Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
489
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA*
THE ROLE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE
PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION AND PEACEBUILDING
– A CASE STUDY OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(AHMIĆI, TRUSINA AND BRADINA)
Abstract. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a young, post-con-
flict and ethnically divided country in Europe. It is well
known for being the scene of a conflict centred on reli-
gious divisions. For the researcher, this raises a number of
interesting questions. What is the role of religious institu-
tions in conflict and peacebuilding? Why is religion politi-
cised? Can religious dialogue be perceived as a factor in
the process of reconciling opposing ethnic communities;
in this case, Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks? A section of this
article is devoted to the stories of survivors from Bosniak,
Croatian and Serbian families
1
. Each of these three ethnic
groups suffered during the massacres in Ahmići, Trusina
and Bradina, which took place in the first half of the
1990s. In addition, the authors analyse the role played
by institutions like the Inter Religious Council in Sarajevo
and the Maximilian Kolbe Foundation in order to assess
their contribution to reconciliation and peacebuilding. In
this regard, the purpose of the article is to conceptualise
the issue of religious peacebuilding in the wider context of
peace and conflict studies, as well as to call attention to the
ubiquitous unobjective and unbalanced perceptions of
the role of religion in contemporary conflicts and conflict
resolution.
Keywords: religion and politic s, peacebuilding, reconcilia-
tion, ethnicity, memory, victims, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Introduction
The history of Bosnia and Herzegovina is interspersed with periods of
hatred, conflict as well as mutual cooperation and peace in the areas of
politics, culture and religion. On one side, as Vjekoslav Perica notes, the
1
The order is alphabetical.
*
Anna Jagiełło-Szostak, PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of International
Studies, University of Wroclaw, Poland; Joanna Kulska, PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political
Science and Social Communication, University of Opole, Poland.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
490
first ecumenical movements appeared in the 19th century. An example is
Josip Juraj Strossmayer, who urged Catholic Croatian and Orthodox Serbs
to work together against Hungarian nationalism. Similarly, in the 1960s, the
Catholic Church began annual interreligious dialogue and prayers (Perica,
2006a: 64, 98–104). On the other side, in the time of Yugoslavia (1918–1992)
religion and religious institutions played a great role in inter-ethnic rela-
tions. Radmila Radić wrote that during the existence of Yugoslavia religious
institutions did not establish genuine cooperation and this was another
reason for the collapse of Yugoslavia. The struggle of individual religious
institutions for ‘their nations’ led to mutual intolerance and open hostility
between Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim Yugoslavs (Radić, 2003: 196–207).
The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1990s occurred on ethnic
fronts, with each seeking to protect the interests of individual groups and
create statehood as part of their own identity. In all the states that arose from
the ruins of Yugoslavia, as Vijekoslav Perica states, religion has become the
most important foundation of nationality, except in Slovenia (Perica, 2006b:
104).
Contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is a young, post-conflict,
ethnically divided country in Europe. Its history towards the end of the
20th century has had an impact on the socio-political climate today and the
peacebuilding/reconciliation process. From 1991 to 1995, BiH was a fragile
state, fighting for independence and international recognition. The nation-
alistic demands of the larger ethnic groups coupled with a policy centred
on cooperation with kin states were important drivers of the conflict. The
Srebrenica massacre created international tension and became a symbol of
remembrance. The complicated status of BiH and the peacebuilding pro-
cess raises many questions for the researcher. Who is responsible for BiH’s
future and for the reconciliation process? Is it society (including civil society
and politicians), religious leaders, the international community or NGOs?
What is the role of religious institutions in peacebuilding? Can religious dia-
logue be perceived as a factor in the reconciliation of conflicted ethnic com-
munities in BiH at the local level, in particular of Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks?
The article draws on the workshop “European workshop on dealing
with the violence burdened past in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A contribu-
tion to dialogue and a culture of listening and solidarity” held in Sarajevo in
April 2018. This workshop primarily focused on the complex ethnic, social,
cultural, political and economic situation of those affected by resettlement,
ethnic cleansing, displacement and other forms of exclusion. The article
is divided into two parts, the first of which examines state and non-state
strategies of conflict resolution/peacebuilding and the development of a
more holistic and anthropocentric approach to conflict and peace in the
post-Cold War period. The term “peacebuilding” is borrowed from Johan
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
491
Galtung. The concept of religious peacebuilding is explained in the wider
context of the transformative and relational approach. Reconciliation and
forgiveness are considered as ‘bridging’ concepts which bring together reli-
gious and secular dimensions of conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The
second part of the article analyses case studies of events which unfolded
in Bradina, Ahmići and Trusina, with a section devoted to the stories of
Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian survivors
2
. Contributors to reconciliation
and peacebuilding include religious institutions such as the Interreligious
Council in Sarajevo and the Maximilian Kolbe Foundation, both of which
are included in the analysis.
From peacebuilding to reconciliation: a redefinition of conflict in
the post-Cold War era
The term peacebuilding entered public and scientific discourse in
the 1990s
3
after first being conceptualised by Johan Galtung in the 1960s
(Bartoli, 2013: 200). Galtung understood peacebuilding as the practical
implementation of peaceful social change through socio-economic recon-
struction and development. Johan Galtung later expanded his initial defini-
tion, noting that peacebuilding involves radical change aimed at overcom-
ing contradictions that lie at the root of conflict (Galtung, 1996: 112). This
broadened perspective, which took both structural and cultural factors into
account, became increasingly influential in the post-Cold War era, when the
nature of conflicts fought on a global scale changed from external to inter-
nal.
The “wars of our time”, which apparently somewhat resemble wars
fought in the pre-Westphalian world (Münkler, 2004: 7–11), are now mainly
wars continuing as internal conflicts, either civil or ethnic (Nye, 2009: 22).
