4 Building, Rebuilding, Remembering

Chapter 4 REBUILDING, BUILDING, AND REMEMBERING Looking beyond the Old Bridge to other recent architectural projects in Mostar reveals that the unifying and pluralistic symbolism attached to the city’s iconic centerpiece is not the only idea being represented in postwar Mostar. Bosnia-Hercegovina’s multiple identities and multiple historical interpretations are perceptible in other diverse aspects of the city’s reconstruction process. During the war nearly every building in Mostar was damaged and a large percentage of the city was completely destroyed, especially in its historic core and along the Boulevard that was the wartime front-line. Most homes as well as apartment and office buildings have been repaired or rebuilt without question or debate by individuals, the municipalities, or Federation government. In addition, much of Mostar’s historic building fabric and important cultural heritage sites have been rebuilt without invoking controversial symbolism. For example, the Ottoman-era small bazaar shops near the Old Bridge, which were reduced to rubble-filled shells during the war, have been completely rebuilt and returned to their pre-war functions as souvenir boutiques (fig. 44). Yet since postwar reconstruction in Mostar has occurred within a climate of competing identities and during the period of the city’s division and reunification, many postwar building projects reflect this contested context. The purposeful targeting of important public and religious buildings during the war left the city institutionally bereft. The close links between most of these sites and particular religious and 256 Figure 44: Views of Kujundžiluk Street bazaar in Mostar’s Old Town from the same vantage point in June 1992, after the first siege of the city, and in July 2006, after restoration. (images: Foto Studio Hadžić, Mostar and author). cultural communities has meant that their reconstruction has tended to be more controversial and to raise more questions than the general rebuilding of the city. This has also proven true with proposals for the construction of new institutional buildings in postwar Mostar. In addition to the reconstruction of heritage and new building projects, identity debates and unifying and divisive tendencies are visible in the numerous new and returned monuments and memorials in the city. Some of these postwar commemorative projects have caused no controversy and elicited no symbolic criticism, but others have been openly questioned. By focusing on specific sites in Mostar, this chapter will explore the ways in which the postwar reconstruction process in this city is interconnected with these identity questions in Bosnia-Hercegovina. It will discuss those sites whose meanings have 257 Figure 45: Map: Sites in Mostar mentioned in the text. (image: author). been publicly debated and questioned as well as those which have been linked to various conceptions of national identity or whose development has contributed to ongoing discussions of these issues (fig. 45). Close scrutiny of these projects reveals that whether attempting to reflect the particular identity of specific, separate communities or the shared identity of a multicultural Bosnia-Hercegovina, most of the city’s postwar projects have contained both elements. Even projects argued to promote multiculturalism, peace, reconciliation, and even reunification, have caused 258 some controversy. At the same time, some potential common ground or shared value can also be found in even the most fiercely contested sites. CROAT AND CATHOLIC CHURCH SPONSERED PROJECTS As Mostar’s Croat community fought the recent war in purported defense of minority rights and freedom of expression, they have exercised these rights and freedoms in the postwar period. One of the ways in which they have publicly celebrated their distinct identity throughout the western part of the city has been through the rebuilding process, especially through their selection of development sites and the scale, form, iconography, and rhetoric surrounding their projects. While using architecture to celebrate their separate identity Mostar’s Croats have also contributed to the division of the city and its residents, since what they see as demonstrating coexistence, others see as provocatively separatist, and what they see as celebrating a minority identity, others interpret as destroying a former shared identity. Two projects in particular, envisioned and constructed by competing arms of the Catholic Church in Mostar, have been presented as symbols of Christianity, peace, and the coexistence of communities in Mostar by their patrons, but have been widely interpreted as confrontational and divisive by others. These and other expressions of Catholic religious identity in Mostar are simultaneously symbols of Croat national identity because the two categories have merged in wartime and postwar BosniaHercegovina. Because of their prominence, the Jubilee Cross built by the Diocese of Mostar and the bell tower at the mission church of the Franciscan Community of Hercegovina have proven to be the most controversial of all Mostar’s postwar architectural projects. These two sites are more visible in Mostar than even the Old 259 Bridge, whose image is everywhere, but which can actually only be seen from a few very specific vantage points in the city. The significance and controversial nature of the cross and bell tower have often been noted by journalists and politicians, but are only two of the many developments in Mostar’s Croat-controlled areas that have been understood differently by different communities. In addition, failed attempts to build Croat institutions in the Central Zone, the erection of a monument to the HVO, and disinterest in sharing a cemetery have overtly reinforced the separatist tendencies of Mostar’s Croat community while celebrating their distinctive religious, cultural, and national identity. Franciscan Church and Bell Tower: Changing the Skyline One of the most contested recent architectural projects in Mostar was the reconstruction of the church and bell tower of the Franciscan Church of Saints Peter and Paul. Only parts of the exterior walls of the 1872 church were left standing after attacks by the VRS and the JNA in May 1992, but the bell tower survived the war (fig. 46). In 1997, however, the local Franciscans pulled down the tower and the outer shell of the church, and as financing became available built a concrete replica in its place. The poured-concrete walls and roof of the church were finished in 1998 and the interior in 2004, but the exterior still awaits its final surfacing and decoration. The project’s architect was Davor Smoljam, and the interior painting and sculpture was the work of Ukrainian-Croatian artist Aleksandar Saša Zvjagin.1 The monastery cloister, the only surviving part of the complex’s nineteenth century architecture, is included on 1 Work was carried out by the local firm Hering and the Zagreb office of the German concrete formwork company Doka. I. Brkić, “Radovi Pri Kraju” [Work Almost Done], Slobodna BiH, September 26, 1998, 17; Doka, “St. Peter and Paul Church, Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegowina, Doka: 260 Figure 46: The destroyed Franciscan Church of Saints Peter and Paul after the first siege of the city as depicted in the book Urbicid: Mostar ‘92, c.1992. A wooden cross had been erected on the former alter and the word mir, meaning peace, was written in graffiti on the back wall of the church. The former bell tower on the side of the church remained intact. (image: Architectural Association of Mostar) the Provisional List of potential National Monuments of Bosnia-Hercegovina. The new church differed so significantly form its nineteenth-century predecessor, however, that it was not included in that nomination, unlike other recently reconstructions structures such as the Old Bridge which have been recognized as historic architectural monuments (fig. 47). The Formworks Experts,” n.d., http://www.doka.com/ refenz/industrie/mostar.htm ; and Bernardin Škunca, “Energija u Mostarskoj Kapeli” [Energy in Mostar’s Chapel], Vijenac, March 17, 2005, http://www.matica.hr/vijenac . 261 Figure 47: Franciscan church, bell tower, and monastery complex before the war in 1981 and after reconstruction in 2006. The two buildings in the foreground of the prewar picture were completely destroyed and removed, the monastery remains the same, the new church is slightly larger and differently designed, and the bell tower is dramatically taller. (images: Vjesnik, Zagreb and author). Also unlike the New Old Bridge and many other postwar projects in Mostar, the reconstruction of the Franciscan Church was initiated, planned, and almost completely funded by the local Croat community, including not only the Franciscans, but also their followers. Donations were made by local parishioners as well as pilgrims to nearby Međugorje, and a series of well-attended benefit rock concerts raised funds with the help of well known Croatian and Bosnian Croat performers. 2 In addition, some minor contributions may have come from a Catholic charity called American Heartworks and the Franciscan Mission in Stuttgart. 3 2 3 “Potpora Izgradnji Crkve Sv. Petra i Pavla i Hrvatskog Narodnog Kažaliste u Mostaru” [Support for Building the Church of Saints Peter and Paul and the Croatian National Theater], Hrvatska Riječ, May 20, 1997, special insert section; and “Spektakl Kakvog ni Pamti Hercegovina” [Spectacle unknown in Hercegovina], Hrvatska Riječ, September 13, 1997, special insert section. Immaculate Heartworks, “The Story of St. Peter and Paul Church, Immaculate Heartworks on the Web,” n.d., http://users.net1plus.com/ihw/charities.html . 262 The fact that the Franciscan Church was rebuilt was not what was controversial about that project, but rather concern was raised by the size and proportions of the new bell tower and how that height has been understood. Many accounts of the 107.2 meter (≈352 foot) tall tower in the local and regional Croat press proudly claim it is the highest bell-tower of the “Croatian people” and in the entire Balkans, and some even erroneously claim it is Europe’s tallest bell tower. 4 Some of these accounts also note that it is one meter taller than the towers of the Zagreb Cathedral. In purposefully exceeding the mother church of Croat Catholicism, the patrons of the bell tower – who were Croats living outside of the homeland and Franciscans operating outside of the regular church hierarchy – appeared to be trying to prove themselves more Croat and more Catholic than the center. The Franciscan Order, which had been ministering in the region for centuries under the Ottoman Empire, has been at constant odds with the regular Catholic Church since its introduction into Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1881. The most recent incidents in the ongoing power struggle took place as recently as 1998 and 1999, when Franciscans friars, supported by their parishioners, barricaded themselves in eight churches and refused to hand them over to newly appointed parish priests in fulfillment of a papal decree. 5 4 5 Josip Milić, “Zvonik Franjeviačke Crkve u Mostaru Najveći na Balkanu” [Bell Tower of the Franciscan Church in Mostar the tallest in the Balkans], Dnevni List, January 3, 2002, 15; “Najveći Crkeveni Zvonik na Balkanu” [Highest Church Bell Tower in the Balkans], Dnevni List, July 8, 2002, 12; Jozo Pavković, “Najveci Zvonik u Hrvata od Jucer u Mostaru” [Highest Croatian Bell Tower in Mostar since Yesterday], Vecernji List (August 10, 2001); Diana Šimunović, “Katolička Crkva s Najvišim Zvonikom u Europi!” [Catholic Church with the Highest Bell Tower in Europe], Hrvatska Riječ, August 21, 2001, 49. The 1965 papal decree called for the Franciscans to turnover all but 25 parishes in Hercegovina to the Bishop, but because of riots and protests this process was not completed until 1968. In 1995 Mostar Bishop Perić announced plans for the transfer of the remaining parishes by January 1999. Two Franciscan brothers in Ćapljina were excommunicated by John Paul II for refusals to leave their churches. These problems with Franciscans in Bosnia are known within the Catholic Church and media as the “Hercegovina Case.” Mario Marusić, “Franjevci ne najmeravaju napustiti osam Župa” [Franciscans don’t plan to Abandon Eight Parishes], Vjesnik, February 17, 1999, 8. 263 Figure 48: The Franciscan bell tower towering over the Mostar skyline, which in the past has been dominated by numerous, but significantly smaller minarets, 2006. (image: author). Both its supporters and its critics are aware that the primary effect of this tower is to clearly mark a Catholic presence on a city skyline. For the Franciscans and most of the city’s Catholic Croats, the bell tower’s height represents their clear and visible presence in a physical city previously dominated by numerous, albeit smaller minarets (fig. 48). The headline of one newspaper article proudly boasted that the bell tower was “changing the postcard view” of Mostar. 6 The new bell tower’s supporters are also quick to point out that 1992 was the second time a church on this site was purposefully destroyed. 7 The first was by the Ottomans in 1563 shortly after their conquest of the region. This comparison is meant to suggest and argue that the 6 7 Pavković, “Najveci Zvonik u Hrvata.” Brkić, “Radovi Pri Kraju,” 17; Milić, “Zvonik Franjeviačke Crkve,” 15; Pavković, “Najveci Zvonik u Hrvata”; and Šimunović, “Katolička Crkva s Najvišim Zvonikom,” 49. 264 minority Croat people in Bosnia-Hercegovina have had to continuously struggle to celebrate their faith and that their religious and cultural buildings have always been at risk. Since the recent war was fought by nationalistic Croats in order to defend their rights to their perceived unique identity and to publicly profess it, this grandiose bell tower is meant as an undeniable expression of those rights. The right to publicly celebrate Catholic Croat identity is not the only symbolism attached to the new bell tower by the Franciscans and their supporters. The iconography of the church’s decorative program also asserts more universal Catholic messages. The cross on top of the tower is mounted on a spherical base, which according to Franciscan Friar Ivan Ševa, represents the earth and therefore symbolizes all mankind. 8 The rose window above the main portal on the west façade of the church depicts five doves and a cross and is also meant to reflect peaceful Christian sentiments. 9 Like advocates of the New Old Bridge, journalist Josip Milić claimed that the Franciscan Church also had shared and reconciliatory associations. He hoped: … that the new bell tower will be a linking object and proof of the power of coexistence and multi-ethnicity in Mostar. … In Mostar the war wounds must heal, the hatred must change into tolerance and understanding, so that again as before, the mosque and church will exchange greetings and prayers to the one God who made us all, and who in the same way, also supports us all. 10 Milić argued that the new bell tower was a potentially unifying element because its construction suggested the reestablishment of a former way of life in the city were the Catholic and Muslim communities coexisted peacefully but distinctly. Then, somewhat ambiguously, he mentioned the “one God,” which could either be a very 8 9 10 Šimunović, “Katolička Crkva s Najvišim Zvonikom 49. The window was designed by sculptor Lupak Antunović. Brkić, “Radovi Pri Kraju,” 17. Milić, “Zvonik Franjeviačke Crkve,” 15. 