text:
Knitting a Better Future | Balkan Diskurs
Marion Pineau
December 7th, 2015
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, women, especially in rural areas, have few employment opportunities. But with a few hours of training, a traditional skill can be transformed into a profession. Marion Pineau and Akvile Zakarauskaite report.
Earlier this year, Balkan Diskurs met and interviewed Nadira Skaljic Mingasson, one of the founders of Udružene, an association based in Sarajevo and created in 2012 with the aim of using knitting as a way to confront war traumas and reintegrate women into society through economic and psychosocial empowerment. As Nadira explained, “Udružene focuses on giving women the opportunity to get back control of their own lives and to recover through work.”
As in many post-conflict societies, Bosnia-Herzegovina performs poorly when it comes to gender equality. Traditional and patriarchal norms and values, compounded by a legacy of war, inhibit women from taking an active role in public, social and economic spheres, particularly in rural areas. Gender inequality, combined with other social exclusions, can make women extremely vulnerable. Victims of sexual violence, whether it is violence that occurred during the war or in domestic settings, face special challenges. Twenty years after the war, being a victim of sexual violence, or talking about being a victim, remains a social taboo, causing victims to suffer from high levels of stigmatization.
Though there are different forms of traditional assistance available to women in Bosnia, especially for those who have suffered violence, this assistance is typically based on small monetary handouts from the State, international institutions and/or various NGOs. This monetary aid is helpful in times of crisis but, as Nadira points out, the aid keeps women in a position of victimhood. The aid does not empower women psychologically or financially in the long term because their well-being remains dependent on others. By providing women with work, Udružene gives them independence and the opportunity “to rebuild their life, to stand up, by themselves.”
The idea for the project came from the observation that almost all women who suffer from exclusion and who struggle to find a place in society know how to knit. So why not use this skill to empower them?
When the project started, the Norwegian Embassy supported the idea and helped turn it into a reality. According to Ms. Vibeke Lilloe, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway in Sarajevo, “The best way of helping these women is to reintegrate them into society, and the best way of doing that is to secure paid work for them. Indeed, holding paid positions gives these women a new sense of self-respect and a feeling that they matter.”
The women who work with Udružene have different stories. They come from all parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Some were directly affected by the war, when sexual and other forms of violence in and outside the camps were used as a tool of war. Some have suffered from domestic violence. Others are simply looking for a way to gain fiscal independence, such as rural women who can find it difficult to find stable employment. Regardless of an individual’s background, any woman with a willingness to gain control of her life is welcome to work with the organization.
To start, women must first improve their knitting skills. According to Nadira, this step is one of the most important and difficult: “It’s not easy to make these women understand that, yes, they have a basic knowledge of knitting, but they need to professionalize their skills to be able to knit specific designs, which can require technical expertise. Once they understand this, the other challenge is to help them overcome their fear of failure and help them to believe that they will succeed.” This requires building the women’s self-confidence and trust in themselves and their abilities. Consequently, before women work with the organization, Udružene provides training sessions in Sarajevo and in different villages around city
After several training sessions, the knitters are ready to begin work at a place and pace of their choosing. Given that items vary in complexity and retail price, women pick the styles of pieces they wish to make. From sweaters and cardigans to hats and scarfs, women choose the type as well as the number of garments they wish to knit. They can work from home, or come to the Sarajevo office and knit in the company of other women. Although these options can sometimes make it difficult for the management team to ensure that orders are completed on time, the freedom the women have to work at their own level of comfort is something that Udružene is not willing to compromise on.
While studies have not been done on the psychological benefits of knitting, it is often compared to yoga. Women have reported to Nadira that their work is therapeutic, that the repetitive and rhythmic motion of knitting is calming, and that focusing on details and patterns keeps their minds free from other concerns. For instance, one of the women confessed to Nadira that, since she started working for Udružene, she has been able to stop taking her medication for depression.
In addition to these benefits, there is the psychological impact of fiscal independence. When women realize they can make a living by knitting garments, they become more confident, report higher levels of self-worth and feel more in control of their lives.
Lastly, women who knit for Udružene are not simply working – they are using a high level of craftsmanship to create beautiful garments. Designers from around the world value their skills, and the women take pride in the knowledge that their work could end up in a shop in Paris or Vienna.
Three years into the project, over 300 women have been trained to produce high-quality knitwear that is sold internationally and the project is now self-sustained. Because all profits go to them directly, approximately 150 of the women are able support themselves and their families entirely through this work. Nadira observes that Udružene provides an environment where women can “re-engage in everyday life through creative work and personal engagement.” Their skills have been turned into a profession, which gives them a sense of confidence and self-worth.
There are many ways to help others, but perhaps the best way is to teach people to help themselves. This is what Nadira Mingasson and her staff at Udružene are doing for women throughout Bosnia.

created: December 7th, 2015

author: Marion Pineau


text:
Education in the Netherlands regarding the Yugoslavian War | Balkan Diskurs
Anna Idzinga
December 9th, 2015
Anna Idzinga and Milou Liebregts present the results of a recent high school survey they conducted in the Netherlands, which highlighted just how little young people there know about the Srebrenica genocide.
Is it realistic to include a war that happened less than 20 years ago in a history curriculum? Are the Yugoslav Wars already a part of history or are their consequences still too present in today’s society for us to even start speaking about “history”? Both of these are important questions to ask, not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also in the Netherlands, considering the Dutch government and Dutch peacekeepers’ central role within the conflict.
As two Dutch students [the authors of this publication] born in the early 90s, we were never taught about the Yugoslav Wars in high school, let alone the fall of Srebrenica or the role of the Dutch peacekeepers in this travesty. Nor did our parents or society teach us about Yugoslav history. It was only at university that we learned about the war and its consequences. Even then, most of the information we received came only as a result of our own pro-active interest in the subject.
At present, however, the fall of Srebrenica is a widely discussed subject in the Dutch media. Most notably the trial of the Mothers of Srebrenica vs. the Netherlands, the acquittal of Lieutenant-Colonel Karremans, and the new information concerning the alleged blocking of air support in the final days. However, despite all this media attention, there are still teenagers who have no clue when it comes to the Yugoslav Wars.
To explore this issue further, we conducted a survey with 222 students aged 14-17 at a high school in the northern region of the Netherlands to find our exactly what young people do know about Srebrenica. We asked them three simple questions: “Where is Srebrenica?”; “What happened in Srebrenica?”; and “When did this event occur?”
Just less than half of the students surveyed knew where Srebrenica is located. A large number of those who did not know its location thought it was in Russia. Strikingly, only 26 students knew when the fall of Srebrenica occurred (which included students who answered that “it happened in the 90s”). Indeed, almost all of the students thought that these events occurred much earlier. An answer such as “at the start of the Second World War” was not uncommon, while some even answered “during the seventeenth or eighteenth century” or “100AD.”
When we asked exactly what had happened in Srebrenica, around 60 students provided an acceptable account of events (i.e. we accepted answers such as: “genocide”; “civil war”; “Muslims were murdered”; and “execution”). Interestingly, only 30 of these students mentioned the involvement of the Dutch UN-soldiers. For the most part, their involvement was also portrayed negatively. Striking answers included: “women and children were murdered, and men were put into work camps under the watchful eye of the Dutch soldiers”; “Dutch soldiers could not do anything, so now everybody hates them”; “there was a civil war where Dutch soldiers murdered innocent civilians”; “there was a war between Christians and Muslims, Dutch soldiers needed to supervise, but then they became scared and just went home”; and “war between Srebrenica and the Netherlands.”
We also briefly interviewed the students’ history teachers, finding that none of them were teaching their students about the fall of Srebrenica or the Yugoslav Wars. According to them, it’s not possible to historically analyze such recent events, citing a lack of available information and the influence of too many people still trying to impose a certain vision. For this reason they deemed it impossible to approach or teach the subject objectively.
Notably, the history teachers at the school thought it important for the subject to be discussed elsewhere in the curriculum. One example given was the subject of sociology. While neither the Yugoslav Wars nor the fall of Srebrenica are included as compulsory topics in the Netherlands’ sociology curriculum, teachers can include such topics within their teaching under the guise of discussing “world news”. The school’s sociology and religion teach also explained that, when Islam is discussed during religion class, the religious diversity of the former Yugoslavia is often highlighted. Concepts such as ethnicity and genocide are all touched on within these discussions.
For younger children, several sources of information are also freely available. One of them is a series of short online documentaries about Srebrenica. The first episode gives a short overview of what happened in Srebrenica (suitable for children aged 9-15). The second follows Dutchbat veteran Boudewijn Kok in his search to Samira, a girl who he saved during the Srebrenica massacre (suitable for children aged 9-12). There are also teaching materials available online that can be used with children up until the age of 15.
It is also possible for schools to invite Dutchbat personnel to give speeches to students about their time in Srebrenica. Dutchbat veteran Derk Zwaan spoke of his experiences:
“I have three types of presentations: a censored version, a version that tells a little bit more about what really happened, and, with the third version, I just tell them everything. But it is really heavy stuff. I took classes to learn how to teach because I believe it is very important that we talk to children and youth about what war really is. We are only taught about the Second World War, but the distance is so big. Srebrenica is very recent, and now a young man stands in front of the class and explains what war is, and how he was damaged because of it. War is fear and people killing each other for a piece of land, power or a flag.”
The next generation is responsible for the almost impossible task of preventing tragedies such as Srebrenica from ever happening again. Therefore, it is a shame that such a challenge is made all the more difficult by young people’s lack of knowledge about what happened in the former Yugoslavia during these dark years. As education plays a large role in conflict prevention, the Yugoslav wars will hopefully become part of history lessons in the near future. For now, we should put our hopes in people such as Derk Zwaan, who voluntarily educates youth about the horrors that took place in Srebrenica and the rest of the former Yugoslavia.