Often described as “new wars” (Kaldor, 1999: 2) or “post-national wars”
(Münkler, 2004: 165), these contemporary conflicts revolve more around
identity politics than geopolitical or ideological issues, which were once the
principal source of conflicts (Kaldor, 1999: 6). While mainly internal, they
undergo a process of internationalisation, thereby becoming “internal and
internationalized” (Lederach, 1997: 11–12). Cultural factors, especially those
relating to identity, play a significant role in such conflicts and, in their own
specific way, contribute to their nature. As John Paul Lederach points out, in
contemporary conflicts
2
The order is alphabetical.
3
The term entered public discourse following the publication of “An Agenda for Peace” by UN
Secretary General Bouthros Ghali in 1992.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
492
cohesion and identity […] tend to form within increasingly narrower
lines than those that encompass national citizenship. In situations of
armed conflict, people seek security by identifying with something close
to their experience and over which they have some control. In today’s set-
tings that unit of identity may be clan, ethnicity, religion, or geographic/
regional affiliation, or a mix of these. In the worst scenarios, this nar-
rowing of identity becomes what was once called the ‘Lebanonization’
and may now be called the ‘Somalization’ of conflict. (ibid.: 13)
Discussions about identity raise the question of a balanced and compre-
hensive modus operandi, especially when considering religious factors as its
key components. After conducting extensive research into armed conflict,
Jonathan Fox concluded that these factors should be approached in a com-
plex, multidimensional way. Drawing on data on internal conflicts he had
gathered (Fox, 2006: 2), including data of an ethnic nature, Fox stresses that
although religious factors are present in many and these factors are playing
an ever more powerful role, they cannot be seen as the sole determinant of
those conflicts (Fox, 2004: 62). While many contemporary conflicts, includ-
ing those in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, are classified as religious, such a
perception may result in other determinants of conflicts being overlooked or
ignored. The complex nature of those conflicts can only fully be understood
in a wider historical and social context. Social identities either unite or divide
people and, in certain circumstances, may contribute to hostilities, although
whether a conflict actually develops depends on the context. By themselves,
“identity markers’ such as ethnicity and religion are not enough to provoke
conflict (Martin, 1997: 19). Each conflict is different and unique (Lüer, 2018).
One of the questions raised in the debate surrounding the broadened
understanding of peace and conflict in the post-Cold War era concerns
the definition and redefinition of conflict itself. In his work, Johan Galtung
writes not about the resolution of conflicts, but about their transforma-
tion. He views conflict as a natural part of life and an opportunity to cre-
ate a new, better reality achieved as a result of a common, creative effort
(Galtung, 2007: 14); in his eyes, conflict is both the “Destroyer” and the
“Creator” (Galtung, 2000: 2). He claims that while conflicts were analysed in
the past, the processes of their peaceful transformation were not taken into
consideration (Galtung, 1985: 141–148). His concept of “transcending and
transforming” is therefore aimed at re-evaluating the way in which conflict
should be perceived and dealt with. Galtung believes that relations establish
the starting point of any theoretical or practical considerations. A similar
view is found in the work of John Paul Lederach. Johan Galtung notes that
relations are the essence of peace. Unlike security, peace can solely be per-
ceived through the prism of relations as it is in itself a relationship between
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
493
parties (Galtung, 2007: 14). It depends on the transformation of that other
type of relationship: conflict. In this view, violence is the result of untrans-
formed conflict.
This makes it advisable to examine the roots of ethnic conflict in Bosnia
and Herzegovina. Socio-psychological factors are often listed among its
causes. In her empirical, anthropological and historical analyses, H. Zeynep
Bulutgil states that unresolved issues concerning the elections in the 1990s
and World War II violence create ethnic divisions in BiH (Bulutgil, 2016:
149). A strong sense of community coupled with hatred of outsiders was
fostered over many years: a sentiment chiefly fuelled by revenge and vio-
lence. Erin K. Jenne lists several drivers of ethnic cleansing, such as nation-
alism and national self-determination, both of which were used to justify
policies of ethnic cleansing and ultimately led to state-supported genocide.
Further, “grievances from past experiences of victimisation and collective
desires for revenge may lead victims of ethnic cleansing to become per-
petrators in later periods” (Jenne, 2011: 116). It is worth noting that over
the last 200 years or so BiH has experienced conflict on average every 40
years, starting with the Austro-Hungarian occupation in the 19th and 20th
centuries, through both World Wars and ending with the Bosnian war of
independence in the 1990s. These events preserved the ‘unhealed memory’
which, after decades of accumulation, led to a tragic outcome in the form of
rising nationalism and harmful stereotyping, which eventually caused the
conflict to reach alarming proportions.
Factors contributing to the ethnic cleansing that took place in BiH
include economic competition, social divisions among ethnic groups,
mutual enmity and a fear of victimisation associated with political transi-
tion, state policy or nation-building. A desire for personal gain might also
have been a contributing factor (Jenne, 2011: 117–118). Many experts make
a connection between ethnic conflict and modernisation, between fanning
the flames of nationalism and the role of leaders (Jesse, Williams, 2011). In
the post-Cold War era, a proposed explanation of ethnic conflict has been
the concept of ancient hatreds. Raymond C. Taras and Rajat Ganguly refer
to it as a “concept that was mainly the creation of journalists and media per-
sonnel covering the Balkan ethnic conflicts and the various ethnic civil wars
in sub-Saharan Africa” (Taras, Ganguly, 2010: 4). Signed in 1995, the Dayton
Peace Agreement established Bosnia and Herzegovina as a federated state
comprising three constitutive nations (Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats). This
moment marked the beginning of deep ethnic divisions. It was in these
unfavourable conditions, following the end of the war, that a comprehen-
sive peacebuilding initiative was finally launched.
