Hegel (2012, p.6) states that "people and governments have never learned from history or acted upon what they learned". Is this true, or is it not the case that, rather, we learn from experience, and not only do we do it again but we, in fact, improve it? Failure to learn from experience does “not only serve the purpose of protection (and preservation) of social and personal identity but also may reinforce the commission of further atrocities.” (Cehajic-Clancey, 2012, p.236)
In this paper I will discuss the ideas that what we learn depends on the narrative we are exposed to, how it should change from a single biased one to a more honest and inclusive history not only in the interest of truth, but also because that is what is required for a holistic process of reconciliation to succeed in due time and taking into account different cultures have particular views and approaches to healing.
Controlled historical narratives are the prerogative of dominant groups and victors. The infamous Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, perfected political advertising as an effective tool to spread hate and justify genocide. His dark legacy prevailed and has been learned. Nowadays technological advances improves access to the way the media defines conflicts and their history “ in line with ideological discourses, which direct dealing with the war past, determining responsibility, and punishing war crimes, and are exploited by the political elites’ interests’’, (Erjavec, 2011 p.42) And its power and reach do not stop there. It is also an important component in education worldwide especially when it comes to historical narrative. In Europe glorification of one people and reinvention or usurpation of a mythical past to spread hatred, encourage division and fuel tensions in times of crisis or war was , for instance, utilised in World War One posters and newspapers on all sides. The same was later exploited by fascist Italy and Spain and perfected by the Nazis, and used by all belligerant countries before, during and after World War Two. Following their footsteps, fifty years after the Holocaust, ultra nationalist in the former Yugoslavia used the press to redirect the formerly repressed nationalistic sentiment to exacerbate tensions. Serbia, specifically, created their own narrative to promote Serb supremacy, incite war, dehumanise and exclude Bosnian Muslims, Bosniaks, in order to justify their extermination.
Here it must be said that “it is obvious that the Serbs were the main aggressors in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo, there is no doubt that Croats, Kosovar Albanians, and Bosnian Muslims set up defence forces and were not simply innocent bystanders, waiting to be ‘ethnically cleansed’’ (MacDonald, 2002, p.3). Nevertheless, Serbian propaganda has ever since used that to downplay the extent of the atrocities committed or to paint themselves as innocent victims of historical injustice and international anti-Serb sentiment. In the context of their trial at The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Radovan Karadžić bluntly declared that nothing happened in Srebrenica, and Slobodan Milošević blamed Bosniaks for carrying out their own genocide for which, he alleged, they received French aid. (ITCY, 2018). Two decades later, in a speech at the Fourth International Conference: Stop Genocide and Holocaust Denial Sarajevo in 2018, the President of the United Nations International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Carmel Agius condemned the leaders of the Serbian part of Bosnia Herzegovina, the Republic of Sprska, for “seeking to annul the 2004 report on the Srebrenica genocide…with the aim of rewriting the history” (Aigus, 2019) and he called on all countries to not only criminalise and persecute Holocaust denial but also that of the 1990’s Rwandan and the Bosnian genocides.
Far-right revisionists and ideologues have constantly tried to intelectualise denial or use pseudo science to discredit evidence, survivors and witnesses of the Holocaust despite the fact that they may face criminal charges in countries like Germany. Other countries still refuse to acknowledge the 1915 Armenian genocide or have written favourable narratives of their own historical crimes. Some individual perpetrators like Felicien Kabuga, accused of single-handedly inciting and financing the Rwandan genocide in 1994, or Ratko Mladic, believed to be the mastermind of the Srbrenica genocide, managed to evade international arrest warrants for years, and denied the events, which, even with their subsequent capture, trials and convictions, jeopardised the reconciliation processes.