source: news-balkandiskurs

created: December 9th, 2015

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Anna Idzinga


text:
20 Years after Dayton: What’s Next for Bosnia? | Balkan Diskurs
Mads Jacobsen
December 14th, 2015
Twenty years after the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA) was signed, Bosnia-Herzegovina faces challenges such as corruption, high youth unemployment, poor social and economic conditions and a lack of political will to implement reforms. Mads H. Jacobsen and Andreas W. Rasmussen report.
What is the future for Bosnia-Herzegovina? And what are some of the most important steps in resolving these burning issues? These were the topics of the International forum “Dayton 2.0 – The Way Forward 20 Years After” held in Sarajevo this past November and hosted by the Foundation Shared Societies and Values Sarajevo (FSSV) at the Bosniak Institute in Sarajevo. Through a diversity of panelists and participants, the forum explored the future of the DPA and Bosnia while taking into consideration the overall regional and international dynamics.
“I remember back when the DPA was signed. Former President of Bosnia-Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović told me ‘This is not a just peace, but it is more just than war – the world being what it is, we could not get a better peace,’’’ said Šafik Džaferović, Co-Chair of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembly of BiH. During the forum, Džaferović also discussed that, despite the existing problems between Bosnia’s two entities—the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska—the DPA and the liberal democratic values and institutions established as a result of the Agreement had secured Bosnia’s integration into world associations. This was accompanied by Bosnia’s prospects of joining the EU and NATO in the near future.
Bosnia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Igor Crnadak, suggested that the date of the DPA signing should become a national holiday as it had “not just brought peace to Bosnia, but has also kept us together for twenty years.” Crnadak highlighted the reforms that have been successfully implemented, such as the integration of the Armed Forces, Intelligence Service and tax collection, as proof that consensus is possible between the entities, expressing his enthusiasm for Bosnia joining the rest of Europe.
The U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia, Maureen Cormack, emphasized the need for BiH to improve its economy, as well as the education and healthcare sectors. “I express great concern that many young people were leaving the country to find work. Becoming a member of NATO would give foreign investors a sense of security, while, joining the EU and gaining access to the common market would bring great wealth to Bosnia,” Cormack added.
Lidija Korać, former President of the Central Election Commission of BiH and a Venice Commission Expert, spoke of the need to strengthen the institutions in Bosnia to meet the highest European standards and cited human rights as an example. “Euro-Atlantic integration is vital for Bosnia’s future, but, we have to manage our differences inside Bosnia in order to reach a shared existence,” Korać explained.
The High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Valentin Inzko, says that peace should not be taken for granted. “There have been challenges to Dayton in recent years. One of the challenges has been that people have only implemented the things they like and ignored the rest. Dayton must be respected,” Inzko explained.
Former Chancellor of Austria (2007-2008), Alfred Gusenbauer, noted that problems arise both from Dayton and from how Dayton is or is not being implemented, stating: “A main problem is that the entities, according to Dayton, should serve Bosnia but, in reality, they do not”. Gusenbauer stressed the need for a more vibrant and active civil society that could pressure politicians to make the necessary reforms.
Former President of Latvia (2007-2011), Valdis Zatlers, emphasized the lessons Bosnia can learn from Latvia as both are small and ethnically diverse European countries. He noted how Latvia made hard, but necessary, reforms prior to their Euro-Atlantic integration and has avoided interethnic conflicts by providing democracy, security and the rule of law to all citizens. Zatlers later emphasized that next to making reforms inside the countries; there should also be a greater credible commitment to enlargement on EU side.
Former Prime Minister of Netherlands (1994-2002), Wim Kok, noted that potential EU membership is no key to paradise. “Bosnia, political parties, businesses etc. need to join forces, regardless of ethnicity. You should focus on what binds you together and not on what separates you,” Kok stated.
“In the Balkans, we always hope for the best but the worst always happens,” said Branko Crvenkovski, Former Prime Minister of Macedonia (2004-2009). He later emphasized: “Bosnia’s challenges will be solved not by having new politicians in office, but by changing the system itself, especially concerning the many layers of public administration that water down responsibility and accountability.”
This article was written by Mads H. Jacobsen and Andreas W. Rasmussen.

created: December 14th, 2015

author: Mads Jacobsen


text:
Dayton’s 20th Birthday: Between a Struggling Mother[land] and Paternal Political Abuse | Balkan Diskurs
Natalija Krstova
December 16th, 2015
In November 2015, a group of national and international experts gathered to discuss the problems that continue to surround the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords. Natalija Krstova reports.
On 26 November 2015, in Hotel Bristol, Sarajevo, a conference on the topic of the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA), facing the 20 year mark from its signing was held. Organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, “Critical Evaluation of Dayton’s Peace-Making Potential, Democracy and State-building Capacity” was the discussion that gathered eminent national and international experts on the subject, who pointed out and carefully analyzed the problems that the implementation of the DPA is experiencing, now more than ever before. The panelists presented a variety of titles and discussed the obstacles imposed on and by Dayton in the two decades of its existence.
Keynote speaker Soeren Keil from the Canterbury Christ Church University in Kent broke down the institutional and core framework provided by DPA and pointed out its strengths and weaknesses:
“The post war institutional system is complex at best and crazy at worst. This institutional provision provides both inclusion and exclusion at the same time. It provides inclusion by focusing on human rights, by promoting power sharing between different groups, but it promotes exclusion by ensuring only certain groups are represented, by making sure that the parties in power are the key decision makers, and that accountability is literally non-existent.”
Exposing the most pressing issues that Bosnia-Herzegovina encounters on a daily basis, and fiercely criticizing the abuse of political power, Dr. Keil adds: “It seems to me that the current system works for Bosnian elites. It works for them in two ways: first, it provides them with institutional architecture which they can really protect their interest. Not the interest necessarily for the group, but their own interests. Second, it gives them control over certain territories, and everything that comes along with it.”
Identifying the political elites as a major hindrance from the complete implementation of Dayton, Adnan Huskič of the Friedrich Neumman foundation explains a key roadblock to prosperity in Bosnia’s future, in the fulfillment of their private interests over the development of a sustainable democratic society. Furthermore, Huskič offers specific solutions that focus on accountability, working in the interest of the state in lieu of individuals running it.
“Primary social actors in Bosnia are the political parties who assume responsibility of regulating every segment of the democratic state and society. However, when looking at the issue of low electoral participation, it seems like the young generations look at the democratic processes in Bosnia through a very negative prism, expressing little confidence in the political parties. The public impression is that all of the political parties are the same: all are corrupt and incompetent of upholding and acting on the betterment of state and society. The political elites, whom this perception is connected to, do not make even the slightest effort to deny this; the worst part of it.”
Huskič believes a policy that will make voting obligatory may catalyze (even under apparent threat of sanctions) the politically dormant voting body, which consists of a staggering 50%, and thus significantly change Bosnia’s political landscape.
Regarding the subject of political lethargy and the perception of the inert situation, Dr. Senada Šabič Šelo, from the Institute of Development and International Relations in Zagreb palpates the problem in “the lack of true passion and will for a change”, while adding, “the view on the future is mainly based on the past. We want to re-create the past. But the past system is gone, it will not happen. And that is why we are always in a circle of old stories and narratives.”
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the upcoming generations in Bosnia that could be the pillars of a true reform that the country so desperately needs, Šelo invokes the voice of the young generation: “When you go to different parts of Bosnia, you always encounter people that think progressive, but they are lonely individuals within their small communities in which they feel like a minority. Because of these reasons they lack the courage, strength or simply the will to sacrifice themselves for the ‘the greater good’. In this context, is unifying and the empowering the voice of young people in Bosnia possible?”
Analyzing details in the post-Dayton era and the outbursts of solidarity among its ethnically divided communities in the floods in May last year and as well in the protests of 2014, political scientist Asim Mujkič envisions a glimpse of hope for the inter-ethnical relations of the state. Although in waves, not a steady stream of discontent that will provoke the changes, Mujkič believes that the civic problems have yet to be resolved, and have a tendency to come back, regardless of the form in which they appear. The solution to the seemingly unresolvable stagnant situation, according to Mujkič is “to attempt to develop different solidarity networks; democratic alliances, that would be strong enough to challenge the dominant power of ethno-oligarchy.”
The critique and the call for challenging the political elites and the ethno-oligarchic ruling of territories, as well as the suggested solutions to the massive problems caused by the abuse of the Dayton Accord, were the main treads of the Conference’s narrative. The depicted solutions were within the implementing frames of DPA, albeit viewed with a critical eye and scrutiny. Nevertheless, remaining inside Dayton instead of outside its given framework, solutions not only make the progress for Bosnia seem plausible, but at the reach of our fingertips.
Neven Andjelić from the Regent’s University London elaborated the subject of ethnic groupings in Bosnia and pointed out the effects and consequences that the territorial division of the state experienced since Dayton. He emphasized the nuances that form the culture and history after Dayton vary in Bosnia, depending on which ethnic group is the majority. Andjelić argued that these strong differences in cultural and historical differences, are due to the lack of a titular nation in Bosnia, which feeds the fear of constituent nations becoming a minority in a strongly diverse and multicultural society.
In reference to the first multi-party elections in Bosnia, he explained, “One of the first things after the nationalist victory, when taking the oath, newly elected members of the parliament coming from the Croatian party HDZ insisted on double printing the text of the oath. Printing was already in what was distinguished as a Bosnian and Serbian language that at the time were printed the same. In the Croatian language there was one difference; not in one sentence, not in one word, but in one letter. Ironically this difference was in spelling democracy (demokratija/demokracija), just to prove that they are not a minority. The fear of becoming minority was there from the very beginning. Violence during the war exacerbated that fear, of three ethno-political territories being created, where the dictatorship of the majority is noticeable more than anywhere else in Central and Eastern Europe.”
Andjelić made a comparative analysis to the case of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and USSR as the only two post-communist states which were dissolved in a similar manner (both with violent incidents, in Yugoslavia’s case a civil war) and offered a solution that might change the political landscape as we know it in Bosnia, and enforce much prolonged progress for the country. Andjelić added, “In Russia there is a ban in ethnic political organizing. The European Court of Human Rights heard the case and actually upheld this ban. Perhaps the ban of ethnic political organizing might provide change significantly for Bosnia.”
Even with the suggested solutions within Dayton, if progressive ideas are left out floating in the air just on conferences and other occasional intellectual gatherings, changes are far from happening. The agreement remains a peace-in-a-box solution without an expiration date. Dayton has turned 20 years, and instead of bringing a nation together, it has been abused as a tool of political and ethnic division by the powerful party elites. While in service to the elitist ethno-oligarchy, DPA maintains the usual suspect for citizens’ misery in their eyes, regardless of whether they are Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats or others—minorities that remain without recognition, symbolic of the fear and struggle for democratic change.