Concepts like “relationship”, “meeting” and “reconciliation” form the
basis of all the initiatives related to transforming the conflict (Lederach, 1997:
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
494
24–26). The key lies in “indigenous empowerment” which perceives the trans-
formation of conflict and the recognition and inclusion of human and cultural
resources from the inside. In the long term, the transformation of conflict
should therefore be understood as a shift in perspective whereby the people
involved in the conflict are no longer seen as the source of the problem, but
as its solution. It is therefore necessary to create an infrastructure for peace at
every level of the conflicted community. It is vital to identify cultural aspects
and internal sources of conflict in order to reduce mutual hostility in the
short term and, in the long run, to introduce reforms (e.g. political reforms)
(Lederach, 1995: 212). Strong emphasis is placed on bottom-up peacebuilding
which, according to Jean Paul Lederach, is more “elicitive”
4
and transforma-
tive than direct and prescriptive (Ramsbotham et al., 2011: 235).
The transformative approach to peacebuilding may be viewed as a key
aspect of the new post-Cold War perspective on conflict resolution, but also
as a broad platform for cooperation between various civil society actors
(Abu-Nimer, 2001: ix). This approach focuses less on the material and tech-
nical aspects of peacebuilding and is associated with the comprehensive
relational perspective which emphasises the role of interactions between
conflicting parties. This perspective brings together a number of mostly
non-state actors; a privileged position among them is occupied by cultural,
religious and faith-based subjects who are the most active and hold the
greatest experience in the areas of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
In the last few decades their contributions have held both normative and
practical implications and contributed significantly to the shift in discourse
towards a less structural or material and more identity-oriented approach.
During the post-Cold War debate, religious and faith-based entities there-
fore contributed to the emergence of a more holistic and anthropocentric
approach to conflicts. At the same time, the relational and transformative
approach became a crucial element of the broadly defined “new diplomacy”
and, more precisely, track II or citizen diplomacy which implies the recogni-
tion and inclusion of non-state actors in processes traditionally reserved for
state actors. The key idea bridging these two domains is most fully repre-
sented by the concept of reconciliation which, while rooted in religion, has
become the universally applied strategy for moving from conflict to peace.
Religion: between peace and conflict
Matters concerning secular and religious perspectives while studying
security and peacebuilding can be approached from a neo-liberal point
of view, with an emphasis on the role of non-state actors. In this case, the
4
“Elicitive” refers to the creation or emergence of a brand-new reality.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
495
terminology mostly revolves around concepts like reconciliation, forgive-
ness and restorative justice, which are all examples of the ‘bridging’ phe-
nomenon between religious and non-religious perceptions of conflict
resolution and peacebuilding, and increasingly rely on the involvement of
non-state actors, both religious and secular. Interestingly, since the early
1990s one can find the growing area of both the normative overlapping and
empirical realisation of the tenets of secular and religious theory and prac-
tice. Several different categories can be identified, such as the role of civil
society in peacebuilding and track II or civil diplomacy, as well as a bottom-
up approach and transformation of conflict. These categories are not only
connected to, but in fact rooted in an ‘old/new’ attitude to peacebuilding
known as the relational approach.
The essence of the relational approach is its focus on the interactions
between people and, more precisely, on the transformation of these interac-
tions perceived as the purpose and the method of conflict resolution. Daniel
Philpott and Jeniffer Llewellyn describe the relational approach as contex-
tual, general, integrating and holistic (Llewelyn, Philpott, 2014: 15–16) and
state that both restorative justice and reconciliation are relational concepts
of justice. They refer not only to committing ‘wrong’, but also to the harm
and consequences of wrongdoing at different levels, from the individual
through group, community, national or even international level. The fun-
damental question in this approach concerns what must be done when
confronted with wrongdoing in order to establish and sustain peaceful rela-
tions and to ensure that the conditions which led to the wrongdoing are not
replicated. The purpose of this idea of justice is to create and protect the
“reconciled” relations in both the present and the future (ibid.: 16).
The relational approach forms the basis of the post-Cold War perception
of non-state perspectives in the areas of conflict resolution and peacebuilding
and represents the essence of religious peacebuilding which, although known
and used in the past, has only recently (in the last few decades) become a
feature of the alternative, “non-state-centric” approach to conflict resolution
and peacebuilding. In both the theoretical and practical domain, religious
peacebuilding may be viewed as the bridge between activities undertaken
by religious and non-religious actors in the field of conflict and post-con-
flict reconstruction, an example being Bosnia and Herzegovina. An impor-
tant symptom of this phenomenon has been the inclusion of “non-political”
terms associated with religion in political and social science discourse: terms
like just peace (Philpott, 2012), brotherhood (Heo, 2012: 7), friendship (von
Heyking, Avramenko, 2008), love (Nussbaum, 2015) and hope (Moisi, 2012)
which since the early 1990s have been studied as elements of not only the
alternative approach to conflict and peace, but also of politics itself (Butler et
al., 2011). This approach is characterised by an emphasis on the ‘soft’ aspects
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
496
of peace and conflict, that is mainly psychological and cultural factors, espe-
cially religion. Acknowledgement of the religious factor in political science
discourse enables researchers to surpass or transcend the secular approach
which for the last few decades has dominated the field of political science and
social science in general and hindered the inclusion of non-Western cultural
perspectives in scholarly reflection. Consequently, the idea of establishing
a more holistic and anthropocentric vision of peace, as postulated since the
end of the Cold War, becomes more realistic. The concept of post-secularism
comes to mind here; first coined by Jürgen Habermas, it suggests that the con-
tinued exclusion of religion from the public sphere is not only impossible but
also harmful to society itself (Habermas, 2008).
Reconciliation has become a key concept in the area of peace and conflict;
it has been transferred from religious discourse (Rotfeld, 2014: 8) and carries
moral connotations. It is a very complex term which implies a change in atti-
tude at the individual, interpersonal and institutional levels (Andrieu, 2018).
