [WWW Document]. URL https://mup.vladars.net/eng/index.php?vijest=15472&vrsta=novosti (accessed 06.05.21). Statistical Office of the Republic Serbia, 2017. Census 2011 - Population by religion [WWW Document]. URL https://data.stat.gov.rs/Home/Result/3102010402?languageCode=en-US (accessed 06.05.21). Statistika.ba, n.d. Censuses in Bosnia and Herzegovina [WWW Document]. URL http://www.statistika.ba (accessed 16.02.21).

ICTY and UN Documents

ICTY, 2017. Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Judgment, Case no IT-09-92-T. ICTY, 2016. Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Public Redacted Version of Judgement Issued on 24 March 2016, Case no IT-95-5/18-T. ICTY, 2005. Bridging the Gab: Between the ICTY and Communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Presented at the Conference Seriens Prijedor, ICTY, Prijedor. ICTY, 2003. Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Judgment, Case no IT-97-24-T. ICTY, 2001. Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Milojica Kos, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic, Dragoljub Prcac, Judgment, Case no IT-98-30/1-T ICTY, 1999. Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Sententencing Judgment, Case no IT-94- 1-T. ICTY, 1997. Judgment and Opinion in First Instance: the Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić a/k/a “Dule.”, Case no IT-94-1-T UN General Assembly, 2006. Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc A/RES/60/147.

Appendix: Field Photographs and Notes

This appendix contains photographs with field notes made by the author during the fieldwork in the municipality of Prijedor between 1 May and 4 May 2021. Only if not stated otherwise, the translations of the inscriptions are taken from the study War of memories: places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia- Herzegovina (Franović et al., 2016). The appendix not only aims to enhance comprehensibility and validity of the study and its findings, but also to provide data for future research on this topic.

Map 2: Locations of memorial sites visited during fieldwork and of former detention camps

Monument “For the Honorable Cross” in Prijedor

Figure 16: Back view of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” Back side of the monument with city hall (yellow building), the statue of Mladen Stojanović (marked in red), the police station/public security station (blue building), and the Museum of Kozara (orange building). The flag, a tricolor of red, blue and white, represents the official flag of RS. Coordinates: 44°58'38.9"N 16°42'29.9"E.

Figure 17: Monument “For the Honorable Cross” with chapel Monument with the chapel in the background on which the inscription plaques are mounted (marked in red).

Figure 18: Detail view of the depicted men on the monument The monument’s front side (left) and back side (right). On the chest and upper arm of the forefront men the Serbian Cross is engraved (marked in red).

Figure 19: City fountain “Jereza” with the lighted monument and chapel

Figure 20: Chapel with inscription plaque next to the monument On the outside wall of the chapel, there is an inscription plaque mounted which is honoring the fallen soldiers of the 1990s war (facing the monument). Also, seven saints of the Orthodox Church are depicted on the walls and an Orthodox cross is placed on the roof.

Figure 21: Detail view of the inscription on the outside wall of the chapel

Translation of the inscription: To the fallen soldiers of the homeland war 1990-1996

Prijedor, 21 September 2012

Veterans Association of the Prijedor municipality

Figure 22: Inside view of the chapel Memorial plaques with last names, middle names, given names, years of birth and years of death of those killed (vertical mounted plaques) and two further inscriptions plaques (horizontal mounted plaques).

Figure 23: Detail view of the inscription plaque on the left in the chapel

Translation of the inscription: Heroes standing in formation in death, who gave their lives for their people and for Republika Srpska

Figure 24: Detail view of the inscription plaque on the right in the chapel

Translation of the inscription: Let their names be celebrated on Earth, as they are in Heaven

Memorial to Fallen RS Soldiers from Trnopolje

Figure 25: Memorial “Memorial to the fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” The eagle-shaped memorial “Memorial to the fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in front of the former detention camp in Trnopolje. Coordinates: 44°56'00.5"N 16°48'14.9"E.

Figure 26: Detail view of the memorial in Trnopolje The memorial has a cross in its center, surrounded by two inscription plaques. The inscription plaque of the right wing of the eagle has been removed – the mounting holes are still identifiable. In front of the memorial laid a withered coronal with ribbons colored like the RS flag.