265 culturally sensitive understanding of the shared beliefs of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, or it could be evidence of religious chauvinism, suggesting the Catholic God in fact was the “one God.” Later in the same article, Milić further politicizes and promotes the new Church by alluding to the unnaturalness and foreignness of both the federal Yugoslav attempts to create “brotherhood and unity” and more recent international community attempts to create multi-ethnic societies and states. 11 He suggests that the locally funded and initiated rebuilding of the Franciscan Church and its bell tower is more likely to lead to successful coexistence because a truer reflection of social sentiments than what he describes as unsophisticated outside interventions. Rather than promoting unity, the height of the tower has been understood very differently by Mostar’s non-Catholics and the international community. The peaceful and reconciliatory symbolism argued by some of its supporters have received no attention from non-Croat inhabitants of Mostar, nor from foreign institutions and media. In contrast, many have claimed that because of its specific location adjacent to the dividing Boulevard, the bell tower reinforces and marks the line of separation within Mostar. In addition, many are offended by the bell tower’s blatant disregard for the scale of its neighborhood and its church. 12 Its critics agree its height is a celebration and marking of Croat presence in the city, but see this as aggressive and confrontational. Because of these clearly different understandings of this site, the church and tower therefore do not pull the community together, but rather further divides it psychologically. 11 12 Milić, “Zvonik Franjeviačke Crkve,” 15. Rusmir Smajilhodšić, “Nova Mostarska Elita Sagradila je Arhitektonske Monstrume” [New Mostar Elite Build Architectural Monstrosities], Slobodna Bosna, August 8, 2002, 52. 266 In 2002, a local organization called Urban Movement Mostar included the reconstructed Franciscan Church in an exhibition of “architectural disgraces” which had been built in the city since the war had ended.13 This non-profit arts organizations was founded in 1999 by four well-educated, well-traveled young writers and students from Mostar and its goals included developing critical thinking, demystifying “newly established national values,” raising awareness of the “public good,” and ending the continued devastation of the city. 14 This group has sponsored public art and exhibitions as well as journalistic coverage of its issues, including a airing a multisegmented radio show. 15 Urban Movement’s 2002 exhibition, sarcastically titled “Beauties of Rebuilding and Building: Thirty-Four Pearls of Mostar Postwar Architecture,” criticized these structures which had rejected their former appearances in the interest of provocative aggrandizement. It also argued that in attempts to either be overtly nationalistic or politically correct, questions of aesthetics had been forgotten in Mostar and the quality of design had declined dramatically in a city once known as an architectural and urban masterpiece. By juxtaposing photographs of the Franciscan Church and a typical Bosnian mosque, the exhibition mockingly concluded that its bell tower did not even serve its intended purpose of countering the visible Muslim presence in the city, since “nowhere in the Christian world are there that kind of proportions between a bell 13 14 15 The exhibition consisted of blown-up photographs taken on one of the group member’s digital camera and cost less than $200 altogether. These funds were donated by the Norwegian NonGovernmental Organization NDC. Smajilhodšić, “Nova Mostarska Elita,” 52. SCCA, “Partner Organizations: Urban Movement Mostar,” http://www.scca.ba/deconstruction/ e_partnerski_projekti.htm . The radio show is called “Walking along Victims of Democracy Street” [Šetanja Ulicom Žrtava Demokratije]. The show’s name is a clever play on “Victims of Fascism” – a group that received a lot of attention and had streets named after them during the communist era, as well as on “Victims of Communism” – a group that has been similarly remembered in the post-communist, democratic era. Urban Movement Mostar is suggesting that perhaps the current political system will also end someday and its victims will be remembered by whatever follows. SCCA, “Partner Organizations”; and Smajilhodšić, “Nova Mostarska Elita,” 52. 267 Figure 49: View of two panels juxtaposing pictures of the new Franciscan Church and bell tower and a typical Bosnian mosque in the exhibit “Architectural Monstrosities,” Mostar, August 2002.(image: Slobodna Bosna, Sarajevo). tower and church,” but that they are perfectly in keeping with minaret to mosque height ratios (fig. 49). 16 The bell tower’s overwhelming presence has undoubtedly contributed to Mostar’s continued division, but the attempt made by the Franciscans and their supporters in the community to argue their project represents a shared city reveals the different ways in which multiculturalism is understood in contemporary Mostar. The Franciscans have not suggested their church is a shared space, but rather that the visible presence of the church and its bell tower, along with the already existing minarets, demonstrates that Mostar is multicultural because each group has its own separate spaces within the city. 16 Smajilhodšić, “Nova Mostarska Elita,” 53. 268 Jubilee Cross vs. The Cross on Hum Hill Those opposed to the oversized Franciscan bell tower predominately considered it a distasteful eyesore and an aggravation. On the other hand, the Jubilee Cross on Hum Hill overlooking the city has been a greater cause for concern and has been more seriously contested. The thirty-three meter (≈100 foot) tall concrete and steel cross was erected by the Diocese of Mostar in June 2000 in celebration of the twothousandth anniversary of the birth of Jesus (fig. 50). This cross, like the globe on top of the bell tower, was argued by its builders as a symbol of universal values; however, reaction to the cross has been even more divisive. Debates about the cross have resonated well beyond Mostar, as it was covered and discussed by the international community and the state-wide Bosnian and Croatian media as well. At the cross’ dedication ceremony, Mostar Bishop Ratko Perić declared the monument’s aim was “to spread the fruit of peace to all sides of the world,” and expressed his hope that “the thunder of tanks and cannons would never again be heard from Hum.” 17 To reinforce its symbolism of peace, allegedly the steel used in the cross’ construction included melted down weapons from the recent war. 18 After the Bishop spoke of peace at the cross’ dedication, former HVO General Stanko Sopta described how his men conquered Hum Hill in 1992, taking it from the VRS and the JNA, and liberated the besieged city of Mostar. General Sopta did not mention though, that after conquering this hill, the HVO then shelled the city from that very location.19 17 18 19 Senka Kurtović, “Kako je Mostar Ponovo Postao Hrvatski?” [How did Mostar Become Croat again?], Oslobođenje, June 6, 2000, 3. “BiH: Ekstremisti Protiv Katoličkih Spomenika i Crkava” [BiH: Extremists against Catholic Monuments and Churches], Glas Koncila, September 21,2001, reprinted by HIC, http://www.hic.hr Kurtović, “Kako je Mostar Postao Hrvatski?” 3. 269 Figure 50: The Jubilee Cross on Hum Hill, 2004. (image: author) Rather than “spreading peace to all sides of the world” as the Bishop suggested, the cross has spread animosity to Mostar’s east side where it is widely interpreted as provocative. A heated editorial in the Mostar literary magazine Most called it a “cross of arrogance and shame … of aggression and terror” and “religious propaganda.” 20 A group of Mostar Muslims sent an open letter to Mufti Seid Smajkić, head of the Islamic Community in the city, asking him to speak out against the cross on their behalf and expressing a desire for him to be as active for the Muslim cause in Mostar as Bishop Perić was for the city’s Catholics. 21 A response came from the Mufti of Sarajevo, who vehemently opposed the cross in a public address, going so far as to call it “a symbol of the killing of Muslims and the destruction of mosques” because 20 21 Mehmed Rajković, “Križ Bahatosti i Srama” [Cross of Arrogance and Shame], Most 50-51 (JulyAugust 2001): http://www.most.ba/05152/000.htm . “Mostarsko Pismo Muftiji” [Mostar Letter to the Mufti], Dani, June 16, 2000, 12. 270 Figure 51: Aerial view of Mostar showing the visibility of the Jubilee Cross on Hum Hill, and hill’s proximity to and prominence in the city, c2003. (image: wikipedia.com). shelling from Hum Hill had caused such damage during the war. 22 Though the weapons melted down to build the cross can no longer be used to cause physical damage, in their new form they clearly continue to wound non-Croats and nonCatholics in Mostar, who consider the cross belligerent since there is no place in Mostar, east or west, from which it is not visible and dominating (fig. 51). Since whoever controlled Hum Hill controlled Mostar during the war, many of Mostar’s non-Croat residents interpret the cross there now as a statement of the victory and authority of the Croat Catholics over the entire city. For them, it is like a flag planted in conquered territory, just like the other crosses on other hills throughout Croat-controlled parts of Hercegovina. 23 Colin Munro, the head or the OHR Regional 22 23 HIC, “Mostar Prenosi Govor Sarajevskog Muftija Huseina Efendije Smajića” [Mostar Broadcast the Speech of Sarajevo Mufti Husein Efendija Smaijć], September 21, 2001, http://www.hic.hr . Mirsad Behram, “Gigantic Cross Seen as Provocation in Bosnian City,” AP, July 7, 2000; “Mostarsko Pismo Muftiji,” 12; Kurtović, “Kako je Mostar Postao Hrvatski?” 3; Mehmed 271 Office in Mostar, noted that “the Muslim Community sees this cross as a symbol of triumphalism, not a symbol of Christianity.” 24 One politically active Mostar Serb sent a letter to the Bishop suggesting he “not compromise [his] religious symbols” or “use them to provoke by putting them on places where they do not belong.” 25 The peaceful Christian message it could potentially symbolize was thus overwhelmed by other associations, and a number of times since its erection this monument has even been attacked, typically involving breaking its light sources and always followed by generalizing, symbolic criticisms from the Bishop’s office in Mostar. 26 An Oslobođenje article declared that with the cross’ erection Mostar became a “Croat City” and then US Ambassador to Bosnia-Hercegovina, Thomas Miller, concurred it reflected a Croat claim over Mostar, announcing that “crosses on mountains and other symbols of religious intolerance shall not be tolerated.” 27 His comment sparked a passionate response from Bishop Perić, who complained that a “religious war” was being waged against the cross and asked why there was such opposition from the international community to Catholic sites and symbols without a parallel criticism of new Orthodox and Muslim sites and symbols throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina. 28 For him, many of these sites were more deserving of suspicion because usually funded by foreign governments rather than by locals. A Bosnian Croat journalist argued that it was not the Croats who posed a threat to multicultural Mostar since they are not the 24 25 26 27 28 Rajković, “Križ Bahatosti i Srama” and “Simbol Koji nas Dijeli” [A symbol which Divides Us] Oslobođenje, October 25, 2003, 30. Rajković, “Simbol Koji nas Dijeli,” 30. Kurtović, , “Kako je Mostar Postao Hrvatski?” 3; and Milovan Jovićić, Deputy Speaker of the Mostar City Parliament, as quoted in Behram, “Gigantic Cross Seen as Provocation.” “Bishop’s Ordinariate Embittered by Defilement of the Cross on Hum,” FENA, November 4, 2005, http://www.fena.ba/uk/vijest.html?fena_id=FMO104938 . Miller as quoted in “Krževi na Brdima Neće Biti Tolerisani” [Crosses on Hills will not be Tolerated], Dnevni Avaz, July 28, 2000, 4. U.S. Congress, House Committee on International Relations, The Dayton Accords: A View From the Ground, Hearing Before The Committee On International Relations, prepared Statement by Reverend Dr. Ratko Perić, 107th Congress, 1st Session, July 25, 2001, 41. 272 “intolerant and exclusive” ones who oppose the symbols of others. 29 On the other hand, the notorious Croatian opposition news magazine The Feral Tribune impertinently summed up the situation by suggesting that the Church’s fight for this cross resembled the Crusades more than the Gospel. 30 A year after the cross’ erection, in September 2001, a committee of Mostar residents demanded its removal by submitting a petition with 7000 signatures to the regional OHR office. The petition called for the cross to be taken down “in the interest of peace, communal life, tolerance and also in the process of uniting the city” since in that location it “further cements and thickens the only remaining ‘Berlin Wall’ in Europe.” 31 Croat nationalist newspapers from West Mostar interpreted this petition and the anti-cross campaign as the efforts of “worn-out communists and Islamic fundamentalists.” 32 As the debate continued past the attacks of September 11 in the United States, the cross’ supporters began to stress the role of Islam in the criticism of the cross and used words such as Jihad, terrorists, and mujahideen to describe the local attacks and attackers. 33 In reaction to the petition, some nationalist Croats organized a group to erect yet another cross on yet another hill overlooking the city of Mostar. They proposed 29 30 31 32 33 Philip Martin, “Kome Smeta Križ?: Mostarska Multikulturalna Pitanja” [Who is Bothered by the Cross?: Mostar Multicultural Questions], Hrvatska Riječ, June 24, 2000, 18. Mile Stojić, “Križ i Bijes” [Cross and Rage], Feral Tribune, January 12, 2002, 61-62. “Peticija Njegovoj Ekselenciji Colinu Mounrou, Šefu OHR-a Mostar” [Petition to His Excellency Colin Monroe], reprinted in Most 53 (September 2001): http://www.most.ba/053/000.htm ; OHR, “Seven Thousand Signatures Submitted to OHR for removal of the Cross on the Mostar Hum Hill,” BiH Media Round-Up, September 28, 2001, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/bh-media-rep/ round-ups/default.asp?content_id=5979 . Leo Pločkinić, “Skupina Mostaraca bošnjačke narodnosti traži uklanjanje Križa s Brda Hum” [A Group of Mostarians of Bosniak Nationality are Trying to Remove the Cross on Hum Hill], Hrvatska Riječ, August 28, 2001, 5. Darko Juka, “Križ Opet Svijetli Svima!” [The Cross again a Light for All], Dnevni List, October 9, 2001, 6; and “Uoboćajeni Osumnjičenici” [Customary Suspicions], Dom i Svijet, September 17, 2001, http://www.hic.hr/dom/352/dom03.htm . 273 painting this new cross in phosphorus “glow-in-the-dark” tunnel paint to ensure it would always be visible; however, the cross actually erected in June 2002 on Orlovac Hill seems not to have actually been covered with any such coating, and due to its considerably smaller size and site it is not visible from the city. 34 Holders of these vastly different interpretations of the Jubilee Cross on Hum Hill approach it from very different frames of reference. Its supporters see a multicultural, pluralistic Bosnia-Hercegovina as one in which anyone can erect symbols of their faith and identity freely without fear of attack or criticism. Its critics see a multicultural, pluralistic Bosnia-Hercegovina where only symbols of unity and shared values should be awarded such visible and significant sites. However since these two sides are completely unable to understand each other’s position, the cross remains a site that divides the community. The two sides of the debate about this particular monument can be summed up in how they each refer to it: while its supporters always call it the “Jubilee Cross” in reference to its commemorative function, its critics always call it the “Cross on Hum Hill” in reference to its site. These two names reflect what each audience considers its most important and meaningful attribute. HVO Monument: Celebrating Defenders or Destroyers? More than any other site in Mostar, the monument to the HVO explicitly contradicts the reconciliatory symbolism associated with the New Old Bridge, but it has been far less controversial than other projects, such as the Franciscan bell tower or the Jubilee 34 “Osim Onog na Humu: Gradit će se još jedan križ!” [In Addition to the One on Hum: We Will Build One More Cross], Hrvatska Riječ, September 24, 2001, 26; M. I., “Obilježena 10. Obljetnica Oslobođenja” [Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of Liberation], Dnevni List, June 10, 2002, 4; and Leo Pločkinić, “Gradi se Križ na Brdu Galac iznad Mostar” [Building a Cross on Galac Hill over Mostar], Dnevni List, October 3, 2001, 6. 