Suchergebnisse

EU har gjort en stor feil ved ikke å drive gjennom EU-medlemskap for Bosnia-Hercegovina. De stadige utsettelsene skyldes flere ting, blant annet nasjonale hensyn i EUs medlemsland og en fastlåst politisk situasjon i Bosnia-Hercegovina, som gjør nødvendige reformer vanskelig. Dette har skapt håpløshet i befolkningen og bidrar til fortsatt politisk ustabilitet. Rask integrering i EU og Nato er den eneste sikre veien til fred og utvikling i Bosnia-Hercegovina – og på Vest-Balkan generelt.
Abstract in English: Europe's Betrayal of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The EU has made a major mistake by not driving through EU membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The constant delays are due to several things, including national considerations in EU member states and a deadlocked political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, making necessary reforms difficult. This has created hopelessness in the population and contributes to continued political instability. Rapid integration in the EU and Nato is the only safe path to peace and development in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in the Western Balkans in general.The EU has made a major mistake by not driving through EU membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The constant delays are due to several things, including national considerations in EU member states and a deadlocked political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, making necessary reforms difficult. This has created hopelessness in the population and contributes to continued political instability. Rapid integration in the EU and Nato is the only safe path to peace and development in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in the Western Balkans in general.

Artikkelen er en kort innledning til et temanummer om den politiske situasjonen i Bosnia-Hercegovina. Anledningen for temanummeret er at det i juli 2020 er 25 år siden den bosnisk-serbiske hæren inntok Srebrenica og massakrerte 8000 bosnjaker.
Abstract in English: Introduction: Bosnia and Herzegovina 25 Years after Srebrenica
This article is a brief introduction to a thematic issue about the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The occasion for the issue is that in July 2020 it is 25 years since the Bosnian-Serb army took Srebrenica and massacred 8,000 Bosniaks.

Denne artikkelen er en oppmuntring til min generasjon av bosniere i diasporaen om å løsrive forsoningen med fortiden fra kontemporære politiske narrativer og nasjonsbyggingsprosesser i Bosnia. Artikkelen er således et forsvar for anvendelse av krigens mørke kapitler som momenter i narrativer som overskrider de allerede etablerte, og den legger frem et argument for at Bosnias urealiserte fellesskapspotensial utgjør diasporaens mest potente arv etter krigen.
Abstract in English: Stories of Bosnia
This essay is an encouragement for my generation of Bosnians in the diaspora to emancipate processes of consolidation with the past from the contemporary political narratives and nation-building processes in Bosnia. Furthermore, the essay provides a justification for the appropriation of the darker chapters of the Bosnian war as moments in narratives which transcend those already established, and argues that the unrealized communal potential in Bosnia constitutes the diaspora's most potent heritage after the war.

Det er gått en generasjon siden krigen i Bosnia-Hercegovina var over. Likevel lever landets innbyggere fortsatt i fattigdom og frustrasjon. Det kan virke som et mysterium at Bosnias stabile politiske elite holder seg ved makten i valgperiode etter valgperiode, uten å bli alvorlig utfordret. Dette på tross av at de jevnlig er involvert i korrupsjonsskandaler som tapper staten for ressurser, hindrer en velfungerende administrasjon og ødelegger tilliten mellom borgerne. Hva er det politikerne gir sine velgere, når de ikke kan gi dem fremskritt og velstand? En viktig del av svaret er: ideen om «etnisk rene» stater. Denne ideen betinger fortsatt mye av politikken i Bosnia-Hercegovina så vel som i flere av de andre jugoslaviske etterfølgerstatene. Aktører utenfra utnytter dette for å oppnå egne mål. Spesielt ser det ut som om Republika Srpskas sterke mann, Milorad Dodik, får russisk hjelp i stadige forsøk på å ytterligere sementere etniske skillelinjer i Bosnias statsordning. Men like lite som på 1990-tallet gir ideen om etnisk separasjon svar på hvordan landene i regionen kan oppnå velstand og leve i fred med naboene.
Abstract in English:«Isto sranje, novo pakovanje». 25 Years after Srebrenica: The Idea of Ethnically Pure States Still Influential in Bosnia-Herzegovina
25 years have passed since the end of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In spite of this, the citizens live in poverty and frustration. It is hard to grasp how Bosnia's enduring political elite can stay in power without being seriously challenged. Even though they regularly figure in corruption scandals that drain the state's resources, hobble the administration and institutions and destroy mutual trust within the population. What, then, do the politicians offer their voters, when they cannot deliver progress and prosperity? A key part of the answer is: the idea of an 'ethnically pure' state. This idea still has a large impact on politics in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in the other Yugoslav successor states. External actors are exploiting the idea for their own purposes; in particular it seems the Republika Srpska strongman, Milorad Dodik, is getting Russian help in his continuing endeavour to further cement ethnic divisions in Bosnia. But just like in the 1990s, the idea of ethnic separation fails to offer solutions as to how the region's countries can become prosperous and live in peace with their neighbours.