created: December 16th, 2015

author: Natalija Krstova


text:
Web Portals: From Freedom of Speech to Violence | Balkan Diskurs
Edina Šahmanović
December 21st, 2015
Internet forums are a parallel universe and the real face of a frustrated and bitter society that, unfortunately, is not mature enough to engage in discussions supported by arguments.
Although they facilitate the exchange of opinions and public debate, web portals are also an opportunity for spreading hate speech, which often incites violence. Whether forbidding such comments is limiting free speech is still a difficult question to answer.
Ana Benačić, a journalist from the N1 TV network, points out that forums are a parallel universe and the real face of a frustrated and bitter society that, unfortunately, is not mature enough to engage in discussions supported by arguments.
“They are fertile grounds for hate speech. When people hide behind avatars, they feel confident enough to openly express what they usually keep to themselves,” said Benačić, adding that one of her colleagues reported the death threats he received on a forum to the police.
The police located the person who was behind the threats, but when they showed up on the perpetrator’s doorstep, they found a 45-year-old mother of two underage children.
“Those are the people we see every day,” said Benačić.
Žarka Radoja, the editor of the Radio Free Europe internet portal agrees with the N1 journalist, noting that portals in Serbia and other countries in the region are a place where hatred is spread and all sorts of stereotypes are perpetuated.
“It is worrisome that there is not a single portal where you can read constructive criticism or debates which are not filled with the lowest vulgarities of numerous anonymous people who do not stop at hate speech, but often go as far as threats,” says Radoja.
Benačić, who was named best internet journalist of 2012 by the Croatian Journalist Association (HND), adds that part of the responsibility is with the media, who do not erase inappropriate comments or report the potentially dangerous ones to the police. However, she feels that terminating the discussion is not the solution.
Tanja Topić, analyst and head of the Banja Luka office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, notes that in our public discourse there exists a very filthy and toxic language which is often, in reality, hate speech directed at everyone who is different or who thinks differently.
“We don’t have a culture of dialogue and conversation that includes the strength of actual evidence for one’s claim; instead we are prone to insulting, belittling and badmouthing everything that bothers us because it doesn’t fit into our limited and divided mindsets,” said Topić.
According to Tanja, the internet is the highest form of freedom of speech, and that freedom should be respected as well as nurtured and developed.
“Without suggesting any censure of free expression, I think that every portal’s editorial staff should include an administrator who is responsible for the removal of all comments that spread hatred, hate speech, and intolerance. That would contribute to more responsible behavior from each and every one of us,” explains Topić.
Milkica Milojević, the president of the Association of BiH journalists feels that editors are responsible for all content on these portals, including comments:
“The so-called new media and the internet in general are a huge free space, but we should never forget that freedom, always and in all social circumstances, is a responsibility as well. The problem, however, is that the space for debate is abused as an outlet for insults, hatred, and incompetent comments,” says Milojević.
According to Milojević, the solution for hate speech on the internet is delegating responsibility.
“Editors of portals have to take responsibility for the content on the portal, and that includes comments, especially if they were made anonymously. It is up to them to decide whether they will disable comments on certain topics, or whether they will edit them by removing the offensive, rude, and inflammatory ones,” added Milojević.
According to current legislation, inflammatory speech, hate speech, or speech that incites violence and social or ethnic conflicts is punishable by a fine or up to three years in prison. The laws do not include provisions for the responsibility of the editors of portals who do not remove hate speech, or for those who call for violence.

created: December 21st, 2015

author: Edina Šahmanović


text:
Ars Aevi: A Museum for Peace | Balkan Diskurs
Marta Vidal
December 23rd, 2015
The founder of the Ars Aevi Museum of Contemporary Art in Sarajevo is campaigning for the museum to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Founded during the Bosnian War, the museum was established to be an expression of international will in response to the violence and destruction in Sarajevo.
Enver Hadžiomerspahić, in front of the Ars Aevi Museum (Credit: Marta Vidal) Work by Sandor Pinczehelyi (Credit: Yen Duong) Work by Nebojsa Seric-Soba (Credit: Yen Duong) “If you are looking for hell, ask the artist where it is. If you don’t find the artist, then you are already in hell,” wrote Avigdoor Pawsner in 1793. Two hundred years later, the Bosnian artist Dean J. Toumin quoted Pawsner during the war in Sarajevo. Pawsner’s words now welcome visitors to the Ars Aevi museum.
The idea for a contemporary art museum came to Enver Hadžiomerspahić on the night of 27 April 1992, during the shelling of the Museum of the Olympic Games in Sarajevo. The project gained momentum as a result of people’s reactions to the religious and ethnic divisions during the war.
“It was insane to speak about building a museum of contemporary art in those days, during those weeks and months in which none of us knew if we were going to be alive the next day,” says Enver Hadžiomerspahić, responsible for the conception and strategies of the Ars Aevi project. Together with local artists, and with official support from key figures in Sarajevo, Enver invited the world’s leading artists to contribute to the collection. The initiative aimed at responding to the Sarajevo siege and war with an “expression of an international collective will. … We wanted Ars Aevi to be above all nationalities and religions,” says Hadžiomerspahić. He believes artists gave their work to the museum of contemporary art in Sarajevo not just because Sarajevo was under siege, but as an “emotional response” towards the city where “worlds collide and meet. … The artists wanted to contribute to show that we can live together,” says the founder of the museum.
In September 2015, Hadžiomerspahićofficially announced a campaign to have Ars Aevi nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018. He believes the prize would recognize two decades of collaboration by artists from around the world.
Since its founding, Ars Aevi has established partnerships with other museums in Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Turkey and Montenegro and has received donations from world-renowned artists such as Marina Abramovic, Nan Goldin, Joseph Beuys and Anish Kapoor. The collection contains over 150 works of art, and is estimated to be worth more than 20 million euros.
Ars Aevi means “art of the epoch” in Latin, but it is almost an anagram of the word Sarajevo. The collection is exhibited in one of the buildings that used to belong to the Winter Olympics complex, located in Skenderija in central Sarajevo. Italian architect Renzo Piano designed a building especially for the museum, but construction has been postponed several times. Meanwhile, the space the museum now uses in Skenderija was adapted by Sarajevan architect, Amir Vuk, who designed a wooden box, conveying the idea that this was a temporary storage space for the collection. “Nobody thinks of the public interest, that is why the project remains marginalized,” laments Hadžiomerspahić.