Reconciliation and healing for all are, at the very least, challenging whilst having a single master narrative because it creates a hierarchy of oppression and solidarity, as well. We know the annihilation of six million Jews was systematic and driven specifically by antisemitism and white supremacist ideology, that is not in dispute, nonetheless, there is a certain degree of lack of real recognition of non Jewish victims of the Nazi Regime in general, and, specifically, those likewise persecuted on the grounds of ethnicity, which, according to the 1946 United Nations Genocide Convention, is a basis for charges of genocide to be pressed. Half million to three million Roma and Sinti people (accounts still vary) were murdered in the Samundaripen (meaning ‘mass killing’ in Romani cultures) however, this is still, more often than not, sidelined on Holocaust Memorial Day, commemorative events or dedicated museums. The Roma community campaigns for the official international recognition of their genocide, and of the prevalent Antsiganism or Romaphobia. Their struggle tends to be ignored partly because of accusations of appropriating the Holocaust. (Popov, 2013)
In like manner, master narratives of the colonisation of the American Continent justify or plainly deny the genocides of Indigenous Peoples or First Nations, what is known as the Native American Holocaust which in words of he late Lakota elder, and activist for Indigenous Rights, Russell Means is “probably the most sophisticated form of genocide invented” (Russell Means, 2010, min.1.10) since invasion by Europeans began in 1492. This genocide is widely unacknowledged or denied despite the colonisers’ own accounts of events such as the very comprehensive story of exploitation, slavery and genocide written by Fray Bartolomeo De Las Casas from his arrival in 1502, and which he the aptly named “Tears of the Indies” with it "Being an Historical and true Account of the Cruel Massacres and Slaughters of above Twenty Millions of innocent people ; Committed by the Spaniards in the Islands of Hispaniola , Cuba , Jamaica , etc. Also, in the Continent of Mexico, Peru, and Other Places of the West Indies, to the Total Destruction of those Countries"(De Las Casas, Phillips, 1953)
The status quo narrative of history, however, perpetuates the Columbus-era myth of discovery which legally and philosophically gives the European colonists the right to Native Land (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2006) Independence processes did not stop the violence shared by the many hundreds of distinct Indigenous Peoples, from Greenland to Patagonia and the Caribbean islands. One example is the decimation of Mexico's Yaqui people in the first decades of the 20th century. The Yaqui tribe, with a proud history of resistance to colonisation and pogroms, were forcibly displaced from Sonora in the far North to Yucatan in the unfamiliar hot Southeast to be enslaved and exterminated in henequen plantations. As slavery was technically illegal, the rich plantation owners and the government created a system that would indebt the Indigenous person to the estate so they had to work for their freedom, often to death. (Turner, 1911). The Yaqui genocide of an estimated 150 000, half of the tribe then, remains mainly unacknowledged in education, culture, and public discourse. This exclusion from the official narrative of the history of the period means no justice has ever been made, on the contrary, the killings, repression and indifference continue to this day, albeit differently, but so does their resistance.
These examples assist in finding solutions and answers to complex relevant questions. What happens when war ends but conflict doesn't? Do all conflicts have a clearly defined winner and loser, perpetrator and victim, or can some have more than two sides? Do all perpetrators participate in physical violence? Can we judge them all equally? What happens to those Dona (2019, p.2) calls “The subaltern, marginalised from historiographies of violence” , the ‘other’ victims, or the silently compliant onlookers who, in a Kantian sense, may claim they have kept their high moral ground by not taking active part in atrocities even though they chose to not help victims either but to conform to a newly created law making violence whereby they sacrifice freedom for state security, or as Benjamin (2007) said a 'mythic violence’,
The classic binary discourse of us and them, of one victim and one perpetrator “has contributed to fix such identities as essential, natural and homogenous’’(Montenegro, Piper, 2009) and creates a discourse where particular cases and "individuals are sacrificed to the severe demands of the national objects” Hegel (2012, p.9) whereby the system has the monopoly to draw and enforce legal violence (Nazi racial laws were legal, for instance) and each group focuses on creating their own narrative (Bar-Tal and Cehajic-Clancey, 2014) with the most powerful sector dominating the widely accepted discourse. Therefore, as Butler (2006) suggests, in order to address violence we must first examine who is establishing the framework and for what reasons, what their aims are, and, in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity, how they use those parameters to claim obedience, innocence, justification, and self-defence. Serbia in this case opted for issuing contradictory accounts, doctoring statistics, banning lessons on Srebrenica in schools, and claiming they have never attacked other countries at the same time that Croatia claims to have just defended herself against Serbian aggression.
