5 Memory carved in Sarajevo *
5.4 Similarities, differences, intersections
The memorial complexes at Vraca and Kovaci can be regarded as the most important memory sites of, respectively, World War II and the 1992-95 war in the city of Sarajevo. Both sites commemorate the local experience of armed conflict – the occupation of 1941-45 and the siege of 1992-96 – and make sense of it through the recollection of a wider interpretation of the war within which it occurred. Both sites had their own 'role' during the conflict they recall: Vraca was used by German occupying forces as a torture and execution site; Kovaci became a burial ground out of necessity during the blockade of the city, not far from the frontline that encircled Sarajevo separating it from the outside world. Both sites remember a traumatic event in the past of the city, inscribing the social shock of war into a narrative that constructs the legitimation of the newly established state through the commemoration of its fallen, wounded, displaced citizens. They do so by providing a meaning to the losses caused by the conflict – resistance against an unjust oppressor and defence of freedom and independence, the efforts undertaken by 'true patriots' at the highest costs. On both sites, this recollection is sanctioned by the words of the leader, inscribed on stone in the form of messages by Tito at Vraca and reported on the walls of the Museum dedicated to Alija Izetbegovic at Kovaci and on his tombstone, although the physical presence of the former President in the Kovaci cemetery constitutes an obvious difference. On both sites the citizens fallen during the war are named as 'fighters', and both implicitly claim that armies were set up out of necessity and of the will to defend the city. Ethnic belonging is downplayed in the identification of these fighters,
87 Government of Canton Sarajevo, Proposal for Conclusion 02-05-17172-2/10, 16th April 2010, www. ks.gov.ba.
but while in the rhetoric of Vraca Memorial Park it is substituted by class and ideological identification ('true patriots' as workers, the youth, communists and the intelligentsia), at Kovaci references to religion and differences in the outlook of nisans implicitly identify the bulk of fighters as Bosnjaks/Muslims.88 Women are present on both sites (with a dedicated sculpture at Vraca and in the burial ground at Kovaci), but the representation of their role in the conflict is relegated to the margins by the difficulty to distinguish their graves at Kovaci and the ambiguity and inadequate visibility of the sculpture at Vraca.
A fundamental difference between the two sites is constituted by the symbolic way they link past, present and future. Vraca focuses on the past and the experience of conflict to assert the values of communism/socialism and establish them as foundation for the future, stressing that the armed struggle to defend the city and the freedom/independence of Yugoslavia corresponded to the unfolding of a revolution. Suffering and sacrifice in this perspective are recollected as the cost of a victorious struggle. Kovaci, on the other hand, recalls the recent conflict and goes further back in time to revive old Bosnian traditions, integrating the recent war into a long history of victimisation (of the 'Bosnjak nation'). Moreover, although it asserted the independence of BiH, the struggle of the patriots honoured at Kovaci is not over, but is rather continued by the living as a “fight against collective forgetting” and for the “prevention of a possible falsification of history”.89 Finally, the memorial park at Vraca was erected in 1980, many years after the end of WWII and only just ten years before the collapse of Socialist Yugoslavia, whereas the construction of the Kovaci memorial complex started soon after the end of the 1992-95 conflict, at the early stages of the new regime established with independent BiH. This places the two memorials in different positions with respect to both the conflict they commemorate and the broader politics of memory of the regime to which they belong.
A more exhaustive investigation of similarities and differences, nevertheless, would require a detailed study and comparison of the politics of memory in Socialist Yugoslavia and independent BiH, which is beyond the scope of the present chapter.
88 But note that the different shape of nisan is used also to mark the graves of veterans, i.e. fighters who died after the end of the conflict. This consideration either makes the identification of religious/ethnic belonging more complex, or wipes it definitively away. In May 2013 a touch screen was inaugurated at the site, with information on the work and life of Alija Izetbegovic, the 1992-95 war, and a map with the locations of shahids/fighters in the burial ground, but it is not clear whether it reports additional information on their identity in terms of ethnic/national belonging. “Davutoglu I Izetbegovic oblisli mezarje Kovaci”, Oslobodjenje, 8.05.2013.
Instead, the focus of analysis here is on how the two sites are placed within the continuum of the history they partake, and what are their meanings, roles and functions in today's Sarajevo.