On the basic level, reconciliation is understood as a change or improvement
in relations between opposing parties (Renner, Spencer, 2012: 2) and a pro-
cess which enables society to move from a divided past toward a common
future (Bloomfield et al., 2003: 12). Another term closely linked to reconcili-
ation is coexistence, although the presumptions and conditions associated
with reconciliation and coexistence are very differently perceived, depend-
ing on the author. For Johan Galtung, reconciliation means “closure” and
“healing” and requires that various psychological, social, theological, philo-
sophical and “human” aspects be considered (Galtung, 2001: 4). Daniel
Philpott perceives reconciliation as a concept of justice and peacebuilding
based on the holistic healing of wounds caused by war and dictatorship
(Philpott, 2010: 94). Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall
define reconciliation as the restoration of broken bonds and the process of
learning how to live together despite radical differences. According to all of
these authors, the role of reconciliation cannot be overstated since it should
be regarded as the ultimate purpose of conflict resolution.
The concept’s complexity and ambiguity becomes evident while analys-
ing the various, minimalist and maximalist, understandings of the term. In
the case of the former, reconciliation is taken to mean peaceful coexistence
and lack of war. This implies the cessation of violence, respect for the for-
mal rule of law and an obligation to remain part of the same political com-
munity. The essence of reconciliation therefore lies in restoring or creating
the minimal conditions for the survival of the political community while
refraining from attempting to achieve more ambitious and difficult goals
like forgiveness and social solidarity (Verdeja, 2014). As Daniel Bloomfield
points out, reconciliation in this sense does not mean that former enemies
will love or even forgive each other (Bloomfield et al., 2003: 2), but that they
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
497
will coexist and develop a level of cooperation that will enable them to live
side by side. The maximalist understanding of reconciliation is far more
complex. Here, reconciliation is viewed as meaning the long-term process
of building lasting peace between former enemies, implemented on both
the state and society level. The necessary elements of reconciliation in this
case are friendship, trust and empathy, albeit not necessarily forgiveness.
Therefore, this understanding comprises elements of both ‘soft power’ and
‘hard power’ (Gardner-Feldman, 2012).
Both reconciliation and the much more controversial and contested for-
giveness are rooted in religious discourse and have become elements of the
“peace and conflict political discourse”. Daniel Philpott notes that although
the idea may seem surprising, unrealistic or even utopian, victims of even
the worst massacres can and do forgive their oppressors. Political recon-
ciliation, which is the result of dialogue between victims and perpetrators,
implies the creation of a platform for mutual respect, as well as a responsi-
bility to become members of a civilised society. External manifestations of
these processes come in the form of declarations of forgiveness, like those
made by the victims of apartheid in South Africa, the genocide in Rwanda
or the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although such acts of forgiveness
are not a standard practice, they do happen. They are expressed either
through voluntary acts motivated by religious beliefs, especially in the case
of Christian victims, or following long-term processes of ‘the healing of
relations’, namely, the key method used in conflict areas by peacebuilding
actors, including religious and faith-based ones.
Finally, one must bear in mind that human welfare lies in the centre of
every discussion about building peace in a post-conflict reality. The concept
of human security, as a new approach in analysing security, focuses on the
safety of the individual rather than on state security. Vulnerable popula-
tions include displaced persons, migrants, refugees, children, women and
other groups who are at risk of or suffer from poverty, diseases, social and
economic inequalities, human rights violations, ethnic conflicts, natural
disasters or environmental pollution (Gasper 2015; Grizold et al., 2012).
Human security refers to “the right of people to live in freedom and dig-
nity, free from poverty and despair (…) with an equal opportunity to enjoy
all their rights and fully develop their human potential” (paragraph 143,
General Assembly resolution 60/1). Human security is interdisciplinary and
connects areas such as international relations, peace and conflict studies,
human rights, development studies and others. Survivors in BiH not only
face economic, social and political problems
5
, but feelings of anger, shame,
5
Human Security identifies seven components of security for the individual: economic, food, health,
environmental, personal, community and political.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
498
guilt and a sense of being a victim. The resulting need for social and spiritual
aid poses a challenge, which religious institutions can respond to.
The role of religious institutions
Leif-HagenSeibert indicates that the role of religious institutions as
actors in peacebuilding is problematic since these institutions have largely
lost their credibility due to their involvement in events of the war. Seibert
states that in BiH strong religious institutionalisation, aggressive nation-
alism and bellicose propaganda have all had a vast impact on religious
credibility. And “high religious credibility is achieved only by actors who
are able to plausibly distance themselves from spoilers and perpetrators”
(Seibert, 2018: 429). Despite this, attempts at inter-religious cooperation are
underway to build new and peaceful relationships on both the institutional
and social levels.
According to peacebuildinginitiative.org, religious actors can contribute
to the peacebuilding process in several ways. For instance:
1. Religious beliefs may offer crucial intangible components of peacebuil-
ding; 2. Religious actors traditionally perform a certain number of social
functions which can be all the more important at the peacebuilding
phase; and 3. Religious actors play an important role as members of local
civil society (Religion & Peacebuilding, 2019).
It seems that in the case of Ahmići, Trusina and Bradina the third point
is particularly relevant; religious institutions can fulfil a number of different
functions, like mobilisation (during a conflict, but also for peace), sociali-
sation through education and training, integration of those excluded from
society (via socio-economic development or rebuilding the socio-economic
fabric of a post-war society) and taking over the role of political and partisan
organisations with regard to certain matters, for example those related to
human rights (ibid.).