created: December 23rd, 2015

author: Marta Vidal


text:
World Peace with a Hint of Garlic and Tahini | Balkan Diskurs
Alastair Carr
December 28th, 2015
Food can be used to resolve or create conflict. Can culinary diplomacy and gastro-diplomacy increase an appetite for peace?
Two basic and universal human desires are the desire for peace and the desire for good food, but what these mean for different people and how to achieve them are debatable.
It isn’t surprising that peace and food are often connected. Local cuisines reflect the historical tides of conflict, colonisation and migration. For example, Jewish refugees from Russia are the reason why the British gorge on fish and chips and smoked salmon. More recently, Lailia el-Haddad found that Gazans have altered their cuisine in innovative ways to allow traditional dishes to survive the adverse living conditions in Gaza.
What is surprising is that food does not only passively reflect history – food can actually alter history. And it is only recently that the modern world is beginning to notice.
The Arab Spring pushed the issue of food security to the forefront of international thought. Egyptian protesters called for “bread, freedom and social justice”, in that order. More recently, a lack of affordable food has been linked to unrest and war in Syria and Libya. As climate change alters ecosystems and impacts crops, food security is set to become a more pressing challenge.
Yet, there is an emerging movement that suggests what we eat, as well as how much we eat, can provoke conflict or peace. If so, food should be taken seriously as a tool for conflict resolution.
In Hillary Clinton’s words, food is the “oldest diplomatic tool”, having always adorned negotiating tables. Food researcher, Sam Chapple-Sokol, noted how the hallowed act of breaking bread at peace negotiations signals the potential for peaceful co-existence between rival groups. He calls this “culinary diplomacy”, which he defines as “The use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation.”
This idea is well tested if not widely understood. Currently, the University of Haifa is conducting research that indicates that people have more positive perceptions of those around them after sitting down together over a shared meal. Knowing this, the chefs that provide for diplomatic occasions meticulously prepare for foreign dignitaries, aiming to impress them with their own cuisine and with their mastery of the cuisine of the guests.
Yet the scope for culinary diplomacy may be limited. It seems improbable that any amount of champagne and soufflé will persuade Kim Jong Un to give up power. It is doubtful that forcibly preventing world leaders from eating haggis (sorry Scotland) would lead to greater cooperation on combating climate change.
Even so, neither peace nor good food are the sole preserve of envoys and ambassadors. States have increasingly engaged in what Paul Rockower calls “gastro-diplomacy”, or gaining favour among foreign publics by promoting their national cuisines. Rather than using the dining experience to butter up leaders, gastro-diplomacy utilises national cuisines to create positive perceptions of various national identities, enhancing tolerance and cooperation between people.
Thailand’s Global Thai campaign was one of the first explicit gastro-diplomatic efforts, whereby Thai chefs were encouraged to go abroad and set up culinary outposts. South Korea followed suit, launching a US$44 million program to promote Korean food and culture. For example, Korean expats in America experimented with fusing the cuisines of Korea and the USA to create spicy Korean Tacos.
Taiwan has also used food to gain recognition and help differentiate itself from its neighbour, China. It also wishes to promote Taiwanese food in China to improve the attitudes of Chinese people towards Taiwan in an attempt to soften the sometimes hostile attitude of the Chinese government. This strategy is not limited to ‘middle powers’. In 2012, the US government established a Diplomatic Culinary Partnership that sent elite American chefs around the world to showcase US cuisine.
The proof is in the pudding, and by all accounts, these campaigns have worked. Braden Ruddy found that after eating the food of a particular country, nearly 56% of the people in his study changed their opinion of the country and 84% considered traveling to the country. Ruddy also found that conflict-afflicted states that engaged with gastro-diplomacy, such as South Korea and Colombia, were able to forego their previous tag of being a warzone and become known for the quality of their cuisine.
An increasing number of non-state “para-diplomatic” initiatives have taken gastro-diplomacy further. Most famous is the Conflict Kitchen in Pittsburgh, USA, which has inspired other incarnations. The Conflict Kitchen is unique in that it only serves food from states with which the US is “at war”. The aim is to emphasise the shared experiences of all people, and to humanise those who are often demonised in the media. Food can be an effective vehicle for raising awareness and inspiring deeper discussion.
Other exciting ideas are emerging. Some projects seek to use the production of food to engender cooperation and understanding between previously warring groups. For example, the artist, Michael Rakowitz, set up a food truck called the Enemy Kitchen, where Iraqi chefs and US veterans of the Iraq War work together to cook and serve food. Here food is being used to resolve tensions. To achieve their common goals of making good food and turning a profit the chefs are incentivised to resolve their differences.
In understanding that eating food is an emotive and deeply cultural act, we also see how food can divide as easily as it can unify. All human groups, from nation states to families, claim dishes as their own to the annoyance of others. For example, many condemn Israel’s cultural appropriation of famous Middle Eastern dishes such as hommus and falafel. In the south Caucasus, the Armenian and Azerbaijani governments have long bickered about the ownership of dolma, or stuffed vine leaves.
Put simply, food means a lot to us. We can use food to preserve or assimilate cultures, placate others or pursue our own cultural and political goals. Consequently, it is important that we learn how to make food a tool of conflict resolution rather than a source of conflict.
In the Balkans, which has experienced more than twenty years of post-war tension and political stagnation, might it be a good idea to look outside the box and onto our plates? Gastro-diplomacy can engage everyone rather than just the suited politicians in Belgrade, Banja Luka and Sarajevo. By sharing our recipes and cuisines we can share our rituals, stories and understandings; identify our shared experiences and accommodate and celebrate our colourful cultural differences. By cooking together we can build common goals, foster cooperation and long lasting relationships. If you eat, you can be a gastro-diplomat.

created: December 28th, 2015

author: Alastair Carr


text:
Remembering Yugoslavia: Even the Drugs Were Cleaner | Balkan Diskurs
Gerwin Peelen
January 4th, 2016
Nostalgia reflects the present as well as fragments of the past in the former Yugoslavia.
In recent years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has held commemorations for a century of historic events. In 2014, it was the 100-year anniversary of Gavrilo Princip’s assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, an act that led to the First World War. It was also the 30-year anniversary of the Sarajevo Olympics. In 2015, it was the 20-year anniversary of the massacre of Srebrenica, and on 14 December 2015, it will be 20 years since the end of the Bosnian War.
Remembering in Bosnia is complex and fragmented, fraught with ethnic, cultural and political undertones. According to Moll (2013), the competition of memory in Bosnia-Herzegovina is unique, since most European and Western Balkan countries have a dominant memory and a dominant group that colors the political landscape. In Bosnia there are three official narratives of memory. The narratives of the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks compete with each other on several levels, especially in relation to the war and their suffering as a result.
All the successor states of former Yugoslavia have formed a national memory. Yet, in every one of these countries we witness a positive remembering towards the former republic. It occurs in movies, documentaries, posters, parties and exhibitions. Positive remembering is often described as nostalgia, and in remembering Yugoslavia it is called Yugo-nostalgia.
According to different scholars, nostalgia is not based purely on historical phenomena. The longing for the past can say more about the present. Dissatisfaction with current social phenomena inspires an idealized version of the past, imagined through memory and formulated by desire. Some scholars conclude the influence of the present on the remembering of the past makes nostalgia a one-sided presentation of history. In the words of Jameson (1991: 169) nostalgia is nothing more than a stereotype or a cultural fantasy.
Nostalgia is often experienced through popular culture. One key-thinker on the concept of nostalgia, Boym (2001), argues it is nearly impossible to experience nostalgia without it being propagated in popular culture and commercial activities, such as music or movies. In former communist states this might seem paradoxical, because nostalgia is being promoted by a capitalistic system, and flourishes only because of its profitability.
The inauthenticity of nostalgia is highlighted by Enns (2007) in his discussion about nostalgia in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). Enns quotes the director of the movie Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) explaining how the film plays with peoples’ acts of remembering.
We created a GDR that in a way is truer than the true thing. People would come up to us and say, “Wow! It is incredible. It is exactly how it was.” And that is because in our memories things become stronger than they were. And so if there was a dominance of certain colors, we almost forget about the other colors (Enns, 2007: 490).
Whilst nostalgia can function as an escapist tool, especially as the negative aspects of the past are not remembered, there is value in nostalgia. Nostalgia highlights relations between the past and present. Its specifics reflect on what is longed for and missed in the current state. Thus, nostalgia reflects people’s criticisms of current society.
Places like cafés where Yugoslavia is remembered can be described as heterochronic places. Such places contest current time by reliving a past even though the place is an integral part of current society (Foucault, 1986). In 2013, I researched such a place—a small exclusive café in Sarajevo called Café Hag. The café is hidden behind a parking lot. It is so difficult to find one has to know someone who knows were it is. According to visitors, Café Hag is decorated like a typical bar in the times of former Yugoslavia. It features artefacts from that time, including Yugoslavian calendars. Tito continues to watch customers from the wall. I asked the owner of the café, Mesa, and a good friend of his, Srđan, why the café is decorated in this way.
Mesa: “Because this is a multicultural, multi-ethnic place. Everybody is welcome  – Gypsy, Muslim, Serb.”
Srđan: “It is for regular, mixed people in Sarajevo. Now I can’t explain to you these things because Sarajevo now is not like Sarajevo before, fifteen or twenty years ago.”
Mesa: “Before the war.”
Srđan: “Before the war lots of people go out. Lots of people come.” [Or, in other words, the interethnic places Sarajevo once boasted before the war have since vanished.]
The café is an alternative space in current Sarajevo. It displays what no longer exists, and allows customers to reflect on the past, present and future of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It shows the possibilities: the welfare, economic prosperity and the multi-ethnic Bosnian society of the past, which is now seen to be lost. As one of the older men told me, “In Yugoslavia they were stealing from us. But we knew who was stealing. Now we don’t have a clue who is stealing what.”
A man arrives and Mesa tells me he was one of Yugoslavia’s first drug addicts. “He is still alive. That’s a miracle but I think the drugs were cleaner in those days, not mixed up with other chemicals.”
In another conversation a customer explains to me that everyone in Sarajevo has created their own microcosm. Some of these microcosms appeal to a nostalgic feeling for the former republic. He says Café Hag tries to push itself away from the current problems in Sarajevo society, which Srđan referred to as “the jungle”. Yet, the problems voiced by the people of Café Hag, the owner, his friends and customers, are those experienced in the society at large. The café does not fly from history. Nor does it fly from the present. The power of the microcosm created by Café Hag is that in the café people feel more secure and safe to be themselves and say what they like. They say they do not feel this security outside the café. Bosnia is seen as an unsolvable problem. Or as Mesa told me, “It is problematic and it is too complicated. There is no real solution. So I am happy, I will thank God if [the café] will stay the same. I pray to God it can stay like it is.”
References:
Boym, S. (2001). The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.
Enns, A. (2007). The Politics of Ostalgie: post-socialist nostalgia in recent German film. Screen, 48 (4), pp. 475–491.
Foucault, M., & Miskowiec, J. (1986). Of other spaces. Diacritics, 16 (1), pp. 22–27.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Moll, N. (2013). Fragmented memories in a fragmented country: Memory competition and political identity-building in today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nationalities Papers, (ahead-of-print), pp. 1–26.
Silva, F. & Faught, J. (1982). Nostalgia: A Sphere and Process of Contemporary Ideology. Qualitative Sociology, 5 (1), pp. 47–61.
Volcic, Z. (2007). Yugo-Nostalgia: Cultural Memory and Media in the Former Yugoslavia. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24 (1), pp. 21–38.