274 cross. 35 Its official name is the “Monument to the Fallen Croat Defenders in the Homeland War” (Spomenik Poginulih Hrvatskim Braniteljima u Domovinskog Ratu), but since the “Croat defenders” in Mostar were almost all members of the HVO, the monument can be understood as dedicated to that Bosnian Croat militia and the actions and goals of its fighters. Though the name does not refer exclusively to military personnel, as many civilians can be said to have participated in the defense of the city, but the monument, as well as an earlier cross erected on its site immediately following the war, have been used for ceremonies and events associated with HVO veterans and losses. 36 This monument demonstrates that many in Mostar want to celebrate and commemorate this organization, and plans have even been discussed to build a second, larger memorial complex on Hum Hill which lists the names of the 650 fallen “defenders.” 37 On the other hand, others in Mostar, while recognizing that the HVO did participate in the defense of the city during its first siege, can not forget the HVO’s later attack on the eastern part of the city. These varied memories and interpretations of the HVO explain the discomfort of some with the erection of a memorial to these fighters. The HVO not only destroyed the Old Bridge, but also shelled the city for months in 1993, killing and injuring hundreds of its citizens. In 1997 the Mostar Southwest Municipality formed a Commission for Building the Monument. In late 1998, in conjunction with the other two Mostar municipalities with 35 36 37 Zvonimir Jukić, “Određen Naziv Spomenika” [The Name of the Monument Definite], Slobodna BiH, October 10, 1998, 4. Zvonimir Jukić, “Zapalite Svijeće pred Križem” [Lighting of Candles in front of the Cross], Slobodna BiH October 31, 1998, 16. Jukić, “Oređen Naziv Spomenika,” 4.; Z. Dragić, “Spomenik: Simbol i Ponos Hrvata Mostara” [The Monument: Symbol and Pride of the Croats of Mostar], Slobodna BiH, October 2, 1998, 8.; “Radovi na Spomeniku Palim Braniteljima” [Working on the Monument to the Fallen Fighters], Bljesak.info, March, 13 2004, www.bljesak.info/modules.php?name=News&fil=article&sid=6576 . 275 Figure 52: Monument to the Fallen Croat Defenders in the Homeland War, The Rondo, 2004. (image: author). Croat majorities, the Commission organized a competition for the monument’s design. The winning proposal was submitted by Croatian sculptor Slavomir Drinković, and foundations were soon laid. No progress was made on its construction for four years, but then suddenly, on March 13, 2004 – just two days before the city was reunited by the implementation of the New City Statute – the monument abruptly appeared on its foundations (fig. 52). 38 The near simultaneity of the city’s reunification with the opening ceremony for a monument to those that actively fought to divide the city clearly demonstrated the continued psychological divisions within Mostar. 38 I. Brkić, “Spomenik Poginulim Hrvatskim Braniteljima” [Monument to the Fallen Croat Defenders], Slobodna BiH, April 11, 1999, 11; Zvonimir Jukić, “Natječaj za Spomenik Domovinskog Rata” [Competition for the Monument to the Homeland War], Slobodna BiH, October 15, 1998, 15; “Radovi na Spomeniku,” and “Što je sa Spomenikom Braniteljima?” [What is Going on with the Monument to the Defenders], Hrvatska Riječ, September 10, 2001, 6. 276 The monument’s design includes a black marble cube composed of fourteen vertical pillars, seven on each side, through which passes a void in the shape of a tilted Latin cross. The pillars represent the fourteen centuries since the Croatian Slavs migrated to the areas they now occupy. The cross, which touches each pillar, is meant to represent how the centuries of Croat history are all connected by their Christian tradition. 39 The historical accuracy of this symbolism is questionable, since though the Croats did migrate to the Balkans in the seventh century, conversion to Christianity did not begin until the ninth century. 40 On the other two sides are two etched images, one abstract and one representational. The later depicts a pieta, representing a mother’s pain for a lost son, in this case referencing “the fallen defenders.” The monument’s cross and pieta are particularly Christian symbols, so exclusive in the context of postwar Mostar. Many Muslims were members of the HVO during the first phase of the war, however the monument’s iconography and dedication specifically to Croat defenders preclude any possible association with it by Muslims, even if they were willing to overlook the HVO’s later attack on the city. There was surprisingly little public discussion or complaint about this monument during its long construction process or following its March 2004 completion. At first, this may have been because most non-Croats were unaware of what was intended for the foundations which sat abandoned for years. There is so little shared media and social interaction between individuals from different “sides” of the city, and all reports on the monument were in Croatian or Bosnian Croat newspapers which Mostar’s nonCroats were not likely to have seen. There was no mention of the monument in 39 40 I.T., “Isklesani Spomenik Čeka da se Isplati Dug od 687,089 Maraka” [Carved Monument waits to for Payment of More than 687,089 Marks], Dnevni List, August 27, 2003, http://www.dnevnilist.ba/modules.php?name=News&file+article&sid=264 . Ivo Goldstein, Croatia: A History (Montreal / Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999), 13, 16. 277 Muslim oriented and independent papers, since most are Sarajevo based and seldom reported on smaller projects in other cities. Thus the construction of this monument just a few blocks away from the Old Bridge went unnoticed by the city’s inhabitants and the international community until the very moment of its completion. When the monument did suddenly appear, High Representative Paddy Ashdown feared controversy and ordered some official inquiries: he contacted officials in Southwest Municipality and was assured the construction was legal, and he contacted Muslim political leaders in the city and was assured that they did not object. 41 One article in a Bosnian Croat paper even claimed by answering the OHR’s inquiries in this way, Mostar’s Muslims saved the monument from controversy that might have led to its removal. 42 The true meaning of the city’s Muslim leaders not contesting the HVO monument’s construction is difficult to ascertain because of its timing on the very day when Ashdown was in town to celebrate the reunification of the city. It is impossible to know whether they genuinely had no issues with the monument, if they were feeling overwhelming waves of tolerance in the spirit of the day, if they did not want to cause any problems or appear to be detracting from the positivity of the day’s festivities, or if they were simply too distracted by everything else going on in Mostar that week. Though it is difficult to believe there was no question of a monument constructed to those responsible for deaths and destruction in the city, that criticism was not voiced publicly. But it is interesting to note that this was true at this monument – where there 41 42 Darko Juka, “Spomenik ne smeta ni Ashdownu ni Bošnjacima” [The Monument Doesn’t Bother Ashdown or the Bosniaks], Slobodna Dalmacija, March 16, 2004, 16. Zoran Kresić, “Bošnjaci spasi Spomenika Hrvatskim Braniteljima” [Bosniaks Saved Monument to Croat Defenders], Večernji List, March 15, 2004, 3. 278 was no pretence that it was anything other than a celebration of Catholic Croat values – while there have been vehement protests of the Franciscan bell tower and the Jubilee Cross on Hum Hill – where universalist rhetoric about peace were employed. Perhaps, since this monument was erected a few years after the controversies about the tower and cross had surged and waned, tensions really had eased and reunification really had brought greater tolerance to Mostar. Stalled Attempts to Build in Central Zone Two major construction projects proposed by Mostar’s Croat community for sites in the Central Zone caused such controversy and debate that they were never completed. Because both revealed the tensions between what some see as the public display of minority identity and others see as secessionist sentiments, questions about whether this theater and church would be finished were questions about whether the city would move psychologically closer together or further apart. Even now that the city has reunified and the Central Zone no longer exists as a separate administrative unit, these projects remain in a suspended state. The Croatian National Theater (HNK) company was founded in 1994 by members of Mostar’s federal-era National Theater company who sought to establish a separate group for the west side. For its first few years the HNK was financed by the government of the short-lived Herceg-Bosna and met and performed in the recently renamed Croatian Cultural House (Hrvatski Dom) on the former Rondo. 43 43 Dženana Alađuz, “Valja Nama Preko Neretve: Pozorište i Kazalište u Mostaru” [We Have to Cross the Neretva: Theater and Theater in Mostar], Slobodna Bosna, March 20, 1999, 50. 279 Figure 53: The abandoned foundations of the Croatian National Theater, whose monumental front steps lead to nowhere, Spanish Square, 2003. (image: author). Construction of a theater building to serve as a permanent home for the HNK began in 1996, stalled within a year because of funding problems, was later resumed, and then finally was stopped again in 2002 by the city administration because of property ownership concerns (fig. 53) 44 The land on which the HNK was being built had been acquired inappropriately, if not illegally, in an underhanded act of privatization during the post-socialist, wartime confusion. 45 Though further construction on the new theater building is forbidden, the Small Stage (Mala Scena) in the basement is complete and operating. This so-called small theater seats more than twice as many as Mostar’s “regular” National Theater, which functions on the other side of town in its damaged building which awaits full rehabilitation (fig. 54). As an almost cliché example of the drain on resources caused by the creation of parallel institutions in the divided city, the east side has a theater 44 45 “Više od Godinu Dana Moralo se Čekati na Kazališnu Premijeru u Mostarskome HNK!” [We’ve had to Wait more than a Year for the Theatrical Premier in Mostar’s HNK], Hrvatska Riječ, May 19, 2001, 42. OHR, “‘Večernji List’: Construction of Mostar’s HNK Banned,” BiH Media Round-Up, May 22, 2002, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/bh-media-rep/round-ups/default.asp?content_id=8298 . 280 Figure 54: National Theater, whose front façade has been resurfaced and painted, but side still shows damage from the recent war, 2006. (image: author) building, but no money and few professional actors, while the west side has financing, equipment, and actors, but only a half-finished building. At the time when the City of Mostar stopped construction of the HNK, the Mayor was Hamdija Jahić, a Muslim from the SDA party, and the Deputy Mayor was Neven Tomić, a moderate Croat who had been rejected by the nationalist HDZ party a few years earlier for his refusal to support the formation of a autonomous Croat entity in Bosnia and for his clear interests in reuniting Mostar. The decision to stop construction of the HNK was motivated not only by property ownership concerns, but also by the project’s location within Mostar’s Central Zone. For many residents of the city, a theater fit perfectly within the requirements for building in this district because the precise wording of the Interim City Statute reserved it for government and public buildings and “for the encouragement of local cultural activities.”46 However for 46 “Agreement on Mostar,” signed in Rome, February 18, 1996. 281 others, including the city’s mayors, the HNK did not fit within the spirit of that Statute – or of the Rome Agreement of which it was a part – which had called for unifying the city and designated the Central Zone as a shared space. Therefore, the construction of institutions clearly linked to a single group or religion in the Central Zone was interpreted by many Mostar residents and the international community as a violation and an infringement of the district’s neutrality. 47 Nationalist Croats rightly believe that construction was also stopped because many of the city’s Muslims do not want a Croatian National Theater in Mostar at all, regardless of location. They and other supporters of a shared Bosnia-Hercegovina are disturbed by the desire to build institutions that have closer psychological and physical links with Croatia than with Bosnia-Hercegovina. 48 According to Mijo Brajković, President of the Commission for building the HNK and General Director of Aluminija, a local factory and major financer of this project, the new theater “is a symbol of one national culture, but is the heritage of all peoples.” 49 But most have trouble reconciling its symbolism of and dedication to one group with its ownership by all. In the local Croat media, opposition to the theater is interpreted as a campaign against “the building of institutions of national or religious meaning for Croats” and is understood as yet another attempt to deny their distinct cultural identity and their right 47 48 49 “New Cathedral: A Provocation,” Politika, February 13, 1996, http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/serb/1996/96-02-13.serb.html ; Jozo Pavković, “Bitka za ‘Nićiju Zemlju’” [Battle for No Man’s Land], Hrvatska Riječ, May 10, 1997, 18-19. Sanja Šarić, “Made in HDZ,” Slobodna Bosna, October 19, 1997, 57. In 2006, this drive for ties with Croatia continued as plans were actively underway, with the support of the Croat member of the Bosnian Presidency, to establish a Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Mostar, BosniaHercegovina. FENA, “Jović: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in BiH by 1 May,” March 6, 2006, http://www.fena.ba/uk/vijest.html?fena_id=FMO112435 . Nermin Bise, “Scena za Sve Mostarce” [Theater for All Mostar Residents], Oslobodenje, May 1, 2003, http://www.oslobodjenje.com.ba/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34834& Itemid=0 . 282 to publicly celebrate it. 50 They claim the “Muslim side” has a theater so the “Croat side” needs and deserves one too. Yet its critics are more interested in shared institutions and thus view the HNK Company, and the permanence represented by a HNK building, as one more unnecessary doubling in the city. They can not understand why Mostar’s Croats are unable to share any spaces or institutions. 