The main purpose of reconciliation and forgiveness is to transform rela-
tions between conflicting parties through inter-religious meetings, address
the problems facing survivors, provide spiritual and material support and
acknowledge the victim status of all those involved. The crucial aspect is
moral inclusion, i.e. rehumanisation of the enemy. Jörg Lüer from the
Maximilian Kolbe Foundation introduced a workshop by saying “this is not
a workshop, this is a mission”, and in his closing statement encouraged lis-
teners to “be realistic and defend hope”. Therefore, religion is treated here
as an agent of change. The workshop was organised by two religious insti-
tutions: the Maximilian Kolbe Foundation (MKF) and the Inter-religious
Council of BiH. While both organisations are in the category of religious
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
499
and faith-based actors and exemplify the involvement of civil society in
conflict transformation, the roles they hold are different. The Maximilian
Kolbe Foundation (MKF) plays the role of an external actor aiming to imple-
ment and promote work on reconciliation in Europe (“to make issues in
Europe which have not been reconciled a subject of debate”) and is linked
to Maximilian Kolbe Werk. The MKF is primarily concerned with the “cul-
ture of remembrance” and aims to develop a “culture of listening”, and as
such is regarded as an “ambassador of reconciliation”. The other organisa-
tion, the Inter-religious Council of BiH, is an internal party to the conflict. It
has existed since 1997 and was established with the support of the World
Conference of Religions for Peace (WSCF Europe, 2015) by four religious
communities: Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic and Christian. Its key goals include
building tolerance and civil society with the help of five working groups:
legal, media, education, women’s and youth (MRV BiH, 2019). The council’s
most important achievement came in 1997 with the preparation and signing
of the Statement of Shared Moral Commitments, in which changing peo-
ple’s attitudes was one of its key objectives (WSCF Europe, 2015).
Case study: Ahmići, Bradina and Trusina
In BiH, the list of places where ethnic cleansing campaigns unfolded
and massacres occurred is very long. This paper particularly focuses on the
Ahmići, Trusina and Bradina incidents. Let us begin by analysing the case of
Ahmići, a village which before the war had a population of 446 people, 356
of whom were Bosniaks; Croats and Bosniaks live there to this day. When
Yugoslavia collapsed, Bosniaks from Travnik and Foča moved to Ahmići.
On 16 April 1993, the Croatian army (Hrvatske Vojske Odbrane), called
“Jokeri”, launched an attack on civilians. According to Islamic Community
member Mahir ef. Husić, 180 buildings, houses and mosques were either
damaged or destroyed, 116 people were killed, and 29 individuals were
reported missing. The perpetrators were sentenced to either 25 or 16 years
of imprisonment.
The second case involved Bradina, which prior to the war was mainly
inhabited by Serbs (its population of 665 included 600 Serbs, 16 Muslims,
2 Croats and 2 Yugoslavians, among others). From 25–27 May 1992 a
Croatian-Muslim formation carried out an attack on Bradina in which 47
civilians were killed and 130 tortured. Several people remain missing even
today. Private property was destroyed, along with the village’s Orthodox
church. The third case involved Trusina, where 22 people were murdered
en mass on 16 April 1993. These atrocities were committed by the Army of
the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBH) during the Croat–Bosniak
War. Eight members of an ARBH special unit named “Zulfikar” faced
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
500
criminal charges
6
(Balkan Insight, 2012 and 2014). As the Franciscan Darko
Drljo said, Trusina’s inhabitants were complicit in the crime and the perpe-
trators, who were never sentenced, continue to roam free (Drljo, 2018). One
survivor recalled the words of one perpetrator: “Trusina must fall. No Croat
is going to live in this area. We’re going to cleanse this area. If a Croat is to
live here, we have to convert them to Islam” (Survivor 1, 2018). According to
the religious leaders who participated in the workshop, common features of
all three incidents included a lack of military facilities and the involvement
of unarmed civilians who, totally unprepared for the attack, did not retaliate,
but were nonetheless tortured and killed. The workshop included testimo-
nies by five survivors from Ahmići and two from Bradina and Trusina, who
spoke on behalf of their respective communities.
The approach to religion, reconciliation and peacebuilding in BiH
The process of peacebuilding and reconciliation is complicated; Ed
Vulliamy notes that in BiH the issue revolves more around “false reconcilia-
tion and clearance”. He writes:
In Bosnia, ‘reconciliation’ is a common word used and abused as often
as advertising slogans. It is synonymous with lucrative business and a
promising career, although this refers primarily to the ‘international
institutions’ which, during the war, left Bosnia to its tragic fate. These
institutions now act on behalf of the ‘international community’, paying
high wages and multiplying costs, and preach reconciliation without
achieving any results. (Vulliamy, 2016: 23)
On the other hand, the question arises of whether there is any serious
alternative to the reconciliation attempts in BiH and to what extent religious
institutions can help in this respect. With regard to reconciliation in Ahmići,
Mahir ef. Husić emphasises that: “Islam is a religion of peace. … Islam calls
on people to come together, because we come from one Father, Adam, and
one Mother, Eve (Husić, 2018). He also states that the process of reconcilia-
tion and dialogue in ethnically-mixed Ahmići is slow:
There is no contact or dialogue between Croats and Bosniaks in Ahmići.
They live next to one another, but do not meet or pay each other visits.
(Husić, 2018)
6
Mensur Memić, Dževad Salčin, Nedžad Hodžić, Senad Hakalović, Nihad Bojadžić, Zulfikar
Ališpago, Rasema Handanović, Edin Džeko.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
501
As one of the survivors explained:
Before the war, life here was good, people were going to work, no fights
in this area. … I do not know the reason, the motives for these atrocities.
… I would like to invite my Croat neighbours to sit down and talk about
the past. (Survivor 2, 2018)
These days the village of Bradina is abandoned, with only a few people
living there on a permanent basis. The Orthodox church has been rebuilt
and a memorial to the victims erected, but the destroyed Serbian houses
stand derelict to this day. According to Orthodox religious leaders, those
Serbs who survived moved to Canada, Australia and the USA, or to Trebinje
in BiH, which is also where the bones of the people killed in Bradina were
transferred. In the case of Trusina, half of the village’s population before
the war was Croatian. Nowadays, no Croats live in Trusina and there is little
prospect of them returning.