created: January 4th, 2016

author: Gerwin Peelen


text:
Football Stands: Settling Nationalist Scores | Balkan Diskurs
Abdullah Kozlić
January 6th, 2016
The phenomenon of expressing hatred in the stands and stadiums of Bosnian football clubs has not yet subsided. Experts claim that those in the stands are used to expressing the rage accumulated in their personal lives.
Football fan A.S. (identity known to Balkan Diskurs) told us that the riots in football stands arise from nationalist tensions and usually occur when the fans come from different entities.
“There is never a problem when “Horde Zla” (supporters of FK Sarajevo) come from Sarajevo to Zenica. There will be cheering and trash talk, but that happens everywhere in the world and it’s about proving who’s better. It’s much worse when we from Zenica go to Banja Luka,” said A.S.
Bahrija Savarymoottoo, a social worker at the General Hospital in Zenica explains that a fan in a group of 200, 500, or more people, feeds off the energy of others and becomes a lot stronger and more dangerous when part of a mob.
“Most fans come to a stadium to release all the rage that has accumulated due to various personal events in their lives. All their problems are solved in the stadium’s stands through angry shouting, destruction of property – whether it’s their club’s or the opposing team’s property, state or private property – and inflicting physical and emotional injuries to the other team’s fans,” said Savarymoottoo.
State and entity laws do not have regulations that could prevent violence and hatred on sporting fields. In some cantons, like Zeničko-dobojski, the situation is solved through the Law on the Safety of Holding Sports Events, which sanctions the display of banners that incite hatred and violence or offend national, religious, or other feelings of citizens.
Apart from these regulations, this law also prescribes penalties for individuals and sports associations that organize the event. A sports association can be fined from 1000 to 5000 BAM for negligence and non-compliance with this law. Individuals can be fined from 300 to 500 BAM and be banned from soccer matches anywhere from 3-12 months.
In order to analyze the manifestations of hate speech on the sports fields of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Balkan Diskurs organized an online survey that was shared on several sports sites and forums in the country. A total of 204 people have taken the survey, of whom 165 were male and 39 were female.
The questions and results of the survey are presented below.
Unsportsmanlike conduct from groups or individuals is not uncommon in other countries either and is referred to as hooliganism. That term is used to describe fans that damage society through behavior that violates appropriate norms.
Hooligans are believed to have originated in Great Britain. The word ‘hooliganism’ was used to describe street gangs and their members in the middle and late 19 century.
British stadiums were ruled by hooligans. Each club had ‘fans’ that hated, beat and even killed each other. They also directed their hatred at players, referees, police officers and security guards. Their behavior in the football stands spilled over into the rest of the city, where they destroyed private and state property, burned cars, broke windows, looted, and spread chaos throughout the city.
Today hooliganism is still present, but the situation is much better than before. Rigorous laws, as well as efforts by the clubs and the broader community, have played a large role in preventing hatred and violence in Great Britain, but hooliganism hasn’t been completely eradicated.

created: January 6th, 2016

author: Abdullah Kozlić


text:
Insufficient Punishment of Hate Speech Crimes | Balkan Diskurs
Zlatan Likić
January 11th, 2016
Hate speech is more common than hate crime as it is encouraged by the unregulated sphere of internet communication.
Incitement of hate speech and violence are very present in Bosnian society and some figures are using it to achieve political, states Vladana Vasić a legal representative for the Sarajevo Open Centre (SOC), which is member of the Coalition to Combat Hate Speech and Hate Crimes.
Hate speech is most often directed towards members of a different nationality or religion, ethnic minorities, LGBT people, and women.
For the situation to change, representatives of various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) believe that there is a need to tighten the provisions of the penal code at the Entity level and in the Brčko District.
The current laws in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina prohibit hate speech based on religion, race and nationality. Vasić states that these grounds are too few. In Republika Srpska and the Brčko District, hate crime is defined as any offense that is motivated by prejudice.
Hate speech is more common than hate crime as it is encouraged by the unregulated sphere of internet communication.
The Coalition to Combat Hate Speech and Hate Crimes documents hate speech that appears online. The victims most commonly contact them online or via mail and very rarely decide to report it directly to the authorities for fear of the consequences. The Coalition clarifies that the victims are usually people who are in difficult economic or social situations and already believe the majority has a negative opinion about them.
In a recent analysis, the Press Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that hate speech in the media has evolved. In the 90s, the most common forms of hate speech were motivated by national and religious intolerance. Today, hate speech is most often manifested through the denial of crimes, the affirmation of totalitarian doctrine, and different political and sexual orientations.
The former promoters of hate speech – politicians, religious leaders and journalists – have become more cautious. Nonetheless, their roles have been embraced by internet users who are hidden behind false identities.
In their anonymity they feel safe and sound in their campaign of spreading intolerance, hate towards others, nationalistic rhetoric, ideological exclusiveness, xenophobia and homophobia.
Hate speech and hate crimes are not properly dealt with, even at the Law Faculty in Sarajevo. This field is generally left for debate and discussion through various trainings and seminars held by NGOs.