51 In February 1996, the EUAM had stopped the construction of another highly controversial institution being built in the area under consideration as the Central Zone and which would be officially designated as such a month later in Rome. Not only was this planned new Catholic Cathedral located within the proposed Central Zone, but its particular site had the added complication of having formerly been a Muslim cemetery, which had been appropriated by the Austrian administration in the late nineteenth century. Mostar’s Islamic Community, led by Mufti Smajkić, believed the property should be returned to them rather than developed, and especially rather than used for a new Catholic Cathedral.52 Croat nationalist sources claimed “the Muslims” were inventing arguments and are simply opposed to specifically Croat institutions and religious symbols. 53 Eventually, the Diocese of Mostar abandoned the active pursuit of a new Cathedral in large part because they did not have the funds to build it anyway. Instead, they 50 51 52 53 “Smetaju im Sve Hrvatske Nacionalne Institucije” [All Croatian National Institutions Bother Them], Hrvatska Riječ, January 18, 1997, 10. Alađuz, “Valja Nama Preko Neretve,” 50; Nermin Bise, “Šta je Starije: Kažalište ili Pozorište?” [Which is Older: Theater or Theater?], Oslobođenje, November 10, 2002, 15; Vedrana Petrić, “Četrdeset Pet Minuta za ‘Kazališni Sat’”[Forty-Five Minutes in a ‘Theater Hour’], Hrvatska Riječ, October 11, 1997, 22; and Šarić, “Made in HDZ,” 57. “New Church Location Causes Rifts in Divided Bosnian City” Catholic World News, March 4, 1996, http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?Recnum =125 ; “New Cathedral,” Politika. “Bošnjaci se Protive Izgradnji Katedrale u Mostaru Iako za to Nemaju Argumenata!” [Bosniaks are Against Building a Cathedral in Mostar without any Arguments], Hrvatska Riječ, March 9, 1996, 1, 12-13. 283 Figure 55: Abandoned proposed for a new Cathedral of the Mother of the Church, c.1995 and the current Cathedral building, 2003. (image: Marijan Hrzić, Arhetip, Zagreb and author). completely repaired the “old” Cathedral of the Mother of the Church, which had been built in the 1970s and was only lightly damaged during the recent war by intermittent, though targeted shelling by Serb forces in 1992. 54 This rehabilitation work was completed in 1999 (fig. 55). The original idea to build a new, bigger cathedral persisted for a number of years though since the older church was considered neither monumental nor prominent enough. Its humble scale was argued to reflect the anti-religious communist-era during which it was constructed, and the demand from clergy and parishioners to build a new 54 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, “War Damage to the Cultural Heritage in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,” prepared by Colin Kaiser, January 19, 1993, as Appendix C in “The Destruction by War of the Cultural Heritage in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina presented by the Committee on Cultural and Education,” report prepared by Jacques Baumel, Doc 6756, February 2, 1993, http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc93/EDOC6756.htm ; and I.M., “Bljesnula Katedral” [The Cathedral Shined], Slobodna BiH, February 19, 1999, 19; Ž. Mrkonjić, “Katedrala u Novom Ruhu” [Cathedral in New Clothes], Slobodna BiH, October 9, 1998, 16. 284 cathedral was argued to reflect a desire “to erase the mark of the previous system.” 55 An even more likely explanation for the Diocese of Mostar’s interest in a more prominently located and monumental Cathedral was their competition for visibility and size on Mostar’s skyline. The rivalry in this case is not so much with the many mosques of the city and their minarets, but rather with the Franciscan Church and its colossal new bell tower. The Cathedral’s lack of prominence and the Bishop’s lack of authority over Catholics in Hercegovina is even more obvious now that the Franciscan Church is so much larger and unavoidably visible. In fact, because of its overwhelming prominence, it is often mistaken for the Cathedral by foreigners and visitors to the city, much to the Bishop’s irritation. Since a monumental new cathedral building was not likely to be built for both financial and property law reasons, a new bell tower was built beside the existing cathedral in 2004 (fig. 56). It does not compete in height with the Franciscan bell tower, but it does make the Cathedral visible on the city’s skyline and is similarly out of scale with its church. Despite its recent provenance and unimpressive architecture, the Cathedral is included on the Provisional List of potential National Monuments of Bosnia-Hercegovina, reflecting the tendency of the Monument Commission’s to focus on national affiliation and fair distribution as much as on architectural and historical merit. The 1970s Cathedral was not an especially recognized or appreciated example from its period and is not mentioned in histories of Bosnian architecture, thus it is doubtful it was acknowledged for architectural qualities, especially since only the most exceptional of structures from the second half of the twentieth century have been designated or 55 Mrkonjić, “Katedrala u Novom Ruhu,” 16 285 Figure 56: New historicist pastiche and stucco-surfaced bell tower incongruously placed beside the metal and concrete modernist Cathedral, 2006. (image: author). nominated to the provisional list. But because the Orthodox Church and numerous mosques in Mostar are already designated monuments or are on the Provisional List, there was clearly a need to also include at least one Catholic Church in the city. The reason the city administration stopped construction of both the new Cathedral and the HNK was to preserve the neutrality and multiculturalism of the Central Zone and to save that space for shared institutions would serve as a foundation for the city’s eventual reunification, but these decisions also contributed to the solidification of the 286 city’s division by ensuring that all Croat and Muslim cultural and religious institutions were built only within religious-national enclaves on either “side.” The authorities did not allow for the possibility that the two separate communities could overlap in the center, building their own institutions within close proximity of one another and thus interacting in the shared spaces around those buildings. The Central Zone was the only place where this could have happened during the city’s decade of division. Instead, since the Central Zone was kept free of structures with particular associations and the since only communal institutions built there were the city and federation government buildings, the result was actually to create a zone of interest to neither group and thus a true buffer that prevented even accidental contact between the groups and the familiarity and understanding that might facilitate. Liska Street Cemetery: A Missed Opportunity The few truly shared spaces that can occasionally be found in Mostar have served in the past decade as flash points for confrontation that have furthered the intercommunal divisions in the city. These missed opportunities and potential starting points for reunification demonstrate, perhaps even more clearly than projects with overtly separatist symbolism, that portions of Mostar’s Croat community, including its leadership, have not been interested in sharing any spaces within the city. The park on Liska Street, which was converted into a cemetery during the first siege of Mostar, is a key example of a shared space has been a source of conflict rather than reconciliation. 56 Its composition reflects the nature of that first battle, when the city’s 56 The former park may have included a few, isolated eighteenth and nineteenth century Muslim graves and markers before the recent war. “Skandalozno: Vandalizam nad Mostarskim KulturnoHistorijskim Blagom” [Scandal: Vandalism of Mostar’s Cultural Historical Treasures], 287 Figure 57: Muslim and Christian graves interspersed in the Liska Street Cemetery, 2004. (image: author). Croat and Muslim population fought together against the VRS and JNA, and its graves include both Bosnian Muslims and Croats, as well as a few Bosnian Serbs. Traditionally in Bosnia-Hercegovina, even during the communist era, people tended to be buried in separate, religiously demarcated cemeteries, since life events like birth, marriage, and death were the few religiously oriented things in the former Yugoslavia. But as a result of the unusual wartime circumstances, everyone was buried together in Liska Park, and crosses were interspersed among the oblong traditional Bosnian Muslim nišani (fig. 57). Instead of leading to mutual understanding or the acceptance of commonalities in Mostar, this accidental sharing of space led to one of the most violent incidents in Oslobođenje, June 4, 2003, http://www.oslobodjenje.ba/index.php?optinon=com_content&task =view&id=35317&Itemid=0 . 288 post-Dayton Bosnia-Hercegovina. 57 Despite the EUAM’s insistence that this cemetery be included within the Central Zone, its site was one of those whittled away during the final negotiations of the district’s boundaries in Rome. Thus the Liska Street cemetery ended up in the western, Croat-controlled part of Mostar. In 1997, on the holiday of Bajram, when it is customary to visit the graves of family members, a group of a few hundred Mostar Muslims, led by then Mayor Safet Oručević, and head of the Islamic Community in Mostar, Mufti Smajkić, approached the cemetery to pay their respects. Coincidently a larger group of Bosnian Croats were celebrating Carnival in an outdoor festival on the Rondo a few blocks away. Allegedly to keep these two groups separate and avoid confrontations, the west Mostar police set up road blocks to prevent the Muslim group from progressing into west Mostar. As soon as the Muslims crossed the Boulevard and approached the cemetery, the west Mostar police began beating them with batons, continuing even as the Muslims attempted to retreat. Then finally, the police officers began firing into the group, killing one man and injuring dozens more. 58 The incident was followed by an evening of sporadic attacks by Muslims on Croats and Croats on Muslims throughout the city, as well as the eviction from their homes of twenty-eight Muslim families still living in west Mostar. According to a report prepared by the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF) stationed in Bosnia-Hercegovina at the time, the actions of the west Mostar police 57 58 Sumathra Bose, Bosnia after Dayton: Nationalist Partition and International Intervention (London: Hurst and Co., 2002), 141; Hasan Eminović, “Ni Parka, ni Groblja” [Neither Park, nor Cemetery], Hercegovačke Novine, June 7, 2003, 11; OHR, “Bulletin 36, February 11, 1997,” OHR, February 11, 1997, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/chronology/bulletins/default.asp?content_id =4961#1 ; and Robert Wasserman, “Report in Pursuance of the Decisions on Mostar of 12 February 1997,” UN International Police Task Force, February 24, 1997, http://www.ohr.int/otherdoc/fed-mtng/ default.asp?content_id =3604 . Wasserman, “Report in Pursuance of the Decisions.” 289 were unwarranted and unprovoked, as the two groups of celebrators never had visual contact, let alone appeared confrontational.59 In addition, the government of the Municipality Southwest had been notified of the peaceful intentions and proposed route of the Bajram observers in advance, and had used that information to plan the deployment of police and roadblocks, rather than to protect either group. 60 Clearly the west Mostar authorities were not interested in sharing the cemetery on Liska Street, or of allowing public, organized expressions of Islamic faith on “their” side of town. 61 A few days after the altercation, “west Mostar politicians suggested that the Muslim graves in the Liska Street cemetery should be exhumed and transported across the river for reburial in the ‘Muslim’ part of town.” 62 This was recommended as a precautionary solution to prevent the occurrence of additional clashes, but also demonstrated the prevailing attitude that everyone, including the dead, should be separated into nationally differentiated spaces within the city and within Bosnia-Hercegovina. In the years since that incident, tolerance within Mostar has improved and people cross from one side to the other without threats of violence. In addition, many Muslim families have returned to their prewar homes in what was west Mostar. But the plans to remove the bodies from the cemetery on Liska Street continue. Appeals that all those buried there be exhumed and reburied in either Muslim, Catholic, or Orthodox 59 60 61 62 Wasserman, “Report in Pursuance of the Decisions.” Following the IPTF report, criminal proceedings were initiated against the participating members of the west Mostar police. However, those cases eventually disappeared and were never settled. OHR, “Transcript of the Press Conference in Mostar,” Kristen Haupt, June 5, 2002, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-offices/mostar/transcripts/default.asp?content_id=8664 . Veso Vegar, “Dogođanje Naroda Podijelilio Mostar!” [Happening of the People Divided Mostar], Hrvatska Riječ, March 15, 1997, 10. Bose, 142. 290 cemeteries alongside their families and ancestors have in more recent years been disguised in language asking that the park be returned to its prewar appearance and function. 63 Public opinion among Mostar’s Croats tends to support this idea, and a petition was even circulated in support of it by family members of Catholic Croats buried there, who felt their loved ones “would find their final peace in their own cemeteries, not in Liska Park.” 64 They argued the only reason their relatives had been buried in the park was because of its relative safety during the daily shelling at the time of their deaths. These surviving family members believed that now that there was no obstacle, these persons should be buried in separate cemeteries as they would have been under normal circumstances.65 In a clearly duplicitous attempt to strengthen their case that all bodies should be removed from the park, the Mostar Southwest Municipality hired sanitary inspectors who reported that the cemetery, located near a hospital and playground and in the center of the city, presented a health hazard. 66 The Mostar Southwest Municipality also provided financial assistance to families who could not afford to move and rebury their loved ones, and moved bodies with no surviving family members to decide for them. During the war, 465 people were buried in the makeshift cemetery in Liska Park. By the summer of 2003, approximately 265 of those had been exhumed and reburied. 67 These were almost all removed according to the wishes of their Croat Catholic and Serb Orthodox families. 63 64 65 66 67 Sanja Bjelica, “Parku u Liska Ulici Vratiti Prijeratni Izlged” [Park on Liska Street to Return to Its Prewar Appearance], Dnevni List, April 8, 2003, 12; Jelana Dalipagić and Vera Soldo, “Obnova i Rekonstrukcije u Mostaru na Svakom Koraku” [Renewal and Reconstruction in Mostar at Every Step], Dnevni List, July 22, 2003, 15; Eminović, “Ni Parka, ni Groblja,” 11-12; Vera Soldo, “Liska Park – Novi Povod za Politizaciju?” [Liska Park – New Occasion for Politicization?], Dnevni List, June 21, 2003, 15; and Z. Skoko, “Što Mislite o Ideji da se Parku Liska Vrati Prijeratni Izgled?” [What do You Think about Returning Liska Park to its Prewar Appearance?], Dnevni List, April 28, 2003, 13. S.B., “Parku u Liska Ulici,” 12. Soldo, “Liska Park,” 15. Eminović, “Ni Parka, ni Groblja,” 12. Soldo, “Liska Park,” 15. 291 A group of Muslims with relatives buried in this cemetery circulated their own petition which protested all the exhumations, asking that the dead “be left in peace.” 