For this purpose it is necessary to broaden our analysis by using Dona’s (2019, p.3) “framework of constellation of narratives (which she) reconceptualised and adapted… to analyse ethnic and political violence.” Her framework aids in the reconciliation process more effectively inasmuch as it breaks with this binary to assign responsibility or recognition, blame or victimhood, to heretofore sidelined sectors and contributes to reparations and healing of all society, including groups who have also been affected but are often sacrificed in the name of national unity, simplification or to mantain the dominant historiography to silence calls for reparations. However, as Franovic (2008, p.17) clarifies “This is certainly not to say that all sides have to be blamed (or compensated) equally. But it is to say that all suffering has to be acknowledged, no matter whose responsibility it was”. Neglecting and othering minority groups or collaborators, and failing to hold a just accountability process that includes the silently compliant part of society who may not necessarily have taken active part in violence or a genocide but, nonetheless, did nothing to stop it, only damages trust in social relationships and risks making reconciliation so superficial that ‘Never again’, a phrase linked to the Holocaust, becomes a meaningless slogan and not a call to prevent it from repeating. And, indeed it keeps happening. The Srebrenica genocide, which claimed the lives of over 8 000 Bosniak men and boys in July 1995, is being referred to throughout this paper to illustrate how propaganda and education impedes reconciliation and peace building as Serbian perpetrators of this genocide have since preferred to forget, deny, or create an alternative reality.
With this in mind we now must ask what we mean by reconciliation. Many questions emerge. What does it involve? Why is it not always achieved after conflict, especially after great loss of life and freedoms as it happens during dictatorships, and genocide? For whose benefit is it? Whose responsibility is it to start, lead and mediate negotiations? Which groups should sit at the table? Does everybody always strive to achieve it? Does it require the victims’ forgiveness? Can there always be justice for all the parties? What are the obstacles? Can reconciliation bring lasting peace?
Reconciliation defined simplistically is “the act of causing two people or groups to become friendly again after an argument or disagreement” It is clear this basic and utopic definition does not fit complex conflicts that involve historical feuds, crimes against humanity, sexual violence or, indeed, genocide, nor does it fit with long and brutal dictatorships as the past becomes taboo, and oppressive ideas and structures are kept to hinder true reconciliation and pave the way for further conflict to happen like in Spain or Chile because their transitions to democracy which were approved and overseen by the dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, respectively, to ensure some sort of continuity, promote a ‘forget and forgive’ approach, and ensure amnesty for perpetrators.
Fonovic (2008) summarises what other known scholars define as reconciliation as a process to amend and restore relationships to heal the community and build justice and peace. Reconciliation processes sometimes do not give much consideration to “the types of relationships pertaining prior to the fracture…, the nature of the process of fracture itself” (Rigby, 2012, p.236). They tend to be pragmatic and seek a quick end to conflict, prioritising a focus on the future. They avoid dwelling in the past and solving the original issue thus risking repetition. Rigby ( 2012, p. 13) states that “Theorists and practitioners within this approach have focused on the primacy of institution-building and infrastructural reconstruction, and have paid very little overt attention to the ‘subjective’ dimension of peace-building… They fail to take account of the emotional challenges faced by those seeking to come to terms with loss in the context of post-conflict life”.
Therefore the kind of reconciliation to work towards must have a “ holistic perspective by combining the three phenomenon types (political, social, and economic) with its three levels (individual, communal, and national)” (Strupinskiene, 2017, p. 3). It ought to allow for emotions to be shared in a safe space and in a non-exploitative or condescending manner, as a reckoning with the truth and building trust between former enemies, victims and perpetrators, onlookers and neglected survivors, because “without the full truth, the society could continue coexisting but would be stuck in the cycle of superficial trust resulting from necessity” (Strupinskiene, 2017, p.12). Tellingly, peace accords tend to be mediated and guided by outside agents who may also bear responsibility for the escalation or continuation of conflict by supporting coup d’etats, selling weapons, training troops like the CIA has done globally, or simply, by failing to act to stop it like in the case of NATO and the UN in the Bosnian genocide.
Narratives and reconciliation correlate inasmuch as they both have different meanings and desired outcomes for opposing sides, they have a symbiotic relationship. They both tend to be marred by power imbalance, the “privilege of constituent parts to act for themselves … above the interest of the whole, the greater good” (Hegel), Signed agreements provide a false sense of peace which has been achieved by glossing over crimes and human rights abuses, or “excluding any data of reference to the past or to theories about the future” (Galtong, 1969, p. 167), and expecting victims to relive their trauma and, yet, forgive and move on in the name of unity. A successful honest peaceful post-conflict society’s historical accounts require the inclusion of all the parties involved as well as reassurance that the process shall encompass the five factors of reconciliation suggested by Rigby (2012): Security, justice, time, justice, culture.