Folkemordet i Srebrenica i juli 1995 opprørte en hel verden. Siden 1992, da krigen brøt ut, hadde Bosnia-Hercegovina vært under internasjonalt oppsyn. Artikkelen drøfter hvordan folkemord og grove krigsforbrytelser kunne foregå i årevis uten å bli stanset. Fokus er på den rolle de internasjonale faktorene spilte – FN, EU, Nato og stormaktene. Hvorfor var det så stor motstand mot bruk av makt? Delvis kan det ha vært på grunn av manglende forståelse av hva som skjedde, en oppfatning av at Balkan var preget av århundregammelt hat. Noen vestlige land hadde sine egne interesser i området. For vestlige politikere var det enkleste ikke å gjøre noe. FN sendte fredsbevarende styrker til et land i krig, noe som var katastrofalt for styrkene selv og for FNs prestisje. De tiltakene som ble satt i verk, som Sikkerhetsrådets resolusjoner, økonomiske sanksjoner, våpenembargo, FN-sikrede områder og flyforbud, førte ikke til at krigshandlingene avtok. Også mange norske politikere var sterkt imot militær inngripen. Den serbiske hæren var for sterk, en militær løsning var ikke mulig. Dette viste seg å være feil. Folkemordet i Srebrenica fikk FN og Nato til å gå inn for maktbruk i september 1995. En begrenset militær aksjon var nok til å få slutt på krigen, og reelle fredsforhandlinger kunne begynne.
Abstract in English: Srebrenica 25 Years After – How Could the Genocide Happen?
The genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995 shocked the world. Since 1992, when the war broke out, Bosnia and Herzegovina had been supervised by the international community. The article discusses why genocide and crimes against humanity could happen without being stopped. Focus is on the role of the relevant international participants, the UN, the EU, NATO and the great powers. Why was there a strong opposition against use of force? It was partly due to weak understanding of what was going on, a concept of the Balkans as a region of inherent centuries-old hatred. Some Western states had their own interests in the region. For Western politicians the easiest way was to do nothing. The UN sent peacekeepers to a country at war, which turned out to be a catastrophe for the peacekeepers and for the prestige of the UN. Measures like Security Council resolutions, economic sanctions, arms embargo, safe havens and no-fly zones did not work. Many Norwegian politicians were strongly opposed to military intervention. The Serbian army was too strong, a military solution was not possible. This turned out to be wrong. The genocide in Srebrenica triggered the use of force by the UN and NATO in September 1995. A limited military action was enough to end the war, after which real peace talks could start.

This brief synthesises the IECEU project's most essential findings on the effectiveness of European Union (EU) missions in four Africa countries: Libya, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR). It describes the main elements and impact of the EU missions in these countries, identifies key strategic and operational shortfalls and offers recommendations on how the EU can improve its effectiveness in future conflict prevention and crisis management missions. The EU missions investigated differ in scale, length, objective, budget, priority and context. However, the EU missions presented in this brief share the main characteristic that they have all been deployed under the union's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)2 with the explicit intent of improving the overall security situation and addressing conflicts in Africa. This brief will start by providing a short overview of each case, describing the conflict(s), security situation, mission objectives and obstacles. In this way, it compares the overall effectiveness of EU operational conflict prevention across the four African countries and discusses what lessons can be learned from them. The brief does not include all factors needed to answer thisquestion, but highlights the IECEU project's most significant findings in these cases.