In terms of the reconciliation process, survivors from the Serbian and
Croatian communities have forgiven their perpetrators, with the families
of Trusina survivors claiming to harbour no desire for revenge. Survivor 1
clearly stated that “I have forgiven, I have not forgotten” (Survivor 1, 2018),
whereas survivors from the Islamic community never mentioned forgive-
ness. A Franciscan priest remarked that “time does not heal wounds, time
deepens wounds” (Drljo, 2018; Kardinal, 2018). A survivor does not forget
what happened to them. However, it should be stressed that during the work-
shop meeting all local religious leaders (Catholic, Islamic and Orthodox)
talked about equality for all victims. Drljo, a Catholic representative, men-
tioned that all three religions work with families but stressed that, due to
certain limitations, religious officials should not be the only ones involved
in working with victims (Drljo, 2018). These limitations are probably related
to funds and ethno-political perspectives in BiH. It was emphasised that the
“victims of war should be respected, not politicised. … Whoever commits a
crime is a participant in a crime” (Kardinal, 2018).
State approaches to the reconciliation process: reactions of Serbia
and Croatia
The lack of any clear commitment and active involvement of states
like the Republic of Serbia or the Republic of Croatia in the reconciliation
process is a result of the ethnicisation and divisions in Bosnian society.
Although President Kolinda Grabar Kitarović did attend the site of the mas-
sacre in Ahmići, her visit was interpreted as a tourist trip and not an offi-
cial act of reconciliation. In the eyes of the Islamic community, “she came
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
502
alone, without media and in silence” (Husić, 2018). With regard to Bradina,
there was no reaction from the Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian governments.
Perpetrators remain free and no Croats have been sentenced because they
emigrated to Croatia, and Bosnia is not allowed to prosecute them. Mutual
recriminations seem to aggravate the stand-off: Croatian people accuse
Muslims of committing crimes and the reverse is true for the latter. Another
classic instance was the Bosniaks prison camp in Čelebići at which Serbian
inmates were abused and murdered. As E. Vulliamy writes, the perpetrators
of these crimes were convicted in The Hague and the leaders in Sarajevo
did not attempt to hide the culprits (Vulliamy, 2016: 63). Other examples of
Serbian aggression towards Bosniaks in BiH include the atrocities commit-
ted in Srebrenica, Omarska, Prjedor and Karaterm. E. Vulliamy emphasised
that in the case of the Omarska incident the lack of a memorial to the victims
indicates a process by which victims are erased from the collective mem-
ory and forgotten (ibid., 2016: 25).With regard to Trusina, religious officials
mentioned that when it comes to reconciliation, reactions of the media and
the state are not enough. In an interview with Franciscan Marinko Štrbac,
Željko Ivković stated that
Unlike [in the case of] the massacre of Bosniaks in Ahmići, which took
place on the same day and prompted a swift response from UNPROFOR
as well as extensive news coverage, in the case of the dead on their side,
the surviving Croats from the village of Trusina never received media
attention. (Ivković, 2018)
Survivors, perpetrators and forgiveness and their current status
The question of the survivors’ current status and their relationship with
the perpetrators has only been discussed to a limited extent. The situa-
tion of the survivors is described as less than ideal and the general issues
raised by all religious establishments are the same and chiefly address the
lack of acknowledgement of the atrocities, the victims and their families
(Kovačević, 2018; Drljo, 2018). The matter of forgiveness was brought up
during the reconciliation process together with the question of whether
anyone can really forgive these crimes. In the course of the investigation, we
found that both forgiveness and a lack of it, as well as the inability to forget
traumatic events, have far-reaching consequences. First, they can reinforce
or even cause additional distress instead of helping to deal with the trauma
(humiliation, torture). Every individual has their own traumatic memories
and lives with stigma. At the same time, those who have lost someone are
more responsive to and supportive of peacebuilding initiatives. Survivors
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
503
do not harbour hatred or a desire for revenge, but politicians may harness
their memories to fuel vindictiveness. Second, the perpetrators still roam
free. Frequently, those who committed atrocities are supported by their
communities, as in the case of the war criminal Dario Kordić
7
who was
given the support of the Croatian community. One survivor stated that “he
should be ashamed” (Survivor 3, 2018). Many of the perpetrators were the
victims’ neighbours; one survivor placed the blame on “our Croatian neigh-
bours [who] destroyed our house” (Survivor 4, 2018).
Conclusion
The peacebuilding process in BiH faces many obstacles such as divisions
along educational, historical, religious, political and ethnic lines. Thus, in
the light of political, economic and social problems, religion and religious
institutions can reinforce conflicts. On the other hand, religion and religious
institutions can be a factor for peace and reconciliation in BiH, the former
through doctrine and ethics and the latter by stimulating various activities,
meetings, workshops, projects as well as ecumenical and inter-religious dia-
logue. According to Jörg Lüer, the key challenges in dealing with a trauma
on the micro level include: 1) solidarity with the victims; 2) dealing with
individual responsibility and guilt; 3) dealing with the systematic framework
of violence; and 4) differentiating the ways of treating the perpetrators
(Lüer, 2018). Some obstacles he listed are fear (perpetrators are still hon-
oured and have schools etc. named after them), shame, rejection, uncom-
fortable discourses (every group creates a reputation system and protects
it), grief and commemoration (space for grief, places of suffering) (Lüer,
2018). J. Galtung’s transformation of conflict is applicable to BiH; it begins
with destruction and allows for the creation of a new reality and the rebuild-
ing of relations between parties to the conflict.
