Hayden White, an American historian, said that the narrative is the ideal form for history, with annals and chronicles not capturing the interconnectedness and fluidity of history. He argues that historical events as 'emplotted' into narratives to serve particular meanings, but that no single historical narrative necessarily has any more correct meaning that another (261-262).
This viewpoint has been rejected by most of the historian community, which views it as a form of dangerous post-modernism that denies the possibility of objective truth or 'more-correct' narratives (262).The author seeks to apply Dr. White's philosophy of historical truth in an analysis of selected literature on the Bosnian War by looking at multiple 'objective' accounts and seeing which narratives have been emphasized or de-emphasized in each work (263). The author chooses to focus his analysis on discussions of the period between 1990 and 1992 (264).
- Interpretations of the Bosnian War fall into two general categories: those describing a civil war where a state falls into chaos and those describing an international conflict between multiple states. Both categories of books address themes of ethnicity, historical grievances, aggressive nationalism, religion, political and economic failure, and genocide, but the 'civil war' accounts tend to focus more on ethnicity, religious, and historical animosity, whereas the 'international conflict' narratives tend to focus more on nationalism, political and economic issues, and actively genocidal policies (267).
'The War in Bosnia' by Edgar O'Ballance is the clearest example of a 'civil war' narrative, characterizing the conflict as a three-way civil war between rival militias. Mr. O'Ballance focuses on the figure of Alija Izetbegovic, the President of Bosnia, on whom he places most of the blame for allegedly advance an agenda to turn Bosnia into a Muslim state. Other ethnic leaders, and their faults, get much less attention that President Izetbegovic (267).
Mr. O'Ballance's account of President Izetbegovic initiating the conflict to advance Muslim power and his own authority is contradicted by most other authors, who emphasize the role of paramilitaries crossing the border from Serbia in September 1991 in igniting the conflict (267). Similarly, Mr. O'Ballance's blaming of Alija Izetbegovic for failing to create a coalition government in December 1990 is simply false, as they did so to oust the Communist government (268).In order to better center the narrative around President Izetbegovic, Mr. O'Ballance ignores the independence movement among Bosnian Serbs in 1990 and 1991 since the Bosnian Serb's unilateral declaration of independence does not fit into his narrative driven by the actions of Alija Izetbegovic. This narrative focus tends to shift blame for the war from the Serbs onto the Bosniaks (268).This narrative also emphasizes the rule of 'natural' and historical animosity between ethnic groups in driving the war. Although President Izetbegovic is especially blamed, all groups are derided as equally responsible for driving bloodshed and committing atrocities. This view implies that ethnic warfare is the natural state of the Balkans and that the Tito administration represented a rare and artificial break from that pattern (268-269).
'The Yugoslav Conflict' by John Zametica was written by a political man, who understood the importance of history and analysis in creating policy; a trait demonstrated by his decision after the book's publication to reverted to his previous name of Jovan Zametica and work as an advisor to Radovan Karadzic. This political motivation colors the entire book, as Bosniak leadership is smeared as clerical, this designation used as the reason for Serbian rejection of the government (269).
Mr. Zametica puts the emphasis on the cause of the conflict on the decision of the government to apply for recognition with the European Community, which is censured as a violation by the Bosniaks and Croats of the inter-ethnic pact to not leave within unanimity. The violation of this agreement by the Serbs by unilaterally seceding is not mentioned (269-270).
'Broken Bonds' by Lenard Cohen also assigns blame to the Bosnian government for seeking international recognition, choosing to ignore the destabilization engendered by the Serb and Croat attempts to secede from Bosnia (270).
Mr. Cohen's account also heavily indulges in essentialized stereotypes about the role of history in creating the Bosnian War. All parties in the conflict, including the Bosnian government, are characterized as ethnic militias conduct a brutal war along ethnic lines. The history of the Balkans provided the conditions for brutal ethnic conflict to 'naturally' emerge, with its existence in the Bosnian War proving this hypothesis with circular logic (270-271).
'Yugoslavian Inferno' by Paul Mojzes provides an account more balanced between characterizing the Bosnian War as a civil war or an international conflict, but still privileges the first narrative due to Mr. Mojzes's focus on religion as a factor in the conflict. This narrative stresses the irrational nature of Balkan warfare, being motivated by passions and religious belief (271).
The collapse of Bosnia into war is explained by reference to the historic violence in the region, an alleged lack of any previous tradition of peaceful resistance, and the psychology of the Balkan peoples, which is found to be juvenile and too underdeveloped to allow for independent self-rule. Although individuals are blamed for creating the conflict, they are assumed to have acted in an environment that was independently and essentially violent and volatile (271).The orientalism and racism of Mr. Mojzes's account of the Bosnian War is particular surprising because it exists despite a preface in which the author recognizes the influence of personal experience and background in shaping perceptions of the war, explores his own mixed-race Yugoslav background, and comments that history does not determine the future (272).
'The Yugoslav Drama' by Mihailo Crnobrnja, the contemporary Yugoslav ambassador to the European Community, considered the Bosnian War to be an ethnic conflict, caused by aggressive nationalism, which he also blamed for the destruction of Yugoslavia (272).