68 Muslim families have for the most part have chosen not to exhume and move their relatives, but the relocation of most of the Christian bodies has left the cemetery largely Muslim today. Since the people in this cemetery died together fighting the same battle, this cemetery had presented an almost unique opportunity in the city to celebrate a universally supported cause on a universally significant site. However, instead of proposals to build a shared memorial or to honor this cemetery for what it represented, this space too has been divided. ISLAMIC COMMUNITY PROJECTS: MOSQUES BUILT AND UNBUILT Religious nationalist symbols have been less obvious and aggressive in the eastern, Muslim-controlled part of Mostar, but the building and rebuilding of mosques has also been interpreted as an attempt to distinguish the east side of the city from the west. This accumulation of separately repaired or rebuilt mosques, a gradual process of lowprofile projects, has had a collective impact on the city. The part of Mostar under Muslim control prior to the city’s reunification was coincidently also the city’s historic Ottoman core, which arguably had an Islamic character for centuries before the postwar reconstruction process began. These visible signs of the city’s Muslim heritage and history were openly targeted by Mostar’s attackers: Serb forces shelled and toppled almost every minaret in the city, as well as 68 J.D. and Soldo, , “Obnova i Rekonstrukcije,” 15; Eminović, “Ni Parka, ni Groblja,” 11; and Soldo, “Liska Park,” 15. 292 Figure 58: Restored Koski-Mehmed-Paša and Karođoz-Beg Mosques, 2006. (images: author). the domes of many mosques. 69 The HVO finished off all the mosques in Croatcontrolled parts of the city. The repair of mosques damaged during the recent war was supported by the local Islamic Community as well as other international donors, including the restoration of the Tabačića Mosque by UNESCO and the reconstruction of the Sedri Hadži Hasan Mosque by the AKTC. 70 Mostar’s two most architecturally significant mosques, the Koski Mehmed-Paša and Karođoz-Beg, both masterpieces of Ottoman sixteenth-century regional architecture, were damaged during the war. They were both repaired without question, controversy, or public debate (fig. 58). This was in part because these reconstructions 69 70 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, “War Damage to the Cultural Heritage.” The Tabaćića Mosque is on the Provisional List of potential National Monuments of BiH. UNESCO, “Tangible Heritage: Mostar, Bosnia and Hercegovina,” n.d., http://portal.unesco.org/ culture/en/ev.php@URL_ID=4460&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&UR L_SECTION=201.html . 293 were more historically accurate than those of the city’s churches. The high profile projects on these culturally and historically important sites did have symbolic implications though for both Mostar and its specifically Muslim community by underpinning their identity within their city and renewing their associations with its Ottoman heritage. For example, after repairs were made to the damaged minaret and dome of the Karođoz-Beg Mosque, it was re-consecrated in July 2004, on the same day the Old Bridge reopened. 71 The ceremony for this mosque – rumored to have been the design of either Hajruddin, the architect of the Old Bridge, or of his teacher Mimar Sinan, the most renowned and prolific Ottoman architect – was attended by many of the dignitaries in town for that other event. While the bridge’s opening stressed the city’s multicultural legacy and identity, the mosque’s opening stressed the same city’s Islamic history and identity. The Islamic Community recovery quickly from the wartime destruction of its religious buildings, and the result of the flurry of activity were more mosques than necessary for the number of practicing believers, more minarets on the skyline, and therefore an east Mostar with an even more unmistakably Islamic character. According to a study by the Norwegian Center for Human Rights, in October 2002 Mostar had thirty-eight mosques, though it had had only sixteen in the 1980s. 72 This increase in number was primarily attributable to the rediscovery of mosques which had been abandoned for decades, and their simultaneous reconstruction alongside the restoration of those 71 72 The restoration was funded by the local Islamic Community with donations from the AKTC and the Isar Vakuf of Istanbul. Sanja Bjelica, “Svečano Otvorena Obnovljena Karađozbegova Džamija” [Celebrated Opening of the Restored Karađoz-Beg Mosque], Dnevni List, July 24, 2004, 12; N.Hu., “Koristi se Krečni Malter, a Zalijeva Vrućim Olovom” [Using Lime Mortar, and Wetting it with Hot Lead], Dnevni Avaz, September 23, 2003, 7; and N.Hu., “Munara Završena, Radi se na Trijemu” [The Minaret is Finished, Working on the Portico], Dnevni Avaz, October 18, 2003, 6. Jon Roar Strandenes, “Riven and Cleansed, Stabilized and Democratized: The Ongoing Experiment of Bosnia and Hercegovina,” Norsk Senter for Menneskerettigheter, March 2003, http://www.humanrights.uio.no/forskning/publ/nr/ 2003/03 /nordem_report-10_.html . 294 Figure 59: The Neziraga Mosque, 2006. (image: author). damaged more recently. For example, the sixteenth-century Neziraga Mosque, now a National Monument of Bosnia-Hercegovina, was painstakingly reconstructed in 1999 by the Institute for Preservation of the Old Town with support from the government of the United Arab Emirates (fig. 59). 73 This mosque had been razed in 1950 after being slightly damaged during the Second World War, but was rebuilt in the 1990s. Many of Mostar’s non-Muslim residents have noticed the trend to cover East Mostar with mosques, and are quick to point this out when on the defensive about the size or location of one of “their” new religious symbols or their two Catholic churches. 74 For 73 74 The funds came from the head of the UAE government, Sheikh Sultan bin Mohamed al-Quasini. Islamic Summit Conference, On The Research Centre For Islamic History, Art And Culture (IRCICA), Istanbul, Resolution No. 33/9-C (IS), Doha, Qatar: 9th Islamic Summit Conference, November 12-13, 2000, http://www.oic-oci.org/English/ is/9/9th-is-sum-orginzational.htm ; and Amir Pašić, Historic Reconstruction of the Neziraga Mosque Complex in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Istanbul: IRCICA, c2006). Juka, “Križ Opet Svijetli Svima!” 6; Martin, “Kome Smeta Križ?” 18; and Pločkinić, “Skupina Mostaraca Bošnjačke Narodnosti,” 5. 295 example, Bishop Perić cited the doubling of mosques in the city as an argument in favor of the Jubilee Cross on Hum Hill. 75 Mostar’s Croats also argue that the bulbs illuminating the tops of the minarets are stronger than before the war, and that their speakers issuing the call to prayer five times a day are much louder than before. 76 Though it is possible these things are true in some isolated cases, in general, these sorts of statements reflect the perceptions of the city’s Croats that they are surrounded by minarets and their mosques and their Islamic believers. In the Croat controlled municipalities of Mostar, the reconstruction of more seriously damaged mosques has taken an altogether different course. On that side of the city, Croat nationalism has been visible through what was not being rebuilt as well as through the large-scale new construction projects. Mostar’s most notorious example of a thwarted attempt to restore a mosque was the repeated refusal of the Mostar Southwest Municipality to issue a building permit for the reconstruction of the Baba Bešir Mosque. This is in fact a problem occurring throughout Hercegovina in areas with a Croat majority, including Stolac where battles over the rebuilding of significant historic mosques raged for years. 77 The Baba Bešir is a small, neighborhood mosque, which was damaged by deliberate shelling from the VRS and JNA in 1992 and then bulldozed by nationalist Croats in 1993. Its ruins were added to the Provisional List of potential National Monuments of Bosnia-Hercegovina. 78 While the municipal authorities were denying the permit for its 75 76 77 78 OHR, “Bishop Perić about the petition against the Jubilee-Cross,” BiH Media Round-up, August 27,2001, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/by-media-rep/round-ups/default.asp?content_id=5758. Strandenes, “Riven and Cleansed.” Michael Sells, “Crosses of Blood: Sacred Space, Religion and Violence in Bosnia-Hercegovina,” Sociology of Religion 64:3 (2003): 309-331. “Dopustiti Obnovu Džamije u Balinovcu” [Reconstruction of the Mosque in Balinovac Authorized], Slobodna BiH, May 14, 1999, 13; Zvonimir Jukić, “Izdati doxvole za Obnove 296 rebuilding, an editorial in a Bosnian Croat newspaper called for its issuance to improve the international community’s image of Croats and to distinguish them from the Serbs whose obstruction of mosque projects in cities they controlled had escalated to public protests and riots. Though the authors of the article believed it was the “democratically mature” thing to do and that demands for reconstruction were “absolutely legitimate,” their persuasive argument relied much more on an appeal to Croat desires to appear civilized and tolerant rather than to actually be civilized and tolerant. 79 Mostar’s Islamic Community completed the reconstruction of the Baba Bešir Mosque in 2002, but only after an OHR Decision transferred the authority to issue building permits from the municipal to the entity level (fig. 60). 80 The Federation of BosniaHercegovina issued the permit that the Mostar Southwest Municipality had refused for years. Once the Baba Bešir mosque was complete, discussions finally began for obtaining permission to reconstruct other completely destroyed mosques located in Mostar’s Croat majority municipalities. 81 Some of these have still not been rebuilt, such as the Hadži Ali-Bej Lafo Mosque, which remains a ruin today (fig. 61). In 2005 79 80 81 Džamija” [License for Renewing the Mosque Given], Slobodna BiH, May 14, 1999, 5; “Bošnjački Pristići zbog Džamije na Balinovcu” [Bosniaks Accept because of the Mosque in Balinovac], Slobodna Bosna, May 15, 1999, 1, 4. “Omogućavanjem Obnove Džamija Hrvati bi Pokazali da se Razlikuju od Četnika u Banjoj Luci i Trebinju!?” [Through Allowing the Renewal of Mosques Croats could Show that They are Different than the Chetniks in Banja Luka and Trebinje], Hrvatski Riječ, June 4, 2001, 15-17. “Nakon Deset Godina Klanjana Džuma u Baba-Beširovoj Džamiji” [After Ten Years, Prayers in the Baba Bešir Mosque], Dnevni Avaz, October 23, 2003, 4; and I.T., “Krajem Kolovoz Završava se rekonstruksija Baba Beširove Džamije” [Reconstruction of Baba Bešir Mosque finished by the end of August], Dnevni List, July 27, 2003, 14. “Informacija o Stanju i Problematici Objekata Kulturno-Historjskog Naslijeđa na Prostoru Federacije Bosne i Hercegovnie 1995/1999” [Information on the Conditions and Problems of Objects of Cultural-Historic Heritage in the Area of the Federation of Bosnia-Hercegovina 1995/1999], Federalno Ministarstvo Obrazovanja, Nauke, Kulture i S/Športa, n.d., 10; and BiH Commission to Preserve National Monuments, “Hadzi Ali-Bey Lafo Mosque and Harem (Courtyard), the Site and Remains of the Architectural Ensemble,” Decision No.: 08.2-6-539/03-1, January 21, 2003, http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action =view&id=839; BiH Commission to Preserve National Monuments, “Mosque in Podhum (the Dervish Pasha Bajezidagić Mosque), the Site and Remains of the Architectural Ensemble,” Decision No: 06.2-2-28/04-9, January 25, 2005, http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id 297 Figure 60: Reconstructed Baba Bešir Mosque, 2006. (image: author). Figure 61: Overgrown remains of the completely destroyed Hadži Ali-Beg Lafo Mosque, 2006. (image: author). _struct =50&lang=4&action=view&id=2525 ; and P. Radić, “Obnova Vjerskih Objekata u Predizborne Svrhe” [Restoration of Religious Buildings for Election Campaign Purposes], Dnevni List, September 26, 2000, 1, 3. 298 another fierce battle was waged over the rebuilding of another mosque in the Croatdominated Mostar suburb of Jasenica. 82 Much like the Franciscan Church and belltower, this mosque and its minaret were rebuilt slightly larger and slightly more ostentatiously than they had been before their destruction. But unlike that church, in the case of the Jasenica mosque this was done in defiant protest of those who had battled against its reconstruction and was particularly conspicuous because built within a neighborhood where Muslims were the clear minority. OTHER LOCALLY-INITIATED PROJECTS Though exclusively Muslim projects have been the focus of the city’s Islamic Community and the separatist projects sponsored by the city’s Croats and Catholic Institutions have dominated Mostar’s skyline and local debates, other sites in the city were argued by their builders to represent a shared or unified idea of Mostar and of Bosnia-Hercegovina. A few other locally supported projects have been overtly couched in similarly reconciliatory and multicultural language. Foremost among these are a proposed new Jewish Synagogue and Cultural Center and a monument to Chinese film star Bruce Lee. Supporters of both projects argue they could promote unity within the divided city, but took very different approaches and operated at very different levels of sophistications with their two disparate projects. Both the synagogue and the Bruce Lee Monument have been popular throughout the city, and thus could be considered unifying, but neither has had a significant lasting 82 OHR, “Croats protested against construction of mosque in Mostar settlement Jasenica,” BiH Media Round-Up, September 19, 2005, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/bh-media-rep/round-ups/ default.asp?content_id=35478; US Department of State, “Bosnia and Hercegovina,” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005, March8, 2006, http://www.state.gove/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/ 2005/ 61640.htm. 299 impact and both were forgotten within days of their well-attended public groundbreakings or unveilings. The promoters of these two projects, the city’s Jewish Community and the non-profit organization Urban Movement Mostar, are both small groups acting independently of the main rivals in Mostar and therefore with little political or cultural impact. A series of additional locally-initiated postwar projects involving the re-erection of prewar monuments and memorials removed from Mostar’s public spaces during the war, have been an unacknowledged unifier in the city. This is especially revealed through the numerous uncontested and universally appreciated commemorations of the early twentieth-century Mostar writer, Aleksa Šantić, which have resurfaced since 1993. Though seldom attracting crowds or major publicity even at their openings, the return of these war victims represents unspoken shared values and local heroes that may actually bridge Mostar’s different communities. Jewish Synagogue and Cultural Center: Temple of Glass In 1992, the City of Mostar returned the former synagogue to the local Jewish Community. This 1904 building had been converted into a puppet theater by the communist authorities following the Second World War, at which time two wings were added and the original interior finishes were removed. 83 The former synagogue had been slightly damaged during the recent war, however was in usable condition. It 83 According to the Decision listing this building as a national monument in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the Jewish Community gave the city the synagogue in 1952 because they could not afford to repair and maintain it; however it seems likely that this gift may have been by default because of the lack of a Jewish Community following the Second World War, or even coerced by the communist authorities at that time. BiH Commission to Preserve National Monuments, “Synagogue, the Historic Building” Decision No.: 08/2-6-7/03-1, July 3, 2003, http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/ main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=859 . 