In the early 1990s the unraveling of Yugoslavia was well under way, and by the time war reached Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Yugoslavia was almost nonexistent. Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia had already proclaimed independence with relatively little military conflict. When the time came for former Yugoslavia's most central and most heterogeneous republic to break away, things did not go as smoothly. BiH was, and still is, historically ethnically mixed between Bosnian Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks. These classifications are indivisible from their religious connotations: Croats are (generally) Roman Catholic, Serbs are Christian Orthodox, and Bosniaks are Muslims. Despite the Yugoslav fairytales of "brotherhood and unity" and the previous Communist government's ability to quell most attempts at nationalist uprisings, when the government fell so did the people's identification with a Yugoslav nationality because "the Communists failed to achieve lasting results in propagating Yugoslav unity.
[...] Tenth Anniversary of the Dayton Accords and Afterwards: Reflections on Post-Conflict State and Nation-Building.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, East European Studies. December 2005. General Framework Agreement. Operation Joint Endeavor (IFOR). NATO. http://www.nato.int/Ifor/gfa/gfa-home.htm Gloppen, Siri, and Skaar, Elin, and Suhrke, Astri, eds. “Roads to Reconciliation.” Lexington Books. Lanham, Maryland Hall, Rodney Bruce. “National Collective Identity: Social Constructs and International Systems.” Columbia University Press. New York Mousavizadeh, Nader, ed. Black Book of Bosnia.” The New Republic, Inc. New York Wachtel, Andrew Baruch. [...]
[...] The principles of Dayton created peace at the expense of justice, and at the expense of equality, for it is a segregated peace. But what could be done about this now? Have the effects of the land demarcation been too ‘successful' and made the idea of a unified Bosnia (not only in name) an impossible goal? One proposal that has been presented by numerous NGOs is that refugees should return to the places they come from. But in Bosnia the return would mean mixing the three ethnic groups again. [...]
[...] According to Carl Bildt, the first High Representative for Bosnia following Dayton, it was perhaps the most “ambitious peace agreement in modern history” because it “sought to create a new political entity which was not a product of popular consensus or popular involvement and was seen by many Bosnians as an external imposition”[10]. Because this was not an agreement reached by those it would affect, only the “60,000 U.S. and coalition troops [ ] with 34,000 troops on the ground” were holding it together[11]. [...]
[...] Social Construction of Man, the State, and War: Identity, Conflict, and Violence in the Former Yugoslavia.” Routledge. New York and London Woodward, Susan L. “Balkan Tragedy.” The Brookings Institution. Washington D.C Aleksa Djilas, The Nation That Wasn't, as included in the “Black Book of Bosnia.” Pp 24-25. The New Republic, Inc. New York Aleksa Djilas, The Nation That Wasn't. As included in the “Black Book of Bosnia.” pg Derek Chollet, Dayton at Ten: A Look Back. Tenth Anniversary of the Dayton Accords and Afterwards.” Pp 23. [...]
[...] It is debatable what exactly were the goals of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (GFAP) and how forward- looking they were, but among the most crucial provisions were the establishment of the inter-entity boundary lines, an establishment of the Office of the High Representative conditions for maintaining a cease- fire, a new constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina and the involvement of the international community. This Agreement introduced a complex federal system of governance in Bosnia based on an attempt to quell nationalist desires for autonomy and independence, and resulted in several experimental outcomes with the presumed goal of securing peace and brining about a relatively peaceful multiethnic coexistence within the borders of one state; by dividing it along ethnic lines, ironically. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