Figure 27: Detail view of the inscription plaques on the memorial in Trnopolje Translation of the inscription in the middle: To soldiers who gave their lives to build the foundations of Republic of Srpska

Translation of the inscription on the left: To freedom “Many centuries, many generations and poets have praised you. Much fresh blood was spilled for you and in your name.” Petar Kočić

Translation of the removed inscription on the right:46 “When I am dead, then bury me... Oh bury me, then rise ye up And break your heavy chains And water with the tyrant‘s blood The freedom you have gained.” Taras Shevchenko

46 When the authors of the study “War Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1991)” took the photos of the memorial on 5 April 2013, the inscription plaque was still mounted. Photos of the inscription plaque can be viewed in the published book War of memories: places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Franović et al., 2016) or on the website “https://kulturasjecanja.org/” (accessed: 03.05.2021).

Counter-Memorials

Figure 28: Memorial plaque in front of the former detention camp Keraterm The former industrial premises that served as detention camp in the Bosnian War. A small memorial plaque in front of the building reminds on its role during the war. Coordinates: 44°58'35.0"N 16°43'49.0"E.

Figure 29: Detail view of the inscription at the former Keraterm camp

Translation of the inscription: In May 1992, at this location, the “Keraterm” death camp where over 3000 innocent citizens of Prijedor were imprisoned, tortured or killed was established. By August 1992, over 300 innocent people were killed at the “Keraterm” camp or were taken away never to return.

Figure 30: Kozarac Central Memorial At this memorial, only the BiH flag is used. Next to the memorial is a school and a bust of Rade M Kondić (1914–1944). Coordinates: 44°58'28.0"N 16°50'22.4"E.

Inscription in the memorial’s entrance is in both English and Bosnian language (Latin script): To the innocent killed citizens of Kozarac 1992 - 1995

One does not live here in order to live... One does not live here in order to die... One also dies here in order to live ... Mak Dizdar

Figure 31: Memorial plaque in Stari Kevljani According to the inscription, this memorial is placed on the spot where a mass grave with 456 victims was found in 2004. The memorial was erected in 2007. Coordinates: 44°54'41.5"N 16°52'08.6"E.

Translation of the inscription: At this site in 2004 the largest mass grave In Bosanska Krajina “Stari Kevljani” was found with a total of 456 innocent victims from the Prijedor Municipality

Although you are gone you are not forgotten

Kevljani 6 August 2007

Figure 32: Memorial complex with stone plaques at Kevljani Cemetery The site complex (left) is close to the memorial plaque in Stari Kevljani (less than 500 meters) and includes the ruins of the during war destroyed minaret, a memorial plaque (under the small roofing behind the BiH flag), stone plaques with the names of the identified victims (right), cemetery, and other elements. The left flag on the left picture is the official flag of BiH, while the right flag with the white star and crescent on green represents Islam. Coordinates: 44°54'54.3"N 16°52'22.4"E.

Figure 33: Memorial site at Kamičani-Kozarac Shahid Cemetery The site complex includes memorial plaques (in the left building), cemetery, and other elements. Coordinates: 44°57'58.1"N 16°50'45.6"E.

Unmarked Atrocity Sites

Figure 34: Unmarked atrocity site: Public security station in Prijedor The auxiliary facility is located in the backyard of the public security station/police station. The entrance to the backyard is guarded (see police booth on the left of the picture) and civilians are prohibited to enter the area. Coordinates: 44°58'39.8"N 16°42'34.4"E.

Figure 35: Unmarked atrocity site: Former detention camp Trnopolje The former detention camp Trnopolje is located next to the memorial “Memorial to the fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje“. There is no memorial plaque placed at this site remembering the civilian victims of the war. Before the war, the building was used as community center. Today, the building is under ongoing renovation and next to it is a local store as well as a school. There is a small prayer room with photographs of victims on the wall behind the right door. The rest of the building is empty due to the renovation.

Figure 36: Unmarked atrocity site: Culture Center in Miska Glava No memorial plaque for civilian victims of the Bosnian War is placed at or near the Culture Center in Miska Glava. Only a memorial dedicated to soldiers fallen in the 1990s war is located next to it. Above the entrance of the center, a memorial plaque is dedicated to victims of WW2. Coordinates: 44°56'33.4"N 16°31'36.9"E.