300 Figure 62: Former Jewish Synagogue, which was converted into puppet theater after the Second World War and now serves as a conference space, 2003. (image: BiH Commission to Preserve National Monuments, Sarajevo). was completely repaired in 1996 with support from the European Union and was designated a National Monument of Bosnia in 2003 (fig. 62). 84 After receiving their former synagogue back, Mostar’s Jewish Community told the local authorities they would prefer the city give them a different site instead. In 1995 the Old Town Municipality promised them the specific site they requested, which was located adjacent to the Boulevard, which was the frontline during the war and marked the line of division between the city’s east and west sides in the postwar period. 85 Mostar’s Jewish community made defiant and symbolic plans to “build their temple in 84 85 BiH Commission, “Synagogue, the Historic Building” Branko Bjelajac, “Bosnia: First Synagogue Since 1945 to be Built,” Keston News Service, May 9, 2001, http://www.starlightsite.co.uk/keston/kns/2001/010509BO.htm . 301 glass as a symbol of trust” on this site that was a frontline a decade ago and in a country where people still “throw rocks at” the religious buildings of others. 86 Mostar’s Jewish Community also selected the site purposefully so that Mostar would have religious buildings from all of the main western religions within one hundred and fifty meters of each other. This is a claim they allege can only be made by two other cities in the world: Jerusalem and Sarajevo. 87 This proximity of religious structures is meant as a physical reminder of how closely and inter-connectedly members of these different faiths have lived for centuries in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The rarity of this claim is meant to reflect the uniqueness of this type of shared space and of Bosnia’s tradition of coexistence. The Jewish Community believed their project would aid the reuniting of the city by acting as a symbol of peace and inclusiveness on this controversial site. To demonstrate how their synagogue can bring Bosnia’s peoples together, Mostar’s Jewish Community pointed out their potential role as “safe” middle ground because of their lack of tension with any of the other peoples or faiths in the country. The April 2000 foundation stone ceremony for the new synagogue was in fact attended by representatives of the Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim communities as well as by both the Croat and Muslim members of the Bosnian presidency, seven foreign ambassadors, and the High Representative (fig. 63). 88 According to the president of 86 87 88 Alexander S. Dragičević, “Synagogue in Mostar,” AP, October 11, 2001, reprinted in Living Bible, October 12, 2001, 1-2. Zoran Mandelbaum, “Simbol Mira i Sloge” [Symbol of Peace and Harmony], Most 50 (June 2001): http://www.most.ba/050/105.htm. The ceremonial unveiling of a memorial to the Mostar’s Holocaust victims in 1999 had also drawn an unusually multicultural audience, including the leaders of city’s Jewish, Islamic, Serb Orthodox, and Catholic communities. That memorial was erected in the city’s Jewish cemetery, which has been in continuous use for centuries and is a designated National Monument of BosniaHercegovina. Designed by two architects, Zdravko Gutić and Edo Kadribegović, with input from Zoran Mandelbuamthe monument includes seven arched plaques listing 138 names from 39 302 Figure 63: Ceremonial unveiling of the foundation stone for the new Jewish Synagogue and Cultural Center in 2000, and overview of the site in 2006, when only the first stone, sign, and a fence had been built. (images: Most, Mostar and author). Mostar’s Jewish Community, Zoran Mandlbaum, this “testifies to our good relations and desire to live in peace again.” 89 The cornerstone solidifies the inclusive idea with text in Hebrew, English, and Bosnian reading “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” Though the international community has expressed periodic interest in Mostar’s synagogue project, little local attention has been paid to it since the cornerstone was laid. There were no controversies over its meaning and no objections to its construction. There was one financial “scandal” however around which critics were able to voice opinions and in which different organizations revealed underlying feelings about one another. Thus the synagogue is another example of attempted unifying tendencies within the city that has caused as much disagreement and division as community-building. 89 families, all of whom were killed or deported to the Croatian island of Rab in November 1942. The idea for the monument had originated two years earlier with discussions between Mandlbaum and then Old Town Mayor, Safet Oručević. Mandlbaum, “Veličanstven Pomen Nevinim: Nako 54 Godine” [Magnificent Memory for the Innocents: After 54 Years], Most 33-34 (January-February, 2000): http://www.most.ba/03334/019.htm; and Šemsudin Serdarević, “Jevrejski Kulturni Centar sa Sinagogom u Mostaru” [Jewish Cultural Center with Synagogue in Mostar], Oslobođenje, February 9, 2006, http://www.oslobodjenje.com.ba/index.php?option=com_content&task=view &id=47922 &Itemid=52. Zoran Mandlbaum as quoted in Bjelajac, “Bosnia: First Synagogue”; and Dragičević, “Synagogue in Mostar.” 303 Mostar’s Jewish Community owed the city a nominal fee for the site, because the OHR had restricted the allocation of property that was state, municipally, or socially owned. 90 The intent of this regulation was to ensure oversight of the postwar, postsocialist privatization process and to prevent city officials from nepotism or favoritism in the distribution of property, especially when given to religious communities. Though the Jewish Community was not claiming a contested site, nor benefiting unduly, the OHR felt the rule needed to be universally applied and enforced, so when the fee was not paid, it notified the Jewish Community of their delinquency according to normal bureaucratic procedures. One local journalist wrote an impassioned article accusing the OHR of parsimony for requiring the impoverished Jewish Community to pay, and also blaming the OHR for the delay in construction on the synagogue. 91 In response, a few days later the OHR issued a defensive announcement and explanation at a press conference stating that on the contrary, High Representative Wolfgang Petritsch supported the project and had offered to help by personally soliciting funds; however, he had never received a cost estimate and project plans, implying the Jewish Community was holding up their own project and not interested in international assistance.92 By 2002 the financial issues were settled and the Jewish Community officially acquired the site they had already placed a foundation stone on. 93 Though the City of Mostar discussed financing plans for the synagogue the following year and the Sarajevo architect Šemsudin Omeragić 90 91 92 93 OHR, “Transcript of the Press Conference in Mostar,” by Aves Benes, July 17, 2002, http://www.ohr .int/ohr-offices/mostar/transcripts/default.asp?content_id=27338 and OHR, “Decision Extending the Validity of the 27 April 2000 Decision on the Re-allocation of Socially Owned Land,” March 30, 2001, http://www.ohr.int/decisions/plipdec/default.asp?content_id=124 . OHR, “Transcript of the Press Conference,” July 17, 2002. OHR, “Transcript of the Press Conference,” July 17, 2002. “Izgradnja Židovskog Kulturnog Centra u Mostaru” [Building a Jewish Cultural Center in Mostar], Dnevni List, June 19, 2002, 13. 304 was retained to design the building, no visible signs of progress have been made and construction has not yet begun. 94 Though the cornerstone laying ceremony did bring representatives of different faiths and communities together for a few hours, the attempt to link the project to a shared Bosnia-Hercegovina was inherently flawed. The Old Bridge was chosen as potentially representative of all Bosnians because it was infrastructure, but this proposal is for a Jewish Synagogue and Cultural Center, and however inclusive its language and its future programs, it cannot escape the fact that it is an institution representing a specific people. Its foundation stone can assert that this is a “house of prayer for all” but it is not in fact an interfaith center but rather a synagogue, which is by definition religiously exclusive. The tension between the project’s simultaneous Jewish and Bosnian identities is revealed even by its promoters, who stress its universalism but also are quick to note that it would be the first new synagogue built since before the Second World War in any former Yugoslav republic, and perhaps anywhere in Balkans. 95 This troubled Jewish history and renewal of Jewish identity are clearly important to its builders as well as its multicultural potential. Perhaps the only reason the synagogue’s symbolism has been unquestioned and its proposal uncontested was because the Jewish Community in Mostar is marginalized and holds no political weight. Projects advocating the same sort of peaceful ideals were seriously contested when presented by the much more powerful and similarly exclusive Catholic Croat community in Mostar because of their very different political histories and contemporary roles in the city. 94 95 “Realizacija Izgradnje Kulturnog Centra sa Sinagogom” [Realization of the Building of the Cultural Center and Synagogue], Dnevni List, April 26, 2003, 13; and Šemsudin Serdarević, “Jevrejski Kulturni Centar sa Sinagogom.” Bjelajac, “Bosnia: First Synagogue”; and Zoran Mandelbaum, “Simbol Mira i Sloge.” 305 Monument to Bruce Lee: Lowest Common Denominator? The local non-profit Urban Movement successfully campaigned for, commissioned, and constructed a monument in Mostar dedicated to Bruce Lee, the legendary Chinese film star of the 1960s and 1970s. 96 The Bruce Lee Monument proposal was conceived of within a larger project called “De/Construction of Monument” which was organized by the Sarajevo Center for Contemporary Art (SCCA) and sponsored by the Open Society Institute. The aim of the SCCA project, which included a conference and many art installations in Sarajevo, was to promote interactive public art and creative use of public space throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina. 97 The Bruce Lee Monument fit within the aims of both Urban Movement Mostar and the larger SCCA project: it was intended as sarcastic and irreverent, but also contained serious social commentary on the postwar political and architectural climate in Mostar. It was envisioned in opposition to the politicization of all aspects of culture in postwar Bosnia-Hercegovina, and meant to represent the idea that “true human values have nothing to do with politics,” but more often with everyday heroes like Bruce Lee and concepts like loyalty, skill, and “universal justice.” 98 Yet though its supporters suggested it was outside politics and nationalism, they to were making a political statement: the Monument to Bruce Lee is a critique of the current context and a proposal for overcoming it, however tongue-in-cheek. 96 97 98 A number of sources reported that the Chinese embassy in Sarajevo offered to fund part of the monument’s construction, but this appears unsubstantiated. Prnjak, Hrvoje. “Bruce Lee, To Smo Svi Mi” [We are All Bruce Lee]. Feral Tribune, August 29, 2003, trans. by Anes Alić and reprinted on Transitions Online, September 4, 2003, http://www.tol.cz/look/wire/article.tpl?IdLanguage =1&IdPublication=10&NrIssue=753&NrSection=1&NrArticle=10572; and “Spomenik Bruceu Leeju u Mostaru” [Bruce Lee Monument in Mostar], Dani, August 1, 2003, 17. SCCA, “Partner Organizations.” “Spomenik Bruce Leeju” [Monument to Bruce Lee], Walter, August 5, 2003, 50; and SCCA, “About the Project,” De/Construction of Monument, http://www.scca.ba/deconstruction/e_main .htm. 306 Discussion of the potential Bruce Lee Monument began with a public debate on art held on July 20, 2003, the thirtieth anniversary of the film star’s death. Urban Movement Mostar stressed Lee’s role as a shared hero from everyone in their generation’s innocent childhood before the war had divided them into separate national communities with seemingly no common experiences, and they presented him as “simply loved by everyone,” and as a hero whose “ethnic background is absolutely irrelevant” to his fame and popularity.99 According to an article in the Sarajevo based weekly news magazine Dani, one of the most critically independent periodicals in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Bruce Lee was notably “neither Bosniak, nor Serb, nor Croat – just a fighter against evil.”100 Lee’s collective appeal and lack of affiliation with any particular group in Bosnia represented the ideas that common denominators were needed to bring the city and country’s communities back together and that those shared values may have to come from the outside. The idea of Bruce Lee’s universal appeal proved successful, as stories about the monument were reported in newspapers of all persuasions for years leading up to its actual erection, and its ceremonial unveiling was also widely covered. Interest has included not only the independent press that recognized the subversive and critical agenda intended by Urban Project Mostar, but also by less sophisticated media, which were interested simply because they liked Bruce Lee. 101 99 100 101 SCCA, “About the Project.” “Spomenik Bruceu Leeju u Mostaru,” Dani, 17. Edin Avdić, “Bruce Lee Dobiva Spomenik u Mostaru, Vladimir Perić Walter u Pekingu!” [Bruce Lee gets a Monument in Mostar, Vladimir Perić Walter in Beijing!], Slobodna Bosna, July 31, 2003, 48-51; Miljenko Jergović, “Bruce Lee na KM” [Bruce Lee on the KM], Dani, November 7, 2003, 6; “Naš Drug Brus Li” [Our Friend Bruce Lee], Reporter, August 6, 2003, 43; and “Spomenik Bruce Leeju,” Walter, 50-51. 307 Additional proposals inspired by the Bruce Lee Monument demonstrate how this project has been understood on different levels by different audiences. Some journalists altogether missed the point of Bruce Lee’s nationality having nothing to do with his appeal, and suggested that in reciprocity certain Bosnian heroes should receive statues in Beijing. 102 On the other hand, Miljenko Jergović, one of the country’s most well-known journalists and authors, suggested taking the idea of Bruce Lee as universally appealing one step further by putting him, as well as other respected outsiders, such as Pele, Clint Eastwood, and Indira Gandhi, on Bosnian banknotes. 103 Jergović, like Urban Movement Mostar, was suggesting that if no prewar local heroes were still palatable to all groups in Bosnia-Hercegovina – and controversies have embroiled some of the individuals currently depicted on Bosnia’s currency – then perhaps outsiders should be called upon as state symbols. The nonsensicality of this idea was intended as a sarcastic comment on local politics and the pettiness of some of the arguments about prewar Bosnian heroes. Indeed many of the country’s state symbols had already been re-invented without reference to the past, such as the current flag, for example, which was imposed by the EU administrators when the Bosnian Parliament was unable to agree on a design. In order to offend no one, it is purposefully devoid of symbolism that might reference Bosnia or Bosnian history. 104 By turning to outsiders as heroes, both Urban Movement Mostar and Jergović critiqued these contemporary practices by exaggerating them to reveal their ridiculousness. 