Indeed, different cultures on opposing sides of the narratives and negotiation tables, and in very different contexts of violence approach reconciliation or, even, coexistence according to their community values or suffering. For instance, First Nations in Canada, and in most territories in the American Continent, promote the idea that reconciliation is more than coexistence and inquiries. Acknowledging, changing, and educating old and new generations truthfully about the many crimes against Indigenous peoples is necessary to achieve culturally respectful justice, reparations, inclusion, cohesion and healing. This is in reference to colonisation, and, specifically just for the purpose of this paper, to the Canadian Indian Residential Schools programme which, until the 1980’s took Native children away from their families to intern them in so-called ‘boarding schools’ so as to force them to assimilate into colonial white European settler culture. The specific aim was “to destroy aboriginal language and culture, ‘to take the Indian out of the child.’ ” (Jung, 2009, p.6) Although most crimes committed against Indigenous Peoples in the whole American Continent fit in the UN definition of genocide, such as displacements, forced sterilisations and mass murder, MacDonald and Hudson (2012, p428), refer to the IRS system as “cultural genocide as a “ground floor” and a means to legally and morally interpret (it).”.
The Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair, Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established to investigate the IRS in Canada states “education caused this mess, and education will also get us out” (Waterfall, 2018, p.9) . His quote is often referred to by Indigenous people in Canada to express how they approach the path to reconciliation. In addition to this, Campell (2020) makes clear that reconciliation does not require survivors to relive their trauma to educate the public, and it is not tokenistic, charitable or a performative act. In this context reconciliation is political and personal, individual and collective and involves “openness and communication among community members, without blaming or shame; clear role expectations and people taking responsibility; and a sense of connectedness and sensitivity to one another which promotes healthy partnerships and collective action.” (Krawl, 1994. p.2). For Lamouraoux (2020), reconciliation is a gift from First Nations survivors to the whole community so that everyone can heal and live together.
In heavy contrast to the Indigenous culture-based approach to healing, the path of reconciliation in Bosnia Herzegovina and the other five former Yugoslav republics after the 1990’s wars and the Srebrenica genocide is as complex as the culture and history of ancient rivalry of the peoples of the Balkans itself. Josip Broz, Tito, who united and ruled Yugoslavia for 35 years, created a multicultural education system where sectarian nationalism was strongly discouraged, and which focused on uniting the federation’s many ethnic groups to build a strong Yugoslavia. (Georgeoff, 1966). However, after his death, repressed hostility was evident in all sectors and by the time war broke the Serbian leaders had fed the myth of replacement of Serbs by Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims, to justify genocide (Sells, 1996)
The unity broken by the Yugoslav War resulted in the formation of six new countries with prevalent strong post-war geopolitical and religious divisions, government structures, and reformed education systems that reflect, propagate, perpetuate and, even, exacerbate prejudices, power imbalance. and distorted biased versions of truth (Bacevic, 2014). Nowhere is this more visible than in Bosnia Herzegovina. Twenty six years after the Srebrenica genocide, the three prominent ethic groups: Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs, and the Kosovan Albanians and Roma minorities, have what Rigby (2012) calls ‘surface coexistence of separate lives’ with little or no contact. The Dayton Agreement after the war restructured Bosnia as a two part federation, one side shared by Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks , and over 50% of territory given to the Republic of Srpska in Bosnian Serb control (Franovic, 2008). Further segregation within Bosnia Herzegovina means the country has councils, cities, and parliaments divided into ethnic groups as well.
Controversially, schools also divide Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croat students and staff into so-called ‘Two schools under one roof’, two curriculums in two languages with two narratives of history and geography in one building where children of different faiths and ethnicities seldom cross paths. Thus, schools act as recruitment ground for nationalist parties which helps preserve the state of cold peace where there is neither aggression nor friendship and the risk of a conflict restarting is ever present. (Miller, 2000). Young people grow up within their own “ethno-national group and learn from a mono-ethnic curriculum that does not foster understanding or tolerance of others, but breeds suspicion” (Swimlear, 2013, p2) which endangers even surface coexistence and makes talks of reconciliation at this stage infeasible.