Figure 37: Unmarked atrocity site: Ljubija Football Stadium At or near the Ljubija Football Stadium, there is no memorial plaque or memorial for the victims of the Bosnian War. Coordinates: 44°55'09.4"N 16°36'26.6"E.

Details of the Place around the Monument in Prijedor

Figure 38: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” in Prijedor The memorial “Mining Park Composition” is located in the H2O park in the city Prijedor. The L-shaped memorial consist of a “memorial wall” with names of victims of the Bosnian War as well as an inscription plaque and a part with benches. Coordinates: 44°58'43.2"N 16°42'36.2"E.

Figure 39: “Memorial wall” of the memorial “Mining Park Composition” The memorial is situated next to the office of RŽR "Ljubija" a.d. Prijedor and Areslor Mittal Prijedor (pink-colored building), which is behind the city hall in Prijedor. Next to the memorial, the flag of RS is hoisted and below the inscription plaque a coronal in the colors of the RS flag is placed.

Figure 40: Memorial plaque on the memorial “Mining Park Composition” The memorial plaque faces a cross that is placed in the hollow round metal column (see previous figure).

Translation of the inscription (translated by Hana Adamović): To the fighters for freedom of the Serbian people 1990-1995

Figure 41: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” with inscription plaque

Translation of the inscription (translated by Hana Adamović): To the city of Prijedor in the crossroads of two millenniums, on the day of St. Barbara 17.12.2001

Figure 42: Museum of Kozara

Figure 43: Church of the Holy Trinity in Prijedor. The church “Church of the Holy Trinity” is located near the monument, in the city Prijedor. The flag on the picture is often used by the Serbian Orthodox Church (tricolor of red, blue and white with the Serbian Cross in the middle).

Figure 44: Statue of Mladen Stojanović at the Liberation Square The statue of Mladen Stojanović is located at the Liberation Square, in front of the city hall and vis-à-vis the monument “For the Honorable Cross”.

Figure 45: Busts near the monument in Prijedor Busts of Jovan Rašković (with the inscription “A humanist, fighter for rights and dignity of the Serbian people”47 under the name), Nikola Kotle, and Josip Mažar Šoša (from left to right).

47 Translation made by Hana Adamović.

Other Observations

Figure 46: The flag of RS at the borders of RS and the city of Prijedor The RS flag is not only present at official buildings and public places in Prijedor, but also when entering RS (via the Street M15 from Sanski Most (left); via the border crossing from Croatia at Jasenovac (center)), the municipality, or the city of Prijedor (right). The flag of RS is also frequently hoisted at memorial sites dedicated to “Serb victims” of the 1990s war, while at memorial sites dedicated to “Muslim victims” the BiH flag is used; especially at those placed on premises of mosques.

Figure 47: The flag of BiH in FBiH The left picture shows the BiH flag on the “Trg oslobodilaca bridge” in Sanski Most (FBiH). The right picture shows a memorial to victims from the 1990s war in the same city, at which the BiH flag is hoisted too. Coordinates: 44°45'42.3"N 16°39'55.9"E.

Figure 48: Serbian Cross at memorial sites Examples of memorials using the Serbian (or former RS) coat of arms in combination with the Orthodox cross. The left picture is from a memorial near Prijedor (coordinates: 44°59'10.6"N 16°46'39.5"E). There is a memorial for fallen soldiers of WW2 behind the memorial. The proximity of WW2 memorials and memorials of the 1990s war was frequently observed during the fieldwork. The right picture is a detail view of the memorial next to the Culture Center in Miska Glava. Both memorials consist of a commemorative stone with pictures, names, years of birth and years of death of fallen soldiers in the Bosnian War.

Figure 49: School next to former detention camp Trnopolje Former detention camp Trnopolje (white building) with the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” (marked in red) and the local school (pink-coloured building) next to it. The proximity of schools next to memorials from either WW2 or the 1990s war was frequently observed during the fieldwork. Other examples are the schools next to the Kozarac Central Memorial and the monument “For the Honorable Cross”, but also next to the unmarked Ljubija Football Stadium.