MEMORY, SPACE & LAW MEMORY SITES OF THE 1992-1995 WAR IN PRESENT DAY BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA AND THE INTEGRATION OF THE ICTY LEGACY. Scientific article Word count: 9.485 Aurore Vanliefde Student number: 01708804 Promotor: Dr. David Mwambari Master’s thesis presented for obtaining the degree of Master in Conflict and Development Academic year: 2018-2019 MEMORY, SPACE & LAW. MEMORY SITES OF THE 1992-1995 WAR IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND THE INTEGRATION OF THE ICTY LEGACY. Abstract This article revolves around memorialisation of the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Theoretical insights from literature are combined with empirical data from 29 memory sites in BiH, two expert interviews, and additional information from informal conversations with guides and participation in guided tours. The aim of this study is to understand the use of memory sites of the 1992-1995 war in BiH, and research the extent to which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)’s legacy has been integrated into these memory sites. The findings show that memorialisation is on-going through the creation, conservation, accentuation and destruction of memory sites. Memorials are generally exclusively meant for one ethno-national group, and are often the product of local and/or private initiatives. These sites of memory are lieux de mémoire, as described by Pierre Nora, where a community’s collective memory is both materialised and generated. Personal testimonies are extensively used in museums and archival material from the ICTY is included in some memory sites. The ICTY’s legacy constitutes a unique kind of memory, a lieu de mémoire sui generis. In line with previous literature, the tribunal’s archives are a source of memory situated in an abstract legal realm where public memory can draw from. This article proposes to add a spatial dimension to this process, as the ICTY’s archival material is easing its way into physical memory sites. Key words: lieux de mémoire, collective memory, memory sites, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, ICTY Introduction You can’t throw a stone in Sarajevo without dropping it on a site of memory, on a place where something happened.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosna i Hercegovina, BiH) is home to countless places that testify of its rich history: Ottoman mosques, the assassination site of Franz Ferdinand, Yugoslav era statues of Tito, graffiti-covered historic bobsleigh tracks from Sarajevo’s ’84 Winter Olympics, and bullet-scarred buildings from the nineties’ war that profoundly shaped the country. This recent chapter of BiH’s history is the focal point of this article. During the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, BiH was the scene of violent warfare from 1992 to 1995. Silent reminders of the country’s past are still very present in its landscape, or ‘memoryscape’. Especially in Sarajevo, its capital city, memory of ‘the war’ is visible in red resin-filled holes caused by shells in the streets filled with red resin (the so-called Sarajevo Roses), commemoratives plaques, statues, and museums. More than 25 years after the conflict’s onset, the process of memorialisation is still on-going: new museums have been inaugurated in recent years and memory sites are an intrinsic part of touristic tours. In a country where interpretations of the conflict are highly contested by different groups and entities (Bosniaks and the Federation of BiH, Bosnian Serbs and Republika Srpska, and Bosnian Croats), memory is a sensitive topic. Like in many other settings that have lived through massive human rights violations (such as Rwanda, Cambodia, etc.), memory of BiH’s conflict is constantly (re)created, transformed and sometimes erased. In this light, an important actor of the creation and preservation of memory has been the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Its mandate of prosecuting war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia has contributed to documenting the conflict, and thus creating memory. The cessation of the ICTY’s activities in late 2017 generates the question of how its legacy will be used, and in what manner these legal memories will be translated into spatial memory. This article revolves around two central themes: physical sites of memory in post-conflict BiH and the integration of the ICTY’s legacy in those memory sites. Through a combination of literature and empirical data from visits of memory sites in Sarajevo, Potočari-Srebrenica and Mostar, the aim of this study is to get a better understanding of sites of memory in BiH and how the exceptional nature of the ICTY’s archives is used in these physical memory sites. 