Mr. Crnobrnja's account notes that the Balkan peoples are lived in peace for centuries, directly challenging narrative that premise violence of primordial animosity, instead blaming the actions of specific leaders for precipitating the crisis (272).This account also directly denies the assignation of blame found in other narratives about the Bosnian War, claiming that all parties were responsible for the events of the conflict. This is especially noted in the fact that, even if they had specifically directed ethnic cleansing operations, neither Alija Izetbegovic, Slobodan Milosevic, nor Franjo Tudjman intervened to stop these atrocities after hearing about them (272-273).Mr. Crnobrnja's general assignation of blame means that he argues against claims that Serbs committed more violence. He condemns Western media for over-reporting the crimes of Serbs, arguing that these crimes have only been reported because the Serbs control the most territory, but that identical crimes were committed by Croats and Bosniaks (273).
'Ethnic Nationalism' by Bogdan Denitch blends the 'civil war' and 'interstate conflict' narratives to argue that it was a civil war in a country 'murdered' by Serbia and Croatia. His main argument is that the Bosnian War was driven by the inability of Bosnia to construct a non-ethnic 'demos', although he maintains that inability was a decision of Bosnian politicians, not the result of the country's history or nature (273-274).
Mr. Denitch argues that the reemergence of ethnic identities in Yugoslavia was the result of the collapse of other common forms of universal identity in the wake of the collapse of Communism (274).
'Balkan Babel' by Sabrina Petra Ramet puts the conflict between Serbs and non-Serbs, which is alleged to have charged politics in Yugoslavia since 1918, at the center of the narrative of the Bosnian War. She explicitly argues that Serbs were responsible for the dissolution of a common Bosnian identity in the late 1980s, as demonstrated by the continued inclusiveness of the formal Bosnian government during its conflict with ethnic Serb forces, contesting both narratives that blame the Bosniaks and those that assign equal blame to all parties (274-275).
Ms. Ramet focuses upon the changes in culture and society in Bosnian during to and prior to the outbreak of violence, noting that the collapse of Bosnia cannot be reduced solely to politics, but must also include a study of culture and religion during that period (274-275).
'Yugoslavia's Bloody Collapse' by Christopher Bennett creates a narrative where the Bosnian War is primarily an international conflict in which an otherwise peaceful, if contentious, process of self-determination is intentionally spoiled and made violent by Serbia (275-276).
Many of the events and narratives privileged in the account provided by Mr. Crnobrnja are also emphasized by Mr. Bennett, but whereas Mr. Crnobrnja looks at the conflict as primarily autonomous and internal, Mr. Bennett places the actions of the Bosnian Serbs within the context of a plan for Greater Serbia pursued by the Serbian government (276).The blame for the Bosnian War is assigned directly to the Serbs, in particular the Serbian government, and especially Slobodan Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic is designated responsible for creating the political conditions for violence and for driving the genocidal campaign of Serbs within Bosnia (276).
'The Death of Yugoslavia' by Laura Silber and Alan Little constructs a complex narrative for the larger collapse of Yugoslavia, blaming Slobodan Milosevic in particular for creating a destructive Serbian nationalism that divided Yugoslavia, but also laying blame on all other nationalities for responding to President Milosevic by indulging in their own harmful and violent forms of nationalism (276-277).
In other accounts were the Serbs are the primary antagonists, like the work of Mr. Bennett, other sides get off with relatively little blame. Ms. Silber and Mr. Little upset this trend, noting the vile and provocative behavior of other parties, such as Franjo Tudjman in Croatia. At the same time, some figures are exonerated, like Alija Izetbegovic, whose rejection of the notion that Islam could support violence undermines the narratives developed by Mr. O'Ballance and Mr. Zametica (277).
'Balkan Tragedy' by Susan Woodward places the collapse of Yugoslavia within larger global narratives of state collapse and transitions from communism to capitalism in the 1990s. As a result, the account denies that the conflict fits into the categories of either civil war or interstate conflict, but instead represents an instance of state collapse that should be analyzed with reference to other instances of state collapse immediately following the end of the Cold War (277-278).
Instead of focus on the specific of local and national politics, this account focuses on the general role of economics in the collapse of post-socialist states, namely that areas more closely integrated with capitalist economies clash with less developed areas of polities leading to conflict over economic policy and the nature of the state (278).Although the account privileges the structural and economic origin of the conflict without adequate explanation, other parts of the book provide important insight into regional politics and the direct origins of the conflict. In her account, Ms. Woodward does not lay blame on any one group but holds that all groups were responsible, emphasizing that Croatia was as guilty as Serbia in trying to ethnic cleanse mixed areas of Bosnia (278-279).
- The author holds that the survey of literature on the Bosnia War demonstrates the truth of Dr. White's view of history, since no one account of the conflict can claim total ownership of truth. This shows that history itself cannot resolve questions, as the perspective of the historian is crucial in determining what lessons are drawn from that history (279-280).
- An essential issue with all of the surveyed texts on Bosnia is that they take the division of Bosnia into politically-organized ethnic groups as a given, ignoring the role that politics and society played in intentionally constructing these ethnic identities and making them politically salient (280-281).
No comments:
Post a Comment