102 103 104 Avdić, “Bruce Lee Dobiva Spomenik,” 48. However, the Bosnian film hero suggested, Walter, the fictional defender of Sarajevo in a famous local movie about the Second World War, is no longer universally appealing to all residents of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Jergović, “Bruce Lee na KM,” 6. OHR, “Decision Imposing the Law on the Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” February 3, 1998, http://www.ohr.int/decisions/statemattersdec/default.asp?content_id=344 ; and Jos Poels, “Bosnia and Hercegovina: A New ‘Neutral’ Flag,” Flagmaster 89 (Spring 1998): 9-12. 308 Local artist Boris Jovanović made a model for the Bruce Lee Monument and initial plans were made to erect the sculpture in the space in front of the unfinished Croatian National Theater building on Mostar’s Spanish Square. 105 The undeniable significance of this site, both as a result of its prominence and centrality as well as its position at one of the city’s largest intersections and along the formerly divisive boulevard, was clearly intended by Urban Movement Mostar. 106 This major crossroads and meeting point in the city had previously been informally known as HIT, after the large department store of that name that occupied the theater site before the war. It received the name Spanish Square in 1998 following the construction of a monument to the eighteen Spanish peacekeepers killed in and around Mostar during the war. 107 In August 2005, after two years of planning and after the statue had already been cast in bronze in Zagreb by Ivan Fiolić, the Mostar City Council finally granted Urban Movement Mostar permission to erect the Bruce Lee Monument. 108 However, their first choice of location was rejected because of a moratorium on building in the Spanish Square, as plans for its comprehensive urban redevelopment were already underway and the Spanish government had already made donations for their 105 106 107 108 “Bruce Lee do Kraja Ljeta Stiže u Mostar” [Bruce Lee in Mostar by the End of the Summer], TPortal.hr Newsmagazin, March 30, 2005, http://www.tportal.hr/vijest/zadnjastrana/page/2005/03/ 30/0418006.html . “Mostar: Spomenik Bruce Lee-ju kao Turistička Atrakcija u Mostaru” [Mostar: Monument to Bruce Lee as a Tourist Attraction in Mostar], Bljesak.info, July 18, 2003, http://bljesak.info/ modules.php?name=News&file=article &sid=2735 ; and “Spomenik Bruce Leeju” Walter, 50. A battalion of Spanish soldiers has been stationed near Mostar since the initial deployment of UN peacekeeping troops. Between 1992 and 1995, eighteen of its members were killed, and in January 1998, King Juan Carlos I of Spain opened a monument dedicated to them. Jozo Pavković, “Nakon Pet Godina Kralju Ispunjena Želja” [After Five Years the King Fulfilled his Wish], Hrvatska Riječ January 10, 1998, 17. “Bruce Lee Napokon Dolazi u Mostar!” [Bruce Lee Finally Comes to Mostar], Bljesak.info, September 9, 2005, http://www.bljesak.info/; A.L., “Mostarci Dobili Dozvolu za Gradnju Spomenika Kung-Fu Legendi” [Mostar Residents Got Permission for Building the Monument to the Kung-Fu Legend], Oslobođenje, September 10, 2005, http://www.oslobodjenje.ba/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46761&Itemid=0; and “New Bosnia Icon: Bruce Lee,” CNN.com, September 12, 2005, http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/12/ bosnia.brucelee.reut . 309 Figure 64: Crowded unveiling ceremony for the Bruce Lee Monument, Zrinjevac Park, November 26, 2005. (images: bljesak.info, Mostar). implementation. 109 The City Council therefore rejected even overtly unifying building projects in the Cetnral Zone, suggesting that the Bruce Lee Monument be placed in the city’s main Zrinjevac Park instead. 110 On November 26, 2005, precisely and purposefully one day before a Bruce Lee Monument was erected on the waterfront in Hong Kong on what would have been his sixty-fifth birthday, the late film star’s likeness was unveiled in a crowded ceremony in Mostar (fig. 64). 111 Thus Mostar became the first city in the world to have a monument dedicated to Bruce Lee. Its opening was attended by curious locals as well 109 110 111 Valerija Ćorić, “‘Mali Zmaj’ Dolazi u Novo Gnijezdo” [The ‘Little Dragon’ Comes to a New Nest], Nezavisne Novine, September 18, 2005, http://www.nezavisne.com/revija/tekst2-050918 .php ; and Mostar City Council, Službeni Glasnik 1, no.7 (August 1, 2005): 146. “Konačnu Odluku O Bruce Leeju Donijet će Gradsko Vijeće Mostar” [The City Council of Mostar Reaches Final Agreement on Bruce Lee], Bljesak.info, September 12, 2004, http://www.bljesak .info/moduls.php?name=News&file=article&sd=11340 ; and “Vijećnici Odlučuju o Brus Liju” [Council Members Decide about Bruce Lee], Jutarnje Novine, September 15, 2004, http://www.jutarnje.ba/aktuelno-det.asp?N_UID=1043 . “Bosnia Unveils Bruce Lee Bronze,” BBC News.com, November 26, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/entertainment/4474316.stm; and “Statues of Bruce Lee Unveiled,” USA Today, November 26, 2005, http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2005-11-28-bruce-lee-statues _x.htm . 310 as a few dignitaries, including the Chinese and German ambassadors to BosniaHercegovina. The monument depicts Bruce Lee in a defensive Kung Fu pose facing towards the north. Both this form and orientation are significant: an aggressive pose in a war torn city would be inappropriate, and if he were facing towards the east or towards the west it would appear he was defending one “side” from the “other.”112 The inscription on the monument’s plinth simply included the film star’s name and dates of birth and death, and was signed Tvoj Mostar (Your Mostar). Local reaction to and media coverage of Bruce Lee’s unveiling reflected more mixed responses than the initial idea had provoked a few years earlier. Some were excited about Bruce Lee, some mentioned his irrelevance and pointed out he was probably unaware of Mostar’s existence, some found it a kitschy joke that insulted and degraded the cityscape, and still others hoped it would become a tourist attraction. 113 Though the critiques of the Bruce Lee Monument seemed more annoyed than angry, the new sculpture has been attacked a number of times, including on its very first night, and it was completely knocked-over in March 2006 (fig. 65).114 It was removed at that time for repairs and has not been returned. The damage to the monument was 112 113 114 Beth Kampschror, “Bosnians Agree: Commemorate Bruce Lee,” The Christian Science Monitor, November 23, 2005, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1123/p07s02-woeu.htm ; and Robert Siegel, “Bosnian City’s Unique Statue Choice: Bruce Lee,” All Things Considered, NPR: September 13, 2005, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID4845621 . Ćorić, “‘Mali Zmaj’ Dolazi u Novo Gnijezdo”; and “Mostar: Re: Mostar na Rubu Apsurda!” [Mostar: Re: Mostar in the Hands of the Absurd!], Bljesak.info, September 15, 2004, http://:www.bljesak.info/ . Gojko Berić, “Ti Zločesti Pijanci!” [You Criminal Drunk], Oslobođenje, December 1, 2005, http://www.oslobodenje.ba/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47457&Itemid=46& pop=1 ; “Bruce Lee Sklonjen na Sigurno” [Bruce Lee Put Away for Safety], Bljesak.info, http://www.bljesak.info/ ; and “Spomenik Bruce Leeju Oštećen Nedugo nako Otvaranja!” [Bruce Lee Monument Damaged not Long after Opening!], Bljesak.info, November 27, 2005, http://www.bljesak.info/ . 311 Figure 65: Toppled Bruce Lee Monument, Zrinjevac Park, March 17, 2006. (image: bljesak.info, Mostar) reported as drunken pranks and vandalism, but nevertheless, the attackers must have had some motive for their particular target selection. A few critiques of the Bruce Lee Monument suggested it was unfortunate that energy and funds were spent on commemorating someone unrelated to Mostar when there were potentially non-controversial locals who could be celebrated. One such person whose name was put forward was Mujaga Komadina, the Austrian-era mayor who organized the city’s universally appreciated development and modernization, but who has no monument, nor even a street dedicated to him. 115 The discussions that followed about other potential candidates probably pleased the members of Urban Movement Mostar and the greater “De/Construction of Monument” initiative, since their primary goals were to encourage debate on public art and more thoughtful consideration of the symbolism of art and architectural projects. 115 “Mostar: Re: Mostar na Rubu Apsurda!” 312 Returned Prewar Monuments: Evidence of Shared Heroes? Though the public debate about which shared heroes could be newly commemorated did not continue long, a number of monuments from before the 1992-1995 war were quietly reaccepted within the city. The consensus that allowed the re-erection of these monuments in recent years reflects not only a collaborative trend, but also that there are perhaps still shared local heroes in Mostar and Bosnia-Hercegovina. Most outdoor sculpture in the city, primarily including communist-era commemorative busts and statues, was removed during the early part of the war. In some cases the motives were clear, but in others it is difficult to say if this was because they were ideologically distasteful, or simply to protect them from shelling. Regardless of why they were removed, few were returned for nearly a decade after the war, but have begun reappearing in recent years, and today almost all have been re-erected. The original site for the Bruce Lee Monument was in part abandoned because of discussions proposing the possible return of its previous occupant. That corner of the Spanish Square had until 1992 been occupied by the bust of Avdo Humo, a Mostar native who fought with Tito’s partisans during the Second World War and had been awarded the Order of National Hero of Yugoslavia. This communist-era bust was removed early in the war, and thirteen years later, in 2005, discussion began to surface about whether or not it should be returned. The Cultural Alliance of the Society of Veterans of the National Liberation and Antifascist War (Kultura Savez Udruženja Boraca Narodno Oslobodilačke i Antifašističkog Rata), otherwise known as World War II, began advocating the re-erection of Humo’s bust, and Mostar’s City Council agreed that the possibility should be left open and that therefore the Bruce Lee monument should not occupy its site. 116 116 “Konačnu Odluku O Bruce Leeju”; and “Vijećnici Odlučuju o Brus Liju.” 313 Some disinterest in seeing the return of Avdo Humo’s bust has been voiced in Mostar, especially among the city’s Croat population which question what nation the “National Liberation War” and its “National Heroes” represent.117 Among the peoples of Bosnia-Hercegovina and throughout the former Yugoslavia, Croats are the most critical of the Federal Yugoslav era and today argue it was a period of national oppression in the name of pan-Yugosalvism, Serb domination, and/or socialist brotherhood and unity. Members of Urban Movement Mostar, on the other hand, agreed it was not their decision whether or not communist era hero Avdo Humo was commemorated in Mostar, and accepted the alternative location for Bruce Lee so as not to preclude the possibility of Humo’s return. Unlike Avdo Humo’s monument, which still awaits a verdict on whether it will return to public display in Mostar, other monuments to local heroes that were taken down in 1992 have already been re-erected in the city. In 2004 in Musala Square, which had been the Square of the Republic (Trg Republike) during the Yugoslav period, the busts of two other federal Yugoslav-era National Heroes, Hasan Zahirović Laca and Mladen Balorda Lobra, were re-erected near a central monument to the city’s liberation from German and Croatian forces in February 1945, a battle in which these two locals had participated and died (fig. 66) 118 One year earlier, the bust of Džemal Bijedić, another World War II partisan fighter from Mostar was returned to its empty pedestal. In a 1959 public poll in the city, Bijedić had been overwhelmingly voted the most popular person from Mostar of all 117 118 “Mostar: Re: Mostar na Rubu Apsurda!” Alija Bijavica, “Vječne Poruke Februara” [February’s Eternal Message], Most 83 (March 2004): http://www.most.ba/083/015.aspx . 314 Figure 66: Re-erected busts of Yugoslav National Heroes Hasan Zahirović Laca and Mladen Balorda Lobra, Musala Square, 2006 and at their unveiling in February 2004 (inset). (images: author and Most, Mostar). times. 119 Bijedić had survived the war and gone on to become the President of the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and finally Yugoslav Prime Minster in the 1970s. Bijedić was universally loved in his home town and throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina because from his positions of leadership, he had encouraged much needed economic and urban development in his native republic, and had also been instrumental in the founding of a University in Mostar. Established in 1977, the same year that Bijedić died in a plane crash, Mostar’s University had been named in his honor and his bust had been erected in front of its main administrative building. However, in addition to working for the benefit of all Mostarians and all Bosnians, Bijedić was also known as one of the most politically important and influential 119 Bijedić was followed by soccer star Muhamed Mujić, politician Avdo Humo, and writer Aleksa Šantić in the poll. Bahrudin Bijedić, “Kako je Poginuo Džemal Bijedić” [How Džemal Bijedić was Killed], Dani, April 11, 1995, reprinted on bosnjaci.com, c.2002, http://bosnjaci.net/dobri_ bosnjani.php?id=161 . 315 Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, and through his authority in Belgrade he had played a significant role in raising awareness of Bosnian Muslim issues and concerns. It was during his tenure as Yugoslav Prime Minister that Bosnian Muslims were elevated to the status of a constituent nation in Yugoslavia. It was probably his strong Muslim ties that led to the removal of his bust and his name from Mostar’s University while it was under Bosnian Croat control in the early 1990s. 120 In 1994, the Džemal Bijedić University reacquired its campus from the newly formed University of Mostar, which moved to the west side of the city, and the two separate institutions have coexisted and served the city’s two sides from then onward. In January 2005, Bijedić’s bust was returned to its pedestal in front of the university administration building, and was hailed as a symbol of the “continuous existence and work of Mostar’s higher education institution” (fig 67). 121 Another group of prewar monuments and markers in Mostar commemorate Aleksa Šantić, a late nineteenth and early twentieth-century local poet considered another of the city’s most famous sons and a key component of Bosnia-Hercegovina’s literary history. His prolific oeuvre included poems about social issues and romantic love, but he was best known for his those about the city of Mostar and its Neretva River, and thus he was especially appreciated and remembered in his home town. 122 Šantić also notably wrote poetry in the traditional Sevdalinka form, a unique Bosnian genre of 120 121 122 Alija Kebo, “Vens-Ovenovo Sveučilište?” [Vance-Owens University?], Oslobođenje, April 3,1993, 4; and “The University Today,” Džemal Bijedić University, http://www.unmo.ba/en/ univerzitet/. “Otkrivena Bista Džemala Bijedića” [Unveiling of the Bust of Džemal Bijedić], Bileća On-line, January 18, 2005, http://bileca.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=117 ; “Otkrivena Bista Džemala Bijedića” [Unveiling of the Bust of Džemal Bijedić], NTV Hayat, January 17, 2005, http://www.ntvhayat.com/home/vijest/index.php?sta=3&pid=19166 ; “Program Proslave Dana Univerziteta ‘Džemal Bijedić’ u Mostaru 1977 – 2005” [Program for Celebrating Džemal Bijedić University in Mostar, 1977-2005], Džemal Bijedić University, n.d., http://www.unmo.ba/ba/ aktuelno/aktuelno/pregled.asp?ID=21 . Sanja Bjelica, “Mostar Zaboravlja Starog Pjesnika?!” [Mostar Forgets its Old Writer?!], Dnevni List, February 3, 2006, http://www.dnevi-list.ba/index.php?mdls=1&mdls_tip=2&nid=1579 . 