In this perspective, the first impression is that the two memorials belong to different spheres, or parallel strands of the politics of memory. On one level, Vraca Memorial Park, declared national monument in 2005, forms part of the cultural- historic heritage of BiH, and was valued by the nationwide Commission to Preserve National Monuments for its architectural value and its endangered conditions, on the basis of previous legal protection. The Kovaci memorial complex pertains to a different level insofar as it is a memorial in course of construction and it seeks recognition from the Government of Sarajevo Canton as an “area of public interest” and significance. To a certain extent, this consideration recalls the differentiation between 'monument' and 'heritage' and draws attention to the implications of the distinction between the two – i.e. the existence of discrete systems and structures to assess a site's value and legally and materially dispose for its erection, protection, maintenance and promotion. The physical conditions of Vraca and the engagement of citizens and associations in initiatives to rehabilitate it expose the inefficiencies of BiH's system of heritage care and imply a fundamental lack of interest on the part of the current establishment and structures of government towards the site. On the other hand, the proliferation of markers to the recent conflict throughout the city and the monumental project of the Kovaci cemetery-memorial point to a stronger motivation, efficacy and skilfulness of various institutional levels when it comes to the current memorialisation of the recent conflict. In this parallel configuration, it seems that one strand (represented by the Commission) is committed to the preservation of the country's 'heritage' from far back in the past (an up until 1960), while a second strand (represented by the Fund) is devoted to the current process of construction of a memory of the recent conflict. These two strands also seem differentiated by the fact that the Commission and its work are in close connection to international trends in the conceptualisation and valorisation of heritage, whereas the operate of the Fund stems from local actors and interests. Despite their parallel development, though, both strands comprise today's politics of memory in BiH, which draws attention to the intersections between the two and their points of encounter.
First, it seems significative that the Fund sought and obtained permission from the local organs of government to be in charge of the reconstruction and maintenance of
Socialist monuments in the area of the Canton.90 As these include Vraca Memorial Park, such decision by the Government of Sarajevo Canton generates a convergence between the two strands identified above.
This initial 'convergence' has been complemented in recent years with a broadening of the tasks of the Fund to include the care of additional monuments in the area of city. In March 2012, the “Tunnel of hope” (Tunel Spasa) became propriety of the Sarajevo Canton with the signing of an agreement between the owner of the house at one end of the Tunnel Alija Kolar, the Minister for Veteran Affairs of the Sarajevo Canton (KS), the Director of the Institute for Construction of KS and the Mayor of Ilidza Municipality, where the Tunnel is located. In April 2012, the Fund was officially endowed with the further development and maintenance of this new memorial complex, which include the expansion of the existing exhibition in the house and plans for guided visits on both sides of the Tunnel.91 Concurrently, the Ministry for Veteran Affairs of Sarajevo Canton presented a proposal to the Government to declare the Tunnel a “cultural-historical and touristic destination”.92
In May 2012, the Fund signed one more agreement with the government of Sarajevo Canton to undertake responsibilities for the reconstruction and maintenance of the “Sarajevo Roses” (Sarajevske Ruze), which are under protection by Cantonal institutions as a cultural monument. In October 2013, the first works of reparation to a “rose” were started, though it is not clear whether a final agreement on the methods
90 See also chapter four. The Fund was endowed with these tasks in 2008 (Doc. no. 02-05-11946-4/08 approved on 16.04.2008 by the Government of Sarajevo Canton).
91 The Tunnel was secretly dig under the airport of Sarajevo between March and July 1993, to connect the two free areas of Dobrinja and Butmir (for this reason it was originally called 'Tunnel D-B'). It measured approximately 800 metres and was high and wide approximately 1,5 per 1,5 metres, and it was used by military personnel as well as civilians, allowing movement in and out of the besieged city and the transportation of food and arms. The house at one entrance of the Tunnel, owned by the Kolar family, was turned into a museum and managed privately until recent years. See “Potpisan Sporazum na Ilidži: Nekadašnji „Tunel spasa“postao vlasništvo Kantona Sarajevo”, 09.03.2012 and “Tunel spasa u Butmiru zvanično u nadležnosti Fonda memorijala Kantona Sarajevo”, 25.04.2012, website of Sarajevo Canton (www.ks.gov.ba).
