«Anti-memory space»: Srebrenica narrative in the structure of ontological security of the Republika Srpska

   This article attempts to trace the «archaeology» of the discourse on «genocide in Srebrenica» and to assess the significance of the memory of Srebrenica in the «biography» of Republika Srpska (and Serbia). The «Western» vision of the Srebrenica events deals with the definition of «genocide», which was finalized in the verdicts of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as an estimate of the number of victims of the war crime – 8,000 people. The discourse on the «genocide in Srebrenica» also became a political lever for the European Union to embrace the countries of the Western Balkans. Despite this, the «Western» view of the Srebrenica tragedy is now actively and purposefully denied in Republika Srpska (and Serbia). We conclude that Banja Luka (and Belgrade) have pursued a policy of presenting Srebrenica as an «anti-memory space»: the counternarrative (challenging the «Western» perspective) has become a full-fledged object of securitization, and the idea of «genocide denial» has become an object of ontological security for Republika Srpska and Serbia. The article provides reasons explaining the transition to this type of «memory politics» and concludes about the scale of conflict lurking in a possible «mnemonic security dilemma» around the discourse on Srebrenica. Through the efforts of the elites of Republika Srpska and Serbia (and personally M. Dodik), the events of 1995 in Srebrenica were incorporated into the narrative of Serb «victimhood»: the memory of war crimes committed by Serbs is replaced by the articulation of episodes related to war crimes committed against Serbs. At the same time, the narrative of Srebrenica is also articulated as a political lever for Banja Luka to achieve a greater degree of independence from Sarajevo.

1. Anderson B. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso, 2006, 240 p.

2. Berenskoetter F. Parameters of a national biography. European journal of international relations. 2014, Vol. 20, N 1, P. 262–288. doi: 10.1177%2F1354066112445290

3. Buzan B., Waever O., de Wilde J. Security: A new framework for analysis. London: Lynne Rienner, 1998, 239 p.

4. Deutsch K. W. Nationalism and social communication: an inquiry into the foundations of nationality. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966, 292 p.

5. Dragović-Soso J. Apologising for Srebrenica: the declaration of the Serbian parliament, the European Union and the politics of compromise. East European Politics. 2012, Vol. 28, N 2, P. 163–179. doi: 10.1080/21599165.2012.669731

6. Giddens A. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford university press, 1991, 256 p.

7. Hansen L. Security as practice: discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge, 2006, 288 p. doi: 10.4324/9780203236338

8. Huysmans J. Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier. European journal of international relations. 1998, Vol. 4, N 2, P. 226–255. doi: 10.1177/1354066198004002004

9. Laing R. D. The divided Self: an existential study in sanity and madness. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960, 224 p.

10. Mälksoo M. «Memory must be defended»: beyond the politics of mnemonical security. Security dialogue. 2015, Vol. 46, N 3, P. 221–237. doi: 10.1177/0967010614552549

11. Mehler D. Understanding normative gaps in transitional justice: the Serbian discourse on the Srebrenica Declaration 2010. Journal on ethnopolitics and minority issues in Europe. 2012, Vol. 11, N 4, Р. 127–156.

12. Mehler D. The last ‘never again’? Srebrenica and the making of a memory imperative. European review of history: Revue européenne d'histoire. 2017, Vol. 24, N 4, P. 606–630. doi: 10.1080/13507486.2017.1307812

13. Miller P. B. Contested memories: the Bosnian genocide in Serb and Muslim minds. Journal of Genocide research. 2006, Vol. 8, N 3, P. 311–324. doi: 10.1080/14623520600950054

14. Mitzen J. Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. European journal of international relations. 2006, Vol. 12, N 3, P. 341–370. doi: 10.1177/1354066106067346

15. Moll N. Fragmented memories in a fragmented country: memory competition and political identity-building in today's Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nationalities Papers. The journal of nationalism and ethnicity. 2013, Vol. 41, N 6, P. 910–935. doi: 10.1080/00905992.2013.768220

16. Mulaj K. Genocide and the ending of war: Meaning, remembrance and denial in Srebrenica, Bosnia. Crime, law and social change. 2017, Vol. 68, N 1–2, P. 123–143. doi: 10.1007/s10611-017-9690-6

17. Nora P. Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations. 1989, N 26, P. 7–24.

18. Obradovic-Wochnik J. Knowledge, acknowledgement and denial in Serbia's responses to the Srebrenica massacre. Journal of contemporary European studies. 2009, Vol. 17, N 1, P. 61–74. doi: 10.1080/14782800902844719

19. Sevastyanova Ya. V., Efremenko D. V. Securitization of memory and dilemma of mnemonic security. Political science (RU). 2020, N 2, P. 66–86. doi: 10.31249/poln/2020.02.03 (In Russ.)

20. Steele B. Ontological security in international relations: Self-identity and the IR state. New York: Routledge, 2008, 244 p.

21. Stojanović D. Value changes in the interpretations of history in Serbia. In: Listhaug O., Ramet S., Dulić D. (eds). Civic and uncivic values Serbia in the post-Milošević era. Budapest: Central European university press, 2011, P. 221–240.

22. Zarakol A. Ontological (in)security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan. International relations. 2010, Vol. 24, N 1, P. 3–23. doi: 10.1177/0047117809359040