Optimistically, however, students in some towns like Jajce have taken action to demand integration of the schools and have allowed themselves to socialise with peers outside their own ethnic and religious group. Cities like Monstar already have integrated schools that promote values of openness, tolerance, unity, and some community leaders campaign to build bridges to unite people, as opposed to as physical, political and philosophical marks of separation.
On the whole master narratives create a black and white picture of “almost totalising violence exposed in the public domain of the single story” (Dona, 2019, p. 13) with two sides: beginning and end, victory and defeat, bravery and cowardice, central victimhood and prioritised criminal acts. A new history demands that the world also hears the voices of the sidelined victims, such as the, family members of the children, now adults, forcibly taken to Indian Residential Schools in North America, or the, mainly Bosniak, women raped by Serbian forces during the Yugoslav Wars, and the outcast children born as a consequence.
In conclusion, the healing of lasting personal and inter-generational trauma and reconciliation require an all inclusive narrative, honest conversations and acknowledgment of historical and sociopolitical truths, and educating everyone on the painful past lest we forget and continue on a path of self-destruction and incessant antagonism and war. In the famous words of Santayana (2017, p.182) “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
REFERENCES
Bacevic, J. (2014). From Class to Identity: The Politics of Education Reforms in Former Yugoslavia. Hungary: Central European University Press.
Bar-Tal, D. & Cehajic-Clancy, S.. (2014). From Collective Victimhood to Social Reconciliation: Outlining a Conceptual Framework. 10.1007/978-1-4614-7491-3_8. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258145641_From_Collective_Victimhood_to_Social_Reconciliation_Outlining_a_Conceptual_Framework
Benjamin, W. (2007). Critique of violence. In On Violence (pp. 268-285). Duke University Press. Available at:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780822390169-037/html
Butler, J. (2006). Violence, non-violence: Sartre on Fanon. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal , 27 (1), 3-24.
De Las Casas, B. (1953). The Tears of the Indians: Being an Historical and True Account of the Cruel Massacres and Slaughters of Above Twenty Millions of Innocent People Committed by the Spaniards in the Islands of Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica, Etc. As Also, in the Continent of Mexico, Peru, and Other Places of the West Indies, to the Total Destruction of Those Countries. Academic Reprints. Available at:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Tears_of_the_Indians/YZA4AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=BARTOLOME+DE+LAS+CASAS+tears+of+the+indian&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
Donà, G. (2019). The revised constellation of genocide narratives and the untold social history of genocides. In The Marginalised in Genocide Narratives (pp. 136-151). Routledge. Available at:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2682-9573
Dunbar-Ortiz, R., & Gilio-Whitaker, D. (2016). " All the Real Indians Died Off": And 20 Other Myths about Native Americans. Beacon Press.
DW Documentary (14/01/2018) Bosnia and Herzegovina: an ethnically divided country | DW Documentary (online video) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHSO0RQFRe8 (Accessed 09/12/21)
Erjavec, K. The case of Dobrovolja^Ka: An analysis of the Serbian and Bosnian-Herzegovinan daily press, Media and National Ideologies.
Analysis of reporting on war crime trials in the former Yugoslavia, 41. Available at: https://media.ba/sites/default/files/media_and_national_ideologies_-_za_web.pdf#page=42
Franovic, I. (2008). Dealing with the past in the context of ethnonationalism: The case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/8633069/Dealing_with_the_Past_in_the_Context_of_Ethnonationalism_The_Case_of_Bosnia_Herzegovina_Croatia_and_Serbia
Georgeoff, J. (1966). Nationalism in the History Textbooks of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Comparative Education Review, 10(3), 442–450. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1186565
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (03/012018) Srebrenica Genocide: No Room For Denial. (online video) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq77TySTst0&list=PLHmMw-lz0DJBh18IZjZpdWzRa6JbZxABZ&index=26 (Accessed 25/12/21)
Hegel, G. W. F. (2012). The Philosophy of History. United States: Dover Publications.