92 See Prijedlog zaključka o usvajanju Elaborata o preuzimanju “Tunel spasa Dobrinja – Butmir” kao kulturno-historijske turističke destinacije (Proposal of conclusion for the approval of the study 'Tunnel of Hope Dobranja-Butmir as cultural-historical touristic destination), Doc. no. 02051325021/12, 20.04.2012 and “Tunel Spasa kao turisticka atrakcija Sarajeva” (The Tunnel of Hope as touristic attraction of Sarajevo),
of reparation has been reached between the Fund and the Cantonal Institute for the Protection of Cultural-Historic and Natural Heritage of Sarajevo.93
This expansion of the tasks and functions of the Fund in fact corresponds to an upgrade of its role with regards to the politics of memory within Sarajevo Canton, of which it is becoming the main central actor. Moreover, one of the effects of placing this assortment of monuments under the supervision and management of a single institution is presumably that different memorial sites will be integrated into a coherent interpretation, that suggests that the Fund will have a leading role in the configuration of the memory of both WWII and the recent conflict. Moreover, the relevance of the work of the Fund is not confined to the care of monuments and sites of interest of the Canton, but is further enhanced through a range of activities of memorialisation that include programs of collaboration with schools (together with the Cantonal Ministry for Science and Education) and guided visits of pupils to the Kovaci cemetery-memorial, that since 2012 have expanded to involve students from the whole area of the Federation of BiH.94 In the last few years, thus, the Fund is undergoing a development through which it is in fact overtaking the role and functions that in the previous regime pertained to the Republic's branches of SUBNOR. This seems the case regarding not only the role as principal “mediator of remembrance”95 but also the variety of activities carried out by the Fund (i.e. cooperation with museums and other similar institutions, history lessons, collaboration with schools), which are an element of continuity with the previous regime's memory practices.96
93 The “Sarajevo Roses” are scars left by mortar's shells on the concrete of sidewalks and streets during the siege, that have been subsequently filled with red resin (cfr. chapter two). See “Nakon što je potpisan Ugovor: Počela rekonstrukcija prve "Sarajevske ruže" (After the signign of the Agreement began the reconstruction of the first 'Sarajevo Rose'), website of the government of Sarajevo Canton (www.ks.gov.ba) and “Sarajevske Ruze se vracaju na ulice” (Sarajevo Roses returned to the streets),
Oslobodjenje, 28.10.2013.
94 Izvještaj o radu Fonda Kantona Sarajevo za izgradnju i ocuvanje grobalja šehida i poginulih boraca, memorijalnih centara i spomen-obilježja žrtava genocida za period 01.01.-31.12.2012. godine (Report on the work of the Cantonal Fund for the construction and preservation of shahids and fallen fighters' cemeteries, memorial complexes and monuments to the victims of genocide), Sarajevo Canton Government, doc. no. 02-05-17477-16/13, approved on 13.06.2013.
95 Karge, “Mediated Remembrance.”
96 On the role and tasks of SUBNOR: Karge, “Mediated Remembrance,” Custo, “Kolektivna Memorija Grada,” Custo, Uloga Spomenika U Sarajevu, Karacic, “Od Promoviranja Zajednistva Do Kreiranja Podjela.”
5.5 Conclusions
Through the analysis of Vraca Memorial Park and the Kovaci Cemetery-Memorial, this chapter tried to explore the ways in which the memories of two distinct wars are shaped in today's Sarajevo. In this perspective, the two memorials stand at the ends of a continuum that starts symbolically with the death of Tito – on the same year of the erection of Vraca Memorial Park – and develops through the rise of (extreme) nationalism(s), the erosion of social and institutional cohesion, the disintegration and collapse of Socialist Yugoslavia into war and the establishment of a new state in the aftermaths of conflict. What places the two sites in close connection is the centrality of memory in both the Yugoslav crisis and the consolidation of the new regime in BiH.
The erection of Vraca Memorial Park belongs to a 'second wave' of intensive construction of monuments to the National Liberation Struggle (NOB) in Sarajevo that took place in the 1980s, many years after the 'first wave' of monumentalisation of the 1950s and just a decade before the dissolution of Socialist Yugoslavia.97 Accompanied by an emphasised “need for better coherence and refinement of the various components of the memory culture”, this wave revealed an “almost alarming need to preserve the official politics of memory […] when the foundations of Yugoslav socialism had already started to shake”.98 In the crumbling of Yugoslavia, “communist narratives of World War II [were] replaced by new official ones that rehabilitated the main nationalist forces of that period and denounced as a myth the Titoist insistence on 'Brotherhood and Unity' among the South Slavs”.99 Separated in time by the rise and unfolding of nationalism(s) in BiH and the wider region, Kovaci today pertains to an early phase of monumentalisation within the (new) society emerged from the ashes of nationalistic wars – a development that the intensification of monument erection in the 1980s could not prevent nor elude.