created: January 11th, 2016

author: Zlatan Likić


text:
The Bridges of Bosnia-Herzegovina | Balkan Diskurs
Marta Vidal
January 13th, 2016
Marta Vidal explores Bosnia’s bridges and the stories of the people who cross them, reflecting on bridges as elements of connection in a country still divided and scarred by recent war.
Of all the things created and built by humankind, nothing in my mind is better or worthier than bridges. They are more important than houses, more sacred, and more universal than temples. They belong to all and treat all alike, at a spot where most human needs entwine. — Ivo Andrić
Bosnia is a country of bridges: Sarajevo is famous for its 13 bridges, among them the well-known Latin Bridge where Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, an event that triggered the First World War. The Mostar Bridge is on the cover of almost every Bosnian travel guide, and the photos of its destruction during the war still haunt the country. Many cried for the bridge the same way they would cry for a deceased friend or family member. Nobel Prize winner Ivo Andrić’s book The Bridge on the Drina is an elegy to the Ottoman bridge in Višegrad, which connected the people living there.
But bridges also have an important symbolic meaning. A proverb says people fight and feel lonely because they build too many walls and not enough bridges. As an element of connection, a bridge is a beautiful symbol of intercultural debate and reconciliation, especially important in a country still divided and scarred by a recent war.
Bridges also symbolize mobility, communication, and development. They can connect people and promote understanding while allowing them to reach the “other side.” During my time in Bosnia, I discovered its bridges and the inspiring people who cross them. These are their stories.
Brisko Corda – Old Bridge in Mostar
The bridge in Mostar is a reconstruction of a sixteenth-century Ottoman bridge that was destroyed on 9 November 1993 during the war. Mostar was named after the bridge-keepers (mostari), and the old bridge, which stood for more than 400 years on the River Neretva, was an important symbol of the city. It was a meeting place and where the famous annual diving competitions were held.
Brisko was born in Mostar and lived there his entire life. He was the last person to cross the bridge before it was destroyed during the war.
“The day I crossed the bridge for the last time my family was split in two, across the two sides of the river. We could only see each other if we crossed the bridge,” Brisko recalls. On that day, one of the sides didn’t have any water, so he had to go to the river. “I was crossing the bridge to bring water to my family. When I was returning, the bridge was bombarded,” says Brisko.
On 8 November the bridge was bombarded throughout the day until it was on the verge of collapse. On the morning of the following day, the bridge collapsed after being hit by three grenades while Brisko was crossing it.
“I cannot grasp the fact that I experienced that and survived. I wonder what I did for God to save me.” Brisko remembers thinking that he would die at the bridge and fall with it into the waters of the Neretva. He ran as fast as he could, and when he reached the end of the bridge he was covered in white dust. “I didn’t have a scratch, I just looked as white as a miller,” he laughs.
But he feels a part of him also crashed with the bridge. “Not only a part of me but of all the people who were born in Mostar and felt the bridge was also a part of their lives,” Brisko says. People grieved for the bridge all over the world, receiving the news of its destruction with despair.
“We expect people to die, [but] the bridge in all its beauty and grace was built to outlive us; it was an attempt to grasp eternity. It transcends our individual destiny. A dead woman is one of us – but the bridge is all of us forever,” wrote Slavenka Drakulić, a Croatian journalist and novelist, about the destruction of the Mostar bridge.
The reconstruction work began in 1997 with support from UNESCO, and the bridge was rebuilt using the same techniques as the original. Croats and Muslims worked together to rebuild it. The official opening ceremony was held in July 2004. “When I was crossing the new bridge for the first time my legs were heavy,” Brisko recalls. “It was an unexplainable feeling.”
Today tourism plays a big part in the city, as the reconstructed bridge attracts big numbers of visitors. It remains the most important symbol of the city, and its reconstruction a hopeful sign of reconciliation.
Elvin Reezepovic – Olga and Suada Bridge in Sarajevo
Named after the first victims of the siege of Sarajevo, Olga Sučić and Suada Dilberović, the Olga and Suada Bridge was constructed after the Second World War. On 5 April 1992, a peaceful demonstration was held in Sarajevo. While protesters marched for peace, snipers aimed at the civilians and opened fire on the crowd.
“The fifth of April is the day of my birthday and it is the same day Suada got killed on the bridge. It’s a very sad day to me,” says Elvin Reezepovic, who was participating in the peace demonstration that day. “I remember seeing Suada fall in front of me. I just happened to be on the bridge at the same time; I didn’t know her,” Elvin recalls.
Suada was a medical student at the University of Sarajevo. She was in her sixth year of studies when the war started. Elvin was close to Suada when she was shot, and when he saw her lying on the floor he began to cry because people were dying in front of him. Six others also died that day. “We took her by car to the Kosevo hospital; I wanted to donate blood to try to save her, but unfortunately she didn’t make it. I still have the horrible image of her body on the bed being rolled through the hospital.”
Because of the bad memories, sometimes Elvin wishes the bridge did not exist. “Whenever I walk past it I turn around and I see the faces of those who died,” he says. But he still loves bridges. “They can connect people, cities, countries. The most beautiful stories are those of bridges.”
Another story connects Elvin to another bridge: on the 9 November 1993, a few minutes after the bridge in Mostar was destroyed, he was severely injured in Sarajevo. “That date to me is like a new birthday. I was declared clinically dead by the doctors. I was very badly injured but I managed to survive.”
Elvin was injured while fighting to defend Sarajevo, and every year on that day he goes to Mostar to visit the bridge. “I think of the bridge as almost a living being. I put my hands on it and I say, ‘You have fallen, and so have I. You have gotten back up, and so have I.’”
Bojan Kanlić – Festina Lente Bridge
The Festina Lente pedestrian bridge was built in 2012 in front of the Fine Arts Academy in Sarajevo. It became a landmark in the city because of its original modern design. In 2007, a contest was held to design a bridge in front of the academy. The winning project was designed by a team of the academy’s students.
Bojan Kanlić studied in the Fine Arts Academy and was in his second year when the project he did with two other colleagues, Amila Hrustić and Adnan Alagić, was selected by the jury. “I think we won that competition because we didn’t think about winning,” says Bojan. “That gave us the possibility to do something extraordinary, something totally different.”
His gravity-defying loop plan of aluminum and steel won the competition, but Bojan and his colleagues had to wait for five years to start building it due to the bridge’s unusual design.
“At first, people were against the bridge; they thought it was too modern and too ugly,” Bojan says. But he believes that “new things have to be ugly because they are different.” He now works as a teacher in the academy, and every day he sees people sitting on the benches and taking pictures. “I think our idea worked and the bridge somehow became a symbol of the city.”
The academy is located in a former evangelical church, so Bojan and his colleagues wanted to unite the secular and the spiritual. The idea to make a loop also came as a metaphor for art. “Art is something that many people see as totally upside down. Something that gives you a different perspective of the world.” So the concept was to create a gate, “a connection between the art world and the everyday world,” explains Bojan.
Festina Lente, which in Latin means hurry slowly, is, according to Bojan, a symbol of the city. “It is connected to the mentality of the people here. Time is different, people are slower. But when people are slower they also think quicker,” Bojan says. The idea was to make crossing the bridge an experience. “Of course, if you’re going too fast, you will not pay attention to the details of the architecture or the beauty of the academy.”
Bojan believes Sarajevo is defined by bridges and for him, each of them has a story. He felt honored to build a bridge in his hometown. “Bridges are very important here even if we have a small river. During the war, the city was separated by the river, and these bridges are a symbol of separation and later connection. They are full of meaning.”
Boris Gojkovic – Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad
The Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad is one of the most important bridges in Bosnia. In The Bridge on the Drina, Ivo Andrić’s best-known novel, the Nobel Prize winner depicts life in Višegrad across the centuries and the stories of those whose lives revolved around the famous bridge, built in the sixteenth century by the Ottoman Empire.
“When I was younger I saw this bridge as just a simple bridge, but now I know that having monuments like this in our town is a real treasure. Because of the bridge, I realized how this small town is beautiful and important,” says Boris, who was born in Višegrad and lived there his entire life.
“This bridge has been here for 400 years, and it is a real symbol of lasting and surviving,” he says.
But the bridge also became a symbol of death. In Ivo Andrić’s famous novel, the bridge is a silent witness to atrocities being committed during the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. During the war in the 1990s, the bridge was chosen as a place of serial public executions of Muslims, as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. According to the ICTY, Višegrad was subjected to “one of the most comprehensive and ruthless campaigns of ethnic cleansing.”
In 1992, the bridge was the bloodiest site in Višegrad, where men, women, and children were shot into the waters of the Drina. Visible from almost every part of the town, the executions happening there were meant to be public.
The number of people killed at the bridge was so high that at the end of June 1992, a police inspector in Višegrad received a complaint from the management of the hydro-electric plant across the Serbian border. “Could whoever was responsible please slow the flow of corpses down the Drina? They were clogging up the culverts of the dam,” reported Ed Vulliamy, a journalist for the British newspaper The Guardian.
Ivo Andrić’s book was an elegy to the Ottoman bridge and the way it connected people from different ethnicities, religions, and cultures living around it. But the bridge is no longer a symbol of connection, since the memories of the atrocities committed there during the war still haunt Višegrad.
Enver Hadžiomerspahić – Ars Aevi Bridge in Sarajevo
The Ars Aevi Bridge was designed by the renowned Italian architect Renzo Piano and built in 2002 as part of the Ars Aevi Contemporary Art Museum. It was envisioned as an access point to the museum of contemporary art planned to be built next to the National Museum in Sarajevo.
The idea to start a contemporary art museum materialized on the night of 27 April 1992, as the Museum of the Olympic Games in Sarajevo was being shelled. The project emerged as a reaction against the religious and ethnic divisions during the war.
“It was insane to speak about building a museum of contemporary art in those days in which none of us knew if we were going to be alive the next day,” says Enver Hadžiomerspahić, responsible for the conception and strategies of the Ars Aevi Project.
Together with local artists and with the official support of key figures in Sarajevo, Enver invited the world’s leading artists to form the collection for a museum of contemporary art. The initiative aimed at responding to the siege and the war as an “expression of an international collective will.”
“We wanted Ars Aevi to be an international project, to be above all nationalities and religions,” says Enver. When the project started receiving donations from world-renowned artists “it was not just because the city was under siege, it was an emotional response of artists and their feelings towards Sarajevo where worlds collide and meet,” Enver believes.
When architect Renzo Piano came to Sarajevo in 1999 to the opening of an Ars Aevi exhibition, he was thrilled with Sarajevo’s bridges. “It was a rare example of a city populated by bridges. He thought it would be beautiful to build a bridge in front of the museum,” tells Enver.
Piano built the bridge himself with partners from his foundation. “The bridge is a gift of Renzo Piano to Sarajevo. When he told me about his idea to build a bridge, I said it would be beautiful. He said: ‘Of course it will, I will make it,’” Enver recalls with a smile.

created: January 13th, 2016


text:
The Visoko Memorial for the Srebrenica Genocide Victims | Balkan Diskurs
Lejla Bečar
January 18th, 2016
The Square dedicated to the Srebrenica genocide victims in Visoko was inaugurated last year on 5 October making Visoko the only municipality in Bosnia-Herzegovina to have honored the victims in this way.
The Square of the Srebrenica Genocide Victims is located in the very center of Visoko. The Square includes an amphitheater, a fountain and a memorial plaque located by the promenade. The inauguration was attended by a large number of invited guests and citizens of Visoko. The mayor of the Visoko municipality, Amra Babić, said that there was an obligation to pay lasting respects to the victims of the Srebrenica genocide.
“The obligation to do so comes from the 6777 victims buried so far, all of whom have been identified and prepared for burial right here in Visoko, from which they were sent on their final journey to their resting place – the Memorial Center in Potočari,” emphasized Babić.
John Clark, a forensic pathologist who worked in Visoko from 1999 to 2001 as the main pathologist for the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), stressed the crucial role Visoko has played in shedding light on the crimes that took place. Clark addressed those present on behalf of more than 100 experts from 33 different countries that have worked under his leadership.
“The reason Visoko was chosen for this purpose was based on the foresight of certain people who’ve designed a plan and offered us the space to work,” said Clark. In the reports he sent to The Hague, Visoko is specified as the starting point. Clark is happy that the local government felt obligated to make the connection between Visoko and Srebrenica even more visible and more permanent, and he stated that the Square is just one more reason for him and his colleagues to always come back to Visoko.
Suada Selimović, the daugter of Srebrenica mother Šuhra Malić who, in 2001, opened the Memorial Center in Potočari, was also present during the inauguration of the Square. The drawings of three young artists on the walls of the promenade, which depict her mother, neighbor and his son was the reason for her presence. The three young men had requested a license from the municipality to create this, and their work is both a gift to the city of Visoko, and a way to honor the victims of genocide.
“These portraits of my mother and our neighbor Ramo, who is calling for his son Nermin, will be an eternal reminder of the horrors that happened in Srebrenica. There are really no words to express my gratitude to the young men who’ve come up with this idea,” said Selimović.
The three artists are members of the artist collective HAD (Hamo, Anel, Dama), and, as part of their Silence project, they have engraved portraits and figurative representations onto a 35-meter-long wall as a way to permanently memorialize the victims.
The members of HAD were motivated by a sense of responsibility and the desire to influence future generations – through their work, they attempt to bring these generations closer to this topic, which is often too heavy or too vaguely presented. One of the members of HAD, Anel Lepic, stressed: “We want this topic to be talked about more often, not just in the five days before 11 July. The research we did prior to developing Silence, has shown that people are already starting to forget and that materials are either unavailable or non-existent in certain cases.”
The work of the young artists was officially opened with a peace walk on 19 November 2015.
Stories about whether the construction of the Square was a move made by local authorities or just an inadequately situated reminder of the suffering have long been replaced by other news in the media. Nevertheless, the link between Srebrenica and Visoko has been carved in stone for future generations. The building of the Square has been financed from the budget of the Federation of BiH in the amount of 300,000 KM.