1 Free retranscription of a quote by Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018) 1 Theoretical framework The theoretical part of this article starts by introducing the theoretical notions of Pierre Nora’s lieux de mémoire, Halbwachs’ collective memory, the politics of memory, and the specific context of post-war BiH. These will serve as prelude and theoretical basis for the empirical data, which will be addressed later in this article. Building blocks: Lieux de Mémoire & Collective Memory As formulated by Nora (1996, xvii), a lieu de mémoire refers to “any significant entity, whether material or non-material in nature, which By dint of human will or the work of time has Become a symBolic element of the memorial heritage of any community.” The concept was born out of Nora’s observation that French society was losing sense of its collective memory and that institutions were set up with the aim of conserving it (allier Monteño, 2008; Ogino, 2015). These institutions (memorials, museums, archives, libraries, commemorations, anniversaries, events, newspapers, films, paintings, sculptures, writings, etc.) are all characterised by the intention to remember (Allier Montaño, 2008; Bottici, 2010; Ogino, 2015; Violi, 2017). In the field of memory studies, the concept of lieux de mémoire is now used beyond Nora’s (1996) original scope on the French society (Allier Montaño, 2008; Ho Tai, 2001; Rothberg, 2010; Winter, 2009). While the spatial dimension of memory had already been explored by Halbwachs (1925), Nora’s work particularly focused on specific spaces and institutions where a group’s collective memory crystallises and generates itself (Allier Montaño, 2008; Ogino, 2015). Halbwachs’ influential concept of collective memory (or public memory) refers to the collection of memories shared by members of a given group or community (Assmann, 2010; Houdek & Phillips, 2017; Ogino, 2015; Rothberg, 2010). Halbwachs (1925) articulated the idea that memory (typically formulated in individualistic terms earlier) and social frameworks mutually construct each other (Rothberg, 2010; Sorabji, 2006; Verovšek, 2016). Following his reasoning, individual memory (recollections of personal experiences) is also socially constructed, and can in turn become part of collective memory (Halbwachs, 1925; Houdek & Phillips, 2017). Very much like Durkheim’s (1893) conscience collective, collective memory shapes social order (Bottici, 2010; Musi, 2016; Ogino, 2015; Verovšek, 2016). Drawing on this, authors like Anderson (1983), Nora (1996) and Renan (1882) have argued that collective memory is a constitutive element of a nation-state and its identity (allier Montaño, 2008; Brice, 2010; Houdek & Phillips, 2017; Ogino, 2015; Verovšek, 2016). 2 These two well-established concepts in the field of memory studies have been thoroughly discussed and criticised. The very existence of a collective memory has been questioned by scholars including Koselleck (2004), Rothberg (2010), and Sontag (2003). Collective memory is not a fixed objective recount of history: it is a collection of shared (subjective) interpretations of the past and is subject to change (Havel, 2005; Houdek & Phillips, 2017). Despite the fact that both Nora (1996) and Halbwachs (1925) had alluded to the heterogeneous nature of memories and individual experiences, their work reifies the idea of a homogenous nation-state (Ho Tai, 2001; Rothberg, 2010). Another main point of criticism is Halbwachs’ and Nora’s binary opposition of history and memory (Allier Montaño, 2008; Lorenz, 2010; Ogino, 2015; Rothberg, 2010). However, Halbwachs acknowledged the influence of history in the creation of collective memory and Nora (1996) subsequently viewed the French national history as a historicised type of memory2 (Allier Montaño, 2008). Nevertheless, the relevance of both concepts and their interaction is undeniable. Indeed, lieux de mémoire shape the collective memory and vice versa (Houdek & Phillips, 2017). The (spatial) memorialisation of particular events entails the re-enforcement of a certain common memory (or narrative) that becomes the dominant one in a group and strengthens its collective identity (Connerton, 2008; Eastmond & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012). This also implies that memories outside of this common narrative are (forcibly) forgotten. As Allier Montaño (2008, p. 23) states; “It is not only memory that crystallizes in these places, so does forgetfulness: to the places of memory we should add the places of amnesia”. But how do sites of memory become sites of forgetting? and what exactly is forgotten then? Remembering & forgetting: the politics of memory Remembrance and forgetfulness are two sides of the same coin that is the politics of memory. As will become clear, this is especially true in contexts with contested narratives and memories related to particular identities like post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina (Eastmond & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012). Lieux de mémoire aren’t just products of consensual interpretations of past events, but can also testify of difficulties with dealing with a traumatic past (allier Montaño, 2008). Far from all lieux de mémoire bear witness to positive events, especially in post-conflict contexts. Many sites deal with negative aspects of a traumatic past, and have been referred to as ‘negative heritage’ (Ogino, 2015) or ‘traumatic heritage’ (Violi, 2017). Notwithstanding the intuitive urge of wanting to forget traumatic events, negative past experiences inspire the same will to record and remember as positive ones (Ogino, 2015).