The process of peacebuilding is related to reconciliation, which is a long-
lasting process of social and personal transformation requiring a trans-
generational perspective. Not everything can be healed, but it is possible
to learn how to live with the present wounds and start all over again
with respect to the suffering of the victims. (Lüer, 2018)
When it comes to scholarly analysis of the conflict in the Balkans and,
more precisely, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many different and novel
7
Dario Kordić, leader of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna (HrvatskaZajednicaHerceg-
Bosna) during the war. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia sentenced him to
25 years in prison, but he was released in 2014.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
504
concepts and ideas should be considered. While reconciliation and peace-
building are among the most frequently discussed, in the discourse most
probably one still recalls “religious conflict” and “new wars” more than the
very concepts of reconciliation and peacebuilding. At the same time, only
a few voices are heard recalling the concept of the “ambivalence of the
sacred” (Appleby 2000) and point to the pre- and post-war role of religious
factors, which are very difficult to define. Since the conflict in Bosnia cannot
be perceived as a definite, unambiguous reality, it may serve as an exam-
ple of a highly complex contemporary conflict while simultaneously show-
ing the emergence of new approaches and instruments for building peace.
They in turn constitute creative and promising answers offered by global
civil society to the problems facing the modern world. With a more human-
oriented approach and the establishment of a growing area of cooperation
among different actors, peace may be easier to understand and more likely
to change the reality. Currently, there seem to be no other viable options.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed (2001): Introduction. In M. Abu-Nimer (ed.), Recon cili-
ation, Justice and Coexistence: Theory and Practice. Lanham: Lanham Lexington
Books.
Andrieu, Kora, Reconciliation, Oxford Bibliographies. Accessible at http://www.
oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780
199743292-0148.xml, 10. 8. 2018.
Appleby, Scott (2000): The Ambivalence of the Sacred. Religion, Violence and
Reconciliation. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Balkan Insight (2012): Witness Recalled Murders in Trusina, 25 September 2012.
Accessible at www.balkaninsight.com, 9. 8. 2018.
Balkan Insight (2014): Bosniak Soldier Jailed for Killing Croats in Trusina, 6 June
2014. Accessible at www.balkaninsight.com, 9. 8. 2018.
Bartoli, Andrea (2013): Negotiating Peace: The Role of Non-Governmental organi-
zations. Dordrecht: Republic of Letters Publishing.
Bloomfield, David, Teresa Barnes, Luc Huyse (2003): Reconciliation after Violent
Conflict: A Handbook. Stockholm: International Idea Institute.
Butler, Jonathan, Jūrgen Habermas, Taylor and Charles West (2011): The Power of
Religion in the Public Sphere. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bulutgil, Zeynep H. (2016): The Roots of Ethnic Cleansing in Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fox, J. (2004): Correlated Conflicts: The Independent Nature of Ethnic Strife.
Harvard International Review 25: 4
Galtung, Johan (2001): After Violence, Reconstruction, Reconciliation and
Resolution: Coping with Visible and Invisible Effects of War and Violence. In
M. Abu-Nimer (ed.), Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence. Lanham: Lanham
Lexington Books.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
505
Galtung, Johan (2000): Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (The Transcend
Method): Participant’s Manual. Trainer’s Manual. New York: United Nations.
Galtung, Johan (2007): Introduction: Peace by Peaceful Conflict Transformation –
the TRANSCEND Approach. In Ch. Webel and J. Galtung (eds.), Handbook of
Peace and Conflict Studies. New York: Routledge.
Galtung, Johan (1996): Peace by Peaceful Means. London: Sage.
Galtung, Johan (1985): Twenty Five Years of Peace Research: Ten Challenges, and
Some Responses. Journal of Peace Research 22: 2.
Gardner-Feldman, Lily (2012): Historical Reconciliation – Lessons Learned and Best
Practices. In Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Workshop
Towards a Strategy for Reconciliation in the OSCE Area, Vienna, 18 December
2012. Accessible at: http://www.osce.org/sg/98338?download=true, s. 1, 10. 3.
2016.
Gasper, Des (2015): Human Security: From Definitions to Investigating a Discourse.
In Routledge Handbook of Human Security, 28–43.
Grizold, Anton, Marina Mitrevska, John Anthony Wanis-St., Vlado Buchkovski, Iza
Tršar (2012): Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management in the New Security
Context. The Case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Ljubljana,
20–23.
Fox, Jonathan (2006): The Future of Religion and Domestic Conflict, 26 June 2006.
Accessible at , 11.
1. 2013.
J. von Heyking, R. Avramenko (eds.) (2008): Friendship and Politics. Essays in
Political Thought. Indiana: Notre Dame.
Habermas, Jürgen (…) (2008): Notes on the post-secular society. Accessible at
, 15. 5. 19.
Heo, Emilia S. (2012): Reconciling Enemy States in Europe and Asia. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ivković, Željko (2018): Četvrt stoljeća odzločina u Trusini – Hrvata tamo više nema.
Accessible at https://www.nedjelja.ba/hr/iz-zivota/razmisljanje/cetvrt-stoljeca-
od-zlocina-u-trusini-hrvata-tamo-vise-nema/4774, 16. 5. 2018.
Jenne, Erin K. (2011): The Causes and Consequences of Ethnic Cleansing. In Karl
Cordell, Stefen Wolff (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict. London
and New York.
Jesse Neal. G, and Kristen P. Williams (2011): Ethnic conflict. A systematic approach
to cases of conflict. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
Kaldor, Mary (1999): New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lederach, Jean Paul (1997): Building Peace: Reconciliation in Divided Societies.
Washington D.C.: USIP.
Lederach, Jean Paul (1995): Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across
Cultures. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Llewellyn, Jennifer and Daniel Philpott (2014): Restorative Justice, Reconciliation
and Peacebuilding. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
506
Martin, David (1997): Does Christianity Cause War? New York: Oxford University
Press.
Moïsi, Dominique (2012): Geopolityka emocji. Jak kultury strachu, upokorzenia i
emocji przeobrażają świat. [Geopolitics of Emotion: How the Culture of Fear,
Humiliation and Emotion is Transforming the World]. Warsaw.
MRV BiH (2019): Interreligious Council in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accessible at
https://www.mrv.ba/lat, 28. 2. 2019.
Münkler, Herfried (2004): Wojny naszych czasów. [The Wars of Our Times].
Cracow: Wydawnictwo WAM.