created: January 18th, 2016

author: Lejla Bečar


text:
Lessons of the Balkan Refugee Crisis | Balkan Diskurs
Mirjana Kosic
January 20th, 2016
Insight on Conflict’s local correspondent Mirjana Kosic assesses the impact of refugee flows across the fragile Balkans.
With the wars of the 1990s still branded in the collective psyche of people in the Balkans, recent scenes of thousands of refugees from the Middle East traversing the area have prompted uneasy memories of our past hardships. They have also offered a sobering reminder of how fragile a human life is, and how world affairs most severely affect those who have the least responsibility for such calamities.
Impact on the region
The refugee crisis has profoundly impacted the region, both positively and negatively. Like the catastrophic floods of 2014, which united erstwhile enemies in joint acts of solidarity, the refugee crisis has mobilized people throughout the region to unite and channel aid to places where it was most needed. Once again, the humanity of ordinary people prevailed, transcending the ethnic and national borders that politicians constantly entrench.
In a stark contrast to their citizens, Croatian and Serbian politicians exploited the crisis to exchange mutual attacks, invoking the warmongering rhetoric of the 1990s. Overwhelmed by an unrelenting flux of refugees streaming through their two countries – exacerbated by Hungary’s decision to seal its borders with Serbia and Croatia – they blamed each other for inefficient handling of the crisis. This muscle flexing culminated with the temporary closure of the border between the two countries, which incurred huge economic losses for both. Serbian and Croatian leaders were only unanimous in their condemnation of Hungary’s stringent refugee policy, claiming that – unlike Hungary – they had no intention to erect any walls or fences.
However, in a joint effort to alleviate the crisis and expedite the movement of refugees through their territories before the winter encroaches, Croatia and Serbia signed a protocol on border cooperation in late October. By providing free train transportation, which enables refugees to bypass border crossings where they had frequently been stalled, the two countries demonstrated that solutions do exist when there is a political will to pursue them.
Neither Croatia nor Serbia are final destinations for refugees, who are determined to find sanctuary in Germany or Scandinavia. It is highly disputable whether their comments on refugees would have been as understanding and welcoming, if they had been final destinations. Leaders in both countries warned that their countries are not to become “migrant hotspots,” with Croatian PM Milanović reiterating that “we have hearts, but we also have heads.”
Lessons for the EU
Croatia (already an EU member) and Serbia (aspiring to EU membership) have competed to demonstrate their adherence to “European values” and behave in line with “European standards.” The EU itself has contributed to the crisis, through its lack of political will to reconcile internal differences and respond adequately.
In an attempt to defend her more lenient refugee policy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned about the possibility of “military conflicts becoming necessary again” in the Balkans. By suggesting that conflicts in the region are inevitable, Merkel implied an almost innate proclivity of its people towards wars and instability. Such portrayal of the region reveals a hegemony within the EU, delineating the lines of its periphery. Sadly, it also shows that Europe has not learned a basic lesson from the Yugoslav wars – not to revert to stereotypes that conveniently exonerate the EU from taking action. Instead, it should acknowledge that it does have a responsibility to act, and that whatever occurs at its broad periphery has a profound effect on the entire continent.
Another lesson from the 1990s that has been ignored is the importance of conflict prevention. It is usually too late, too expensive and too ineffective to merely “manage” a conflict or crisis once it is already rampant. Indicators of an impending crisis must not be ignored, however far away they appear. The refugee crisis, therefore, should not have come as a surprise, because millions of Syrian refugees have been living in camps in Turkey and Jordan since 2011. But this has been ignored, and until this summer was perceived as “their” problem.
It was only when people started drowning on the shores of Europe and suffocating in the trucks of traffickers exploiting human misery, that the EU found itself confounded and required to find a solution.
The solution, however, will not come in the form of a quick financial fix, as recently promised by the EU and the UN to countries on the Balkan route in order to “deal with the migration crisis.” By doing that, the region will be turned into a buffer zone or protective belt, created to prevent further refugees’ flows into the EU. That would make it a place that will forever remain at the periphery of Europe, and will always be seen as a junior “other,” only capable of producing conflicts and crises, dependent on outside help.
The EU keeps reminding the countries of the region that 20 years after the end of the Balkan wars, the progress achieved in terms of reconciliation between different ethnic groups has been way too scant. However, this refugee crisis should serve as a reminder to us all that peacebuilding is not an end process, and peace itself is not a goal that, once attained, can be considered “done.”
This article was originally published on Insight on Conflict. Published by Peace Direct, Insight on Conflict is the leading online resource for local peacebuilding and human rights in conflict areas.

created: January 20th, 2016

author: Mirjana Kosic


text:
Pionirska House: Silence and Denial in Višegrad | Balkan Diskurs
Marta Vidal
January 25th, 2016
The Bosnian war ended 20 years ago, but the eastern town of Višegrad still struggles over its collective history. Local authorities wanted to demolish a house on Pionirska Street, where 70 Muslim civilians were burned alive. Protests put the decision on hold, but a permanent solution has yet to be found.
On 14 June 1992, 70 Muslim civilians were taken by a group of armed Serbs to a house on Pionirska Street in the eastern Bosnian town of Višegrad. They were locked in the basement, where the carpet beneath their feet was set ablaze. At least 59 people were burned to death.
A few days after the first fire, on 27 June 1992, in a house in Bikavac, Višegrad, arsonists lit another fire, which killed 60 civilians – again, all Bosnian Muslims. The house in Bikavac was destroyed, but on Pionirska Street the house of death, now a memorial to the victims, remains. It is one of the few memorials that exist for the Muslim civilians murdered by Serb forces in Višegrad.
“In the all too long, sad and wretched history of man’s inhumanity to man, the Pionirska Street and Bikavac fires must rank high,” said presiding judge Patrick Robinson when delivering the first instance verdict for Milan Lukić and his cousin Sredoje Lukić, who were convicted of various crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). “There is a unique cruelty in expunging all traces of the individual victims, which must heighten the gravity ascribed to these crimes,” the judge stated. Milan Lukić was found guilty of persecutions, murder, extermination, cruel treatment and inhumane acts and was sentenced to life in prison. He was also found responsible for the murder of 59 Muslim women, children and elderly people in the house on Pionirska Street.
Of Lukić, “Some people here think he is a hero, others think he is bad,” says a young Serb boy who lives close to Pionirska Street. His family moved to Višegrad at the beginning of the war, and his mother witnessed the fire from her house. “Lukić did it,” the boy says, while walking with us to the house.
Recently restored and painted white, the memorial house shows a commemorative plaque honoring all those who died there. At the entrance to the basement were dried flowers that had been left to honor the victims.
Local authorities want to demolish Pionirska House to construct a road, which would erase this memorial to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place in Višegrad during the war. The house was scheduled for destruction in December 2013. Protests put the decision on hold.
“The proposed expropriation and demolition of the house is brutally indicative of genocide denial in Višegrad,” says David Pettigrew, Professor of Philosophy and Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Southern Connecticut State University. “The local authorities are looking for an excuse to demolish the house in order erase the memory of the atrocities that were committed.”
Professor Pettigrew first visited Višegrad in July 2010, when he was invited to accompany the Missing Persons Institute (MPI) and the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) during their exhumations along the banks Drina River. In 2010, work on the Bajina Basta hydroelectric dam had caused the river level to drop, so experts from the MPI and ICMP thought it was highly likely they would find the remains of victims who had been murdered on the Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad and thrown into the river. “Upon reaching the riverbank, we immediately found human bones,” the professor recalls.
In March 2014, Professor Pettigrew visited the memorial house on Pionirska Street with activist Bakira Hasečić, who had participated in rebuilding the house to prevent its destruction in 2013. Police intimidated the activist and Mrs. Hasečić received a court order with a fine for her part in rebuilding the house. She believes the local authorities are using the house as a “political strategy”, and says, “It is a humiliation the victims are going through again.”
While Pionirska House is in danger of being demolished, there exists a statue dedicated to Serb soldiers in the city center. “The statue in the middle of Višegrad that honors the perpetrators is just another example of genocide denial and psychological intimidation designed to re-write history and discourage refugees from returning to their former homes,” says Professor Pettigrew. He recently wrote to Samantha Power, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, to express concern about the Višegrad municipality’s plan to destroy Pionirska House.
Of Višegrad Bakira Hasečić says, “It’s my hometown, but I feel it has been abandoned by the country.” During the war she witnessed terrible atrocities and was a victim of sexual violence. Some of her family members were killed during the ethnic cleansing campaign. According to the ICTY, Višegrad was subjected to “one of the most comprehensive and ruthless campaigns of ethnic cleansing”.
After the war, Hasečić became a prominent human rights activist and founder of the Association of Women Victims of War in Sarajevo. The aim of the association is to give support to war-time victims of sexual harassment and rape. “In this association anyone can be a member, we don’t care about ethnicity,” says Hasečić. “It is multi-ethnic and multinational… War criminals have no ethnicity, they are just criminals.”
Bakira Hasečić now lives in Sarajevo, but often visits Višegrad since she has a house near the town. “I’m not afraid to go there anymore. There are no guns,” she explains. However, Hasečić admits that she still feels psychologically intimidated during her visits. “There are many things that bother me there. There are memorials to perpetrators. We see war criminals in the streets.” According to Hasečić, the fact that many perpetrators have not faced criminal charges and walk freely in the town is in and of itself a form of intimidation as well as a violation of the right to return that was defined by the Dayton Agreement. As a result, “There was a project for the return of refugees, but it didn’t work.” Although more returned to the surrounding villages, only a few Muslims returned to Višegrad.
Višegrad’s Tourism Office refused to answer questions about the memorials in the town. According to Professor Pettigrew, the silence about the war is part of a “culture of denial” prevalent throughout the Republika Srpska.
“We don’t talk about the war,” says a waiter working in the spa of Hotel Vilina Vlas, located five kilometers outside Višegrad. The hotel served as one of the main detention camps where rape and torture occurred during the war. According to the waiter, “The war is in the past, we don’t talk about it. The past is past, we look toward the future.”
However, there seems to be little future for Muslims in Višegrad. The town is now almost entirely populated by Bosnian Serbs. The cemetery seems to be the only land left to Bosnian Muslims, or Bosniaks as they are often called. Most mosques were destroyed during the war, and the two that remain are empty. The Muslim cemetery was closed when we tried to visit it, but from the green gate we could see the dates inscribed on the white tombstones: 1992, 1992, 1992. Between May and July 1992 at least 2,000 Bosniaks were massacred in Višegrad.
“I feel the town is not mine anymore,” says Hasečić. She wants to build a gate around Pionirska House and organize an exhibition of photographs of the victims on the first floor of the house, but she faces objections and threats from those now living in her hometown. This does not keep her from fighting for justice. “I will continue this fight as long as I live,” states Hasečić.