The 1992-95 war itself entailed a revision and reinterpretation of the experience of WWII, that mostly brought about neglect and devastation of Socialist monuments both during the conflict and in subsequent years.100 The construction of an official
97 Custo, Uloga Spomenika U Sarajevu. Another monument that belongs to this wave is the statue of Tito at the former military barracks “Marshal Tito” (today hosting the University campus), regularly visited on official commemorations (see chapter six).
98 Custo, Uloga Spomenika U Sarajevu, 54-5, translation: author. 99 Bougarel “Death and the Nationalist,” 167.
100 Socialist monument were damaged or destroyed not only during the armed conflict – as in the case of Vraca – but also in subsequent years when peace had already been re-established. An example of this is the
memory of the 1992-95 conflict in the present is thus entangled with a reconstruction of the memory of World War II and the partisan experience as foundational to the Socialist era, which is now reinterpreted through the prism of the recent war and from the standpoint of the newly established regime. Discussions over changes to the text of the most important Socialist monument in Sarajevo – the Eternal Flame (Vjecna Vatra) – exemplify this point. Custo (2008) reports that proposals were advanced for the first time in 1981 and discussed until 1994, although no agreement was ever reached and the text eventually remained unaltered.101 The last proposal foresaw the installation of two plaques aside the monument, one referring to the liberation of Sarajevo in the 1941-45 war and the other one to the defence of Sarajevo between 1992 and 1995. Although the actual establishment of a new regime (occurred with the establishment of independent BiH within the Dayton Peace Agreement) did not bring about changes to the monument, the discussion of possible changes in the period 1981-1995 highlights the malleability of public memory in times of social and political transition and links the reinterpretation of monuments to WWII to processes of construction of the memory of the 1992-95 conflict.102
As seen in chapters four and five, the management of heritage and monuments as objects of material culture that display (re)interpretations of the past appears divided into two strands, whereby these tasks of revision of WWII's experience in Sarajevo are increasingly undertaken by the Fund. The Commission is carrying out an extensive work of research, documentation and assessment of built cultural heritage on a national scale, indispensable for the envisaged recovery, reconstruction, rehabilitation and preservation of heritage on the part of the competent institutions. Overall, though, its work is hindered by the weaknesses of the legal framework regarding monuments and heritage, the inefficiencies of the institutional framework within which it operates, and a perennial lack of funds. The impact of its activities on the
destruction of a socialist monument at Makljen (municipality of Prozor-Rama in Herzegovina) mined with explosives in 2000. Karacic argues that “the memory of WWII has remained an inevitable political topic in BiH since 1990 until today, and the differences [between] the official narrative from the times of Socialist Yugoslavia and the new revisionist interpretations of that past are often used in political programmes for the creation of divisions amongst the citizens of BiH,” Karacic, “Od Promoviranja Zajednistva Do Kreiranja Podjela,” 76.
101 Custo, “Kolektivna Memorija Grada,” 110-114.
102 In the aftermaths of conflict, policies of street-name changes also interweaved in varying ways with the memory of WWII. Karacic notes that in some instances references to the partisan efforts were marginalised as happened with references to 'undesirable' heritage, while in other instances they were appropriated and integrated with narratives on the recent conflict, Karacic, “Od Promoviranja Zajednistva Do Kreiranja Podjela.”
ongoing local process of construction of a memory of war is thus still marginal, and
although the Commission's work addresses the damage inflicted to
monuments/heritage during wartime, its influence on narratives of the conflict appears minimal. The informative panel at Vraca illustrates this point: while on the one hand the reference to the recent conflict adds one layer of meaning to the site, on the other hand the neutrality of this mention and the absence of connotations of the conflict limit the effect of this accretion to the plain information that the conflict took place – and that it entailed the destruction of a Socialist monument.
A closer look at the two memorials of Vraca and Kovaci points to a primacy of processes of memorialisation of the recent conflict – in tight connection to the