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2015): Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nye, Joseph, (2009): Konflikty międzynarodowe. Wprowadzenie do teorii i his-
torii. [International Conflicts. Introduction to Theory and History]. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwa Naukowe i Profesjonalne.
Perica, Vjekoslav (2006a): Balkanski idoli/1/, Biblioteka XX veka, Beograd.
Perica, Vjekoslav (2006b): Balkanski idoli/2/, Biblioteka XX veka, Beograd.
Philpott, Daniel (2012): Just and Unjust peace: An Ethic of Political Reconciliation.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Philpott, Daniel (2010): Reconciliation: A Catholic Ethic for Peacebuilding in
the Political Order. In R.J. Schreiter, R.S. Appleby and G.F. Powers (eds.),
Peacebuilding: Catholic Theology, Ethics, and Praxis. New York: Orbis Books.
Radić, Radmila (2003): Religion in a Multinational State: the case of Yugoslavia. In
D. Djokić (ed.), Yugoslavism. Histories of a Failed Idea 1918–1992. London:
Hurst & Company.
Rotfeld, Adam D. (2014): Poland-Germany-Russia: An Experience with the
Reconciliation Process and Dialogue. In J. Szczudlik-Tatar and P. Majssner
(eds.), Polish Experience in Reconciliation: A Model for Rapprochement in East
Asia? Warsaw.
Religion and Peacebuilding (2019): Religion & Peacebuilding Processes. Accessible
at http://www.peacebuildinginitiative.org/index9aa2.html?pageId=1827, 3. 6.
2019.
Ramsbotham, Oliver, Timothy Woodhouse and Hugh Miall (2011): Contemporary
Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Resolution of Deadly
Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Renner, Judith and Alexander Spencer (2012): Reconciliation after Terrorism:
Strategy, Possibility or Absurdity? New York: Routledge.
Seibert, Leif-Hagen (2018): Religious Credibility under Fire. Determinants of
Religious Legitimacy in Postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina. Springer VS Bielefeld.
Taras, Raymond C. and Rajat Ganguly (2010): Understanding ethnic conflict,
Longman.
Verdeja, Ernesto (2014): What is Political Reconciliation? In Mobilizing Ideas. 3
February 2014. Accessible at , 16. 10. 2018.
Vulliamy, Ed (2016): Wojna umarła, niech żyje wojna. Bośniackie rozrachunki [The
War Is Dead, Long Live the War. Bosnian Reckoning], 23, 25, 63. Wołowiec.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
507
WSCF Europe (2015): History of the Interreligious Council of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Accessible at http://wscf-europe.org/news/history-of-the-interre-
ligious-council-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina/, 2. 7. 2019.
Peacebuilding initiative: Accessible at http://www.peacebuildinginitiative.org/
index9aa2.html?pageId=1827, 11. 1. 2019.
SOURCES
Drljo, Darko (2018): Speech delivered on 23 April, 2018 at the European workshop
on dealing with the violence burdened past of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A con-
tribution to dialogue and a culture of listening and solidarity (Visiting: Bradina,
Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH. Organisers: Maximilian Kolbe Stiftung,
Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Renovabis. Available
from the author’s archives.
Husić, Mahir ef. (2018): Speech delivered on 23 April 2018 at the European work-
shop on dealing with the violence burdened past of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
A contribution to dialogue and a culture of listening and solidarity (Visiting:
Bradina, Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH. Organisers: Maximilian Kolbe
Stiftung, Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Renovabis.
Available from the author’s archive.
Kovačević, Emir (2018): Speech delivered on 23 April, 2018 at the European work-
shop on dealing with the violence burdened past of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
A contribution to dialogue and a culture of listening and solidarity (Visiting:
Bradina, Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH. Organisers: Maximilian Kolbe
Stiftung, Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Renovabis.
Available from the author’s archive.
Lüer, Jörg (2018): Memory, Truth, Justice: Perspectives on Dealing with Violence
Burdened Past, German Commission for Justice and Peace, 27 June 2018.
Available from the author’s archives.
Luer, Jörg (2018): Speech delivered on 23 April, 2018 at the European workshop
on dealing with the violence burdened past of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A con-
tribution to dialogue and a culture of listening and solidarity (Visiting: Bradina,
Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH. Organizers: Maximilian Kolbe Stiftung,
Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Renovabis. Available
from the author’s archives.
Survivor 1 (2018): Testimony given in Catholic church on 23 April, 2018 at the
European workshop on dealing with the violence burdened past of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. A contribution to dialogue and a culture of listening and soli-
darity (Visiting: Bradina, Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH. Organisers:
Maximilian Kolbe Stiftung, Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia and
Herzegovina; Renovabis. Available from the author’s archives.
Survivor 2 (2018): Testimony given on 25 April 2018 in a mosque in Ahmići dur-
ing the European Workshop on dealing with the violence burdened past of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. A contribution to dialogue and a culture of listen-
ing and solidarity (Visiting: Bradina, Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH.
Anna JAGIEŁŁO-SZOSTAK, Joanna KULSKA
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 2/2020
508
Organisers: Maximilian Kolbe Stiftung, Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Renovabis. Available from the author’s archives.
Survivor 3 (2018): Testimony given on 25 April 2018 in a mosque in Ahmići dur-
ing the European Workshop on dealing with the violence burdened past of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. A contribution to dialogue and a culture of listen-
ing and solidarity (Visiting: Bradina, Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH.
Organisers: Maximilian Kolbe Stiftung, Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Renovabis.
Survivor 4 (2018): Testimony given on 25 April 2018 in a mosque in Ahmići dur-
ing the European Workshop on dealing with the violence burdened past of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. A contribution to dialogue and a culture of listen-
ing and solidarity (Visiting: Bradina, Trusina, Ahmići, Kruščica), Sarajevo, BiH.
Organisers: Maximilian Kolbe Stiftung, Berlin; Interreligious Council of Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Renovabis. Available from the author’s archives.