Hill, G. (2010). 500 years of Indigenous resistance. United States. PM Press
Journeyman pictures (15/09/2010) School Between The Fronts - Bosnia (online video) Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpO1ijEkqgs (Accessed 09/12/21)
Jung, Courtney, (April 8, 2009) Canada and the Legacy of the Indian Residential Schools: Transitional Justice for Indigenous Peoples in a Non-Transitional Society. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1374950
Kant, I. (1992). The Conflict of the Faculties= Der Streit der Fakultaten. University of Nebraska Press, 901 N. 17th St., Lincoln, NE 68588-0520.
Krawll, M.B, 1994 Understanding The Role of Healing in Aboriginal Communities, APC 10 CA. Available at:
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ndrstndng-hlng/index-en.aspx
MacDonald, D., & Hudson, G. (2012). The Genocide Question and Indian Residential Schools in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 427-449. doi:10.1017/S000842391200039X
MacDonald, D.B. (2002) Balkan holocausts? Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia. Manchester University Press. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/35067/341321.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Reconciliation. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved January 3, 2022, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconciliation
Miller, B. (2000) ‘Explaining Variations in Regional Peace: Three Strategies for Peace-making’, Cooperation and Conflict, 35(2), pp. 155–192.
doi: 10.1177/00108360021962048.
Marushiakova, Elena & Popov, Vesselin. (2013). Holocaust, Porrajmos, Samudaripen ... Creation of New National Mythology.. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235700074_Holocaust_Porrajmos_Samudaripen_Creation_of_New_National_Mythology
Montenegro, M., & Piper, I. (2009). Reconciliación y construcción de la categoría víctima: implicaciones para la acción política en Chile. Revista de Psicología, 18(1), ág-31. Available at: https://revistaestudiosarabes.uchile.cl/index.php/RDP/article/view/17126
Partos, G, (03/03/2010) Karadzic reawakens ghosts of the past. BBC News World. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8547110.stm
Rigby, A. C. P. Weber & J. Johansen, eds “,How do post-conflict societies deal with a traumatic past and promote national unity and reconciliation?” in Peace and conflict Studies: A reader, Abingdon: Routledge, 2012, pp. 234-246. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/9864332/How_do_post_conflict_societies_deal_with_a_traumatic_past_and_promote_national_unity_and_reconciliation?bulkDownload=thisPaper-topRelated-sameAuthor-citingThis-citedByThis-secondOrderCitations&from=cover_page
RussellMeans (15/09/2010) Genocide Commentary (online video) Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNpeAmT98CA (Accessed 12/12/21)
Santayana, G. (2017) The Life of Reason. Open Road Media. Available at: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=EH13DgAAQBAJ&hl=en_GB
Sells, M. A. (1996). The bridge betrayed: Religion and genocide in Bosnia (Vol. 11). Univ of California Press.
Strupinskienė, L. “What is reconciliation and are we there yet?” Different types and levels of reconciliation: A case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Human Rights, 16(4), 1–21.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2016.1197771
Subotić. "Genocide Narratives as Narratives-in-Dialogue". Journal of Regional
Security 2:177-198. Available at:
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=398161
Swimelar, S. (2013) Education in Post-war Bosnia: The Nexus of Societal Security, Identity and Nationalism, Ethnopolitics, 12:2, 161-182, DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2012.656839
Tausan, M. (2021) Bosnian Army Ex-Soldiers Charged with Torture, Prisoner abuse. Available at: https://balkaninsight.com/2021/12/31/bosnian-army-ex-soldiers-charged-with-torture-prisoner-abuse/
Tedx Talks (19/03/2010) Reconciliation is dead | Lori Campbell | TEDxKitchenerED
(online video) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZomGTHKMLaw
(Accessed 12/12/2021)
Tedx Talks (19/03/2010) Truth and Reconciliation | Kevin Lamoureux | TEDxUniversityofWinnipeg (online video) Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FG8SXalxTg
(Accessed 12/12/2021)
Turner, J. K., & Reed, J. (1985). México bárbaro (No. F1215. T87 1983.). Ed. Quinto Sol
Simic, O., Volcic, Z., & Philpot, C. R. (Eds.) (2012). Peace Psychology in the Balkans: Dealing with a Violent Past while Building Peace. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1948-8
Waterfall, H. P. (2018). Healing through culture. In Tortell, P., Turin, & Young, M. (Eds.), Memory (pp. 9–20). Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbtzpfm.4