created: January 25th, 2016


text:
Hate Speech That May Evolve into Crime | Balkan Diskurs
Danka Cvijić
January 27th, 2016
Hate speech is used less now than during the 1990s, but it is still seen most frequently in political campaigns. Thus it has to be prevented, in order for it not to evolve into crime.
Toxic words quickly and easily infect entire populations. Such speech has caused some of the worst conflicts, wars, and crimes. One example is that of the former Yugoslavia. During the 1990s, propaganda was spread through the media calling for the lynching of those on the opposing side. Even though the 1990s are behind us, there still exist messages that contain hate speech.
Radmila Čokorilo, a professor from the Faculty of Political Sciences in Banja Luka, thinks that hate speech is the strongest weapon, especially during a war, because of the psychological effects it has on those to whom it is directed. According to Čokorilo, one of its primary functions is to intimidate the population.
She claims that, if such speech is broadcast through mass media, it leads to a state of fear among the citizens, and contributes to insecurity and fear for personal survival.
“I think that the citizens don’t trust the media as much as they used to, especially since the last decade of the 20th century [referring to citizen’s trust in the media during the 1990s, which contributed ethnic division and war]. Today, propaganda is primarily used for political purposes. Politicians don’t mince words during an election campaign so as to psychologically influence potential voters,” states professor Čokorilo.
Still, she claims that there is less hate speech now than there was in the war and post-war period.
“I think that hate speech is slowly, but steadily, retreating into history where it belongs. I hope that all media have learned their lesson and that no time or space will be allocated for hate speech moving forward. All of us need to work together to eradicate hate speech,” concludes Čokorilo..
Among the media, web portals remain the least controlled. Portal owners give readers the liberty to comment freely, which is often abused in the name of free speech.
Borislav Vukojević, a media expert with a master’s degree in Communication Studies, compares war propaganda with today’s media hate speech and draws attention to the dangers of not sanctioning comments on web portals.
“The propaganda of the 1990s was the so-called black, open propaganda, which was spread through the media without penalty. Today, we do not see that kind of incitement (when discussing traditional media), but we do see it in web portals that do not stop hate speech in their comments section,” says Vukojević.
As he explains it, spreading hate speech through radio, newspapers, television, or editorial content of web portals is a criminal liability. However, due to the unclear position of web portals, Vukojević stresses that there has been a return to the period of black propaganda.
“The people responsible remain silent, using the justification that the media have no right to limit freedom of speech, but they don’t understand that this is not freedom, but abuse,” adds Vukojević.
Post-war hatred is not only expressed through media, but also through vandalism such as graffiti, and through individual songs by artists who call themselves patriots.
During various assemblies and holiday celebrations, hatred between different nationalities is very pronounced, and is often expressed in messages that are spread through the media, which then cause a reaction – conflict. Another expression of hatred is commentary on social media, which also has a strong influence on the people reading it.
If we ask young people what they think about hate speech and how, in their view, they feel it is represented in the media, they will not give us a complete answer, because as media experts well know hate speech is “packaged” in such a way that it can be subtly placed into the minds of citizens.
“I follow the media daily, if not television, then I read the newspaper or look at what’s new on the web portals. Hate speech is not as noticeable when it’s intimidation of people through various news and messages, but insults based on race, gender, religion, and other grounds are visibly present in the comment sections of portals,” says A.R., a student from Banja Luka. She adds that the highest level of discrimination is directed at the LGBT community and in political speeches during election campaigns.
What one might conclude is that even though the war is over and the weapons have been put aside, it sometimes still seems like we want to kill each other. That is why the media and everyone else need to work on eradicating hate speech, which, as we’ve seen in the 1990s, can be a deadly trigger.

created: January 27th, 2016

author: Danka Cvijić


text:
Graffiti in the Name of Art or Hate? | Balkan Diskurs
Nataša Kondić
February 1st, 2016
Graffiti is a type of written or painted message, usually in response to the state of society. It encourages people to further their creativity and originality through creating pieces that few can ignore, regardless of whether the graffiti is positive or negative in nature.
Ivan Šijaković, professor of sociology at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Banja Luka, considers graffiti an expression of rebellion, the product of a captive consciousness.
“People of a weaker mindset, those who experience a certain form of entrapment or cannot accept and understand others because they haven’t yet discovered themselves, are usually the authors of the graffiti. Such people tend to write offensive graffiti that is directed at someone, or some ethnic or religious group. They reveal their identity as a way to protest against someone else’s,” stresses Šijaković.
We have witnessed how negative graffiti that calls for discrimination outweighs the positive instances—the ones that humorously represent the state of our society.
“Graffiti  can have a positive, humorous message, but also often presents certain attitudes, therefore, every tension in society – ethnic, religious, or national, has been used as grounds to create graffiti against others. Graffiti can incite hatred because its messages are public statements. They alone cannot produce hate speech, but they are an expression of it. The person creating the messages already feels that hatred, which they later write in a public place,” stresses Šijaković.
Šijaković feels that such actions should be controlled and reduced. The instigators of these actions are most often people who don’t have the courage to openly and loudly proclaim their opinions and attitudes about a certain situation to the public, but instead do it in a perfidious way. According to Šijaković, the message that will be presented to the general public is of a primitive, trapped, or limited mindset. It is such people, he adds, who give a bad name to the ones who create graffiti in the name of art.
One professional tattoo artist who paints graffiti in his spare time emphasizes that he strives to send positive messages to the people who look at his work. He feels that there is a need for more murals in order to decrease the number of threatening messages of a nationalistic nature. He is aware that such content cannot be prevented as the perpetrators usually create it during times when no one is on the streets. He stresses that there is a big difference between graffiti,  murals, and simply scribbling offensive content in plain letters on walls. The latter is vandalism.
When we asked young people about graffiti, they said that even though there are positive examples that adorn buildings, the majority of instances are negative and desecrate beauty. According to them, this is an expression of frustration among younger generations and, above all, a result of a lack of proper upbringing and manners.
When asked whether graffiti can lead to hatred and, subsequently, discrimination, one student at the Faculty of Political Science in Banja Luka stated that various forms of vandalism, most commonly graffiti, do lead to discrimination.
“Usually the perpetrators are fans of different sports clubs or members of different political parties and different nationalities. They use graffiti to spread their messages of hate and to poison the rest of the population,” she explains.
The fact is that graffiti has become a sort of collective expression of viewpoints. It is possible that an entire group has a certain attitude, but the person writing is the presenter, seeking out people who think like them. Graffiti plays a duel role. First, it allows a person to express their position while remaining hidden from the public eye. Second, it can provoke thought and a visible reaction from its viewers.

created: February 1st, 2016

author: Nataša Kondić