316 Figure 67: Returned bust of Džemel Bijedić, Džemel Bijedić University, 2003. (image: author). folk music that has become associated specifically with its Muslim population since the recent war, though it was formerly popular with all Bosnia’s groups and throughout the region. In the summer of 1992, when the city was under the joint control of the HVO and the ABiH, opinions of Šantić, who happened to be of Orthodox religion and who considered himself Serb, quickly changed. Suddenly he was remembered only as a promoter of Serb culture and language and an organizer of Serb nationalist activities, and his reputation in the city declined significantly during the attack on the city by Serb nationalists in the Yugoslav and VRS. 123 Overnight Šantić’s importance to the city’s history was forgotten, his books were removed from school curricula, and his monuments were violently removed from Mostar’s public spaces. 124 Šantić Street was 123 124 Ante Čuvalo, “Aleksa Šantić,” Historical Dictionary of Bosnia-Hercegovina (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1997), 207. Zoran Vidić, “Nazivi Ulica u Mostaru Preimenovani bez ikakvog Kriterija” [The Names of Streets in Mostar Changed without any kind of Criteria], Dnevni List, September 7, 2002, 5. 317 rededicated to Mili Budaku, the Cultural Minister of the fascist puppet government in Zagreb during World War II, and when it reopened after the war the Šantić Gymnasium was rededicated to a Croat nationalist Franciscan priest. 125 Even the Serb-controlled JNA and VRS participated in the destruction of one of Šantić’s monuments and of his apartments, which had served as Mostar’s literary museum, demonstrating his universal unpopularity at that historic moment. 126 Perhaps for Serb nationalists at the height of the war, Šantić was not a pure enough Serb, because of his forays into Bosnian literary forms. Or perhaps the members of the Serb paramilitary forces that destroyed Šantić’s monument and museum were simply uneducated or uniformed vandals from distant parts of Serbia and Montenegro who were unaware of the national affiliation or legacy of Mostar’s poet. Though Šantić’s erasure from Mostar took place rapidly in the Spring of 1992, his return was much more gradual. Beginning the very next year during the second battle for the city, the prewar name returned to the half of Šantić Street that extended into what was at that time ABiH controlled territory and would later become the Central Zone. As much as an acceptance of Šantić, this return reflected a rejection of the new name by Muslims and Bosnians who perceived Budaku as an unwelcome, chauvinist Croat. However, the two halves of the prewar Šantić street became one way streets in opposite directions, abutting at the dividing Boulevard and demonstrating the uncoordinated planning in the two sides of the city during and after the war. Other commemorations of this out-of-fashion poet took longer to return to the city. It was six years before discussion of his commemorations even resumed, when in 1999, 125 126 Vidić, “Nazivi Ulica u Mostaru,” 5. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, “War Damage to the Cultural Heritage.” 318 Figure 68: Unveiling ceremony for the Returned Monument to Aleksa Šantić, Šantić Park, August 2002. (image: Denis Böhm). Mostar’s City Council made the decision to re-erect the monument to Šantić; however, the question of where to put it was debated for more than a year. 127 In the end, the monument, which had been sculpted by Serbian artist Nikola Janković, was returned to its original site in the small urban park that bore Šantić’s name before the war. The park is located on Maršal Tito Street, one of the most important north-south thoroughfares on the east side of the river. The monument was re-dedicated in August 2002, as a part of the “Šantić Poetry Nights,” a local literary festival organized annually since the centennial of Šantić’s birth in 1968, except in the years between 1992 and 1997. 128 The unveiling was attended by both the Muslim Mayor Hamdija Jahić and Croat Deputy Mayor Neven Tomić, as well as by the Minister of Science, Culture and Sport for FBiH (fig. 68). 129 To mark the occasion and draw attention to 127 128 129 D. Kozina, “Prikupljanje Vrijednih Nestalih Bista” [Collection of the Valuable Missing Busts], Slobodna BiH, April 8, 1999, 17. D.Kozina, “Otkriven Šantićev Spomenik” [Šantić’s Monument Unveiled], Dnevni List, August 14, 2002, 19; Fazlija Hebibović, “Povratak Alese Šantića u Mostar” [The Return of Aleksa Šantić to Mostar], Nezavisne Novine reprinted on 24casa.com, August 18, 2002, http://www.24casa.com/ article.php?sid=1960; and Miro Škobić, “Šantića Zamjenjuje Bošnjački Pjesnik?” [Šantić’s Changing to a Bosniak Writer?], Slobodna Dalmacija, September 17, 2004, http://arhiv. slobodnadalmacija.hr/20040917.bih01.asp . Kozina, “Otkriven Šantićev Spomenik,” 19. 319 the returned Šantić monument, an exhibit of photographs and documents about his life and works was simultaneously opened in the Hercegovina Museum. Mayor Jahić argued that Šantić’s monument was a sign “of the resurfacing of the jewels of Mostar again.” 130 Local journalists argued it was a “true sign of the victory over dark forces of evil,” “the will of all Mostar residents, without regard to name, religion, or nationality,” and evidence that “dialogue, reconciliation, and shared life” actually exited in Mostar. 131 According to an informal poll conducted by the city’s Croat newspaper, Dnevni List, which interviewed a cross section of the city’s inhabitants, the response was unequivocally positive and welcoming. 132 Many considered it “normal” that Šantić’s monument should return to its former location, and felt it was tragic that it had ever been removed. Some respondents even noted that they were proud of the city for returning the monument to “our poet.” In addition, the monument’s return and the fact that a sculptor from Serbia participated in the project were received by former Mostar residents living in Serbia as one of a number of positive signs that returning to the city would mean returning to a place where minorities were welcome and could live safely. 133 They argued the city’s clear appreciation of Šantić indicated Mostar had “a chance” as a multiethnic city again. Two years after Šantić’s monument return to the park, his bust and those of three other Mostar writers – Osman Đikić, Svetozar Ćorović, and Hamza Humo – were quietly 130 131 132 133 Hebibović, “Povratak Alese Šantića.” Hebibović, “Povratak Alese Šantića;” and “Mostar: Obilježena 82. Godišnjica Smrti Pjesnika Alekse Šantića” [Mostar: Celebrating the 82nd Anniversary of the Death of Writer Aleksa Šantić], NINA, February 2, 2006, http://www.nina.ba/nws.html?fena_id=NWS217853 &rubrika =KT . A. Jelić, “Što Milsite o Vraćanju Spomenika Alekse Šantića?” [What do you think about the Return of the Monument to Aleksa Šantić?], Dnevni List, August 14, 2002, 13. Other positive signs with which the monument was group were a formal agreement of friendship signed between Mostar and the city of Kragujevac in Serbia, as well as the planning of a direct bus line from Mostar to Belgrade. Serbian Unity Congress, “Mostar ima Veliku Šansu” [Mostar has a Great Chance], Danas, May 29, 2002, http://news.suc.org/bydate/2002/May _29/6.html . 320 Figure 69: Returned busts of local authors Aleksa Šantić, Osman Đikić, Svetozar Ćorović, and Hamza Humo, Theater Square, 2004. (image: author). returned to their prewar pedestals in the small square beside Mostar’s National Theater (fig. 69). 134 Đikić and Ćorović were contemporaries of Šantić and members of the same Austrian-era literary circle, while the editing and poetry career of Hamza Humo spanned the mid-part of the twentieth century. 135 The eighty-second anniversary of Šantić’s death in 2006 marked his total return to his native Mostar, when the rooms in which he had lived and wrote were reopened as a permanent memorial-museum that included his library and personal documents as well as a photo essay curated by journalist Šemsudin Serdarević. A memorial plaque noting Šantić’s residence was added to the outside of the late nineteenth-century building housing the museum apartments, which is located adjacent to Šantić Park. The building also happens to be the birthplace of Šantić’s literary colleague Svetozar Ćorović, and is in fact known as the Ćorović House. Because of its two notable 134 135 Škobić, “Šantića Zamjenjuje Bošnjački Pjesnik?” Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, “War Damage to the Cultural Heritage.” At that same time a separate memorial at Đikić’s grave in the small Muslim cemetery beside the Karađoz-Beg Mosque in the center of Mostar’s Old Town, was repaired. The monument, designed in 1937 by Belgrade architect Alkesander Derobu, was shelled and vandalized in June 1993 by Serb forces. 321 residents, the Ćorović House is considered historically important for Bosnia’s history and is included on the Provisional List of National Monuments. The initiative for the Šantić memorial rooms was organized by the same Hercegovina Museum which had staged the similarly themed temporary exhibit in its own galleries four years earlier, as well as by the Mostar Society of Artists and Prosvjeta (Education), a Serb historic and cultural society. 136 Public response to the museum has mirrored that towards the bust and monuments: it has been reserved, yet positive and has seen the developments as potentially unifying. One journalist in the Serb nationalist leaning Banja Luka newspaper Glas Srpske (Serb Voice) suggested the Šantić helped to “build good relations between the three peoples in Mostar.” 137 In Mostar today, Aleksa Šantić has therefore re-accumulated a small museum, a plaque, a literary festival, a park, a monument, a bust, and a street that together represent his gradual return to his previous position of importance and prominence in the city. 138 In addition, one of the largest and most elaborate monuments in Mostar’s Orthodox cemetery marks Šantić’s grave: it had survived the attempts to erase his memory from the physical city in 1992 and remains impressive, if unkempt, today (fig. 70). The discussions surrounding the removal and return of Šantić’s memory, as well as of the other monuments and busts in Mostar, demonstrate a move towards shared heroes 136 137 138 Bjelica, “Mostar Zaboravlja Starog Pjesnika?!”; “Obilježavanje 82. Godišnjice.” Zlatko Serdarević, “Pisma Mostarskog Poete” [Song to Mostar’s Poet], Glas Srpske, February 4, 2006, reprinted on vertualnahercegovina.com, http://www.virtuanlnahercegovina.com/mostar/ vijest.php?id-29 . One critic of all this attention noted that Šantić’s poetry has not returned to the school curricula in Mostar. Tina Jelin, “Ja ne mogu ovdje” [I can’t here], Radio Slobodna Evropa, February 2, 2006, http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/article/2006/02/02/0a79a38b-cf35-4f97-992b-76c79670916d.html . 322 Figure 70: Aleksa Šantić’s grave monument, which is by far the most imposing in Mostar’s Orthodox Cemetery, c.2002. (image: Denis Böhm). and prewar values in the city. Though all of these monuments have reappeared on sites in the Muslim controlled Old Town Municipality of east Mostar, discussion of their returns have been documented and positively noted in the local Bosnian Croat newspaper as well as in the Bosnian Serb media. In addition, none of these many public markers have been physically vandalized nor verbally attacked, which in Mostar in the past decade is a remarkable feat. Šantić’s warm reception suggests that perhaps the members of Urban Movement Mostar did not need to bring in an outsider like Bruce Lee to find a universally acceptable hero for all Mostar’s residents and all the peoples of Bosnia-Hercegovina. The gradual return of commemorations of Aleksa Šantić have received less attention from locals than the flashy, exciting Monument to Bruce Lee, and have barely been noticed by the international community and media unfamiliar with this Bosnian poet. Perhaps it was the combination of the fact that Šantić, known for his odes to Mostar, is 323 so important specifically to this city with the fact that projects recognizing him keep a low profile and were not discovered and appropriated by the international community that they could be the truly shared sites so many have sought for the city. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY PROJECTS The Old Bridge was not the only postwar reconstruction project in Mostar initiated by the international community. A number of Austrian-era institutional buildings, both religious and secular, have received significant attention and funding from various international organizations whose restoration projects at these sites have been well received by the local media representing both sides of the city. On the other hand one curious monument donated by the Italian government has barely been noticed by Mostar’s public or many outsiders. In keeping with the spirit and symbolism of the Old Bridge’s reconstruction, all of these internationally supported projects in Mostar have advocated similar associations with reconciliation, peace, friendship, and unity. Three Nations Project: Separate but Equal The fund set up for the Old Bridge’s reconstruction by the World Bank’s loan also provided support for the restoration of other historic sites and neighborhoods in Mostar. This ingenious plan ensured that international interest did not leave Mostar with a perfect new bridge in an otherwise ruined city. Of course the anchoring towers and numerous structures along the approaches to the bridge were also rebuilt and repaired, but in addition, once the New Old Bridge and its immediate surroundings were complete, the leftover funds were used for the simultaneous restoration of three architecturally and culturally important turn-of-the century buildings. These included 324 Figure 71: Damaged and Restored Napredak Cultural Center (top), Orthodox Metropolitan’s Palace (middle), and Vakuf Palace (bottom), each c.2003 and 2006. (images: author). 325 the Croat Cultural Center Napredak, the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitan’s Palace, and the Islamic Community’s Vakuf Palace (fig. 71).139 The Mostar building of the Napredak Cultural Association, an institution promoting Croatian culture and language among youth throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina, was built in 1906 and was severely damaged during the recent war. Despite a roof consolidation project funded by the European Union, it remained in “perilous condition” in 2004. The Metropolitan’s Palace served as the residence of the Serbian Orthodox Bishop of Mostar since its construction in 1903. After the war only its roof-less outer shell remained, and was ironically probably damaged most extensively by general shelling by Serb paramilitary forces. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan’s Palace was the only building in Mostar belonging to the Serb Orthodox Church that was still standing at all in 1995, and has since been recognized as a National Monument of BosniaHercegovina. The 1894 Vakuf Palace housed an Islamic charity, cultural center, and library until its confiscation following the Second World War and conversion for use as a municipal office building with a commercial ground floor. Only its exterior walls remained after prolonged shelling and deliberate burning by Serb forces in June 1993, and following the war these walls collapsed piece by piece. In the fall of 2004, the World Bank signed contracts with local construction companies for the reconstruction of these three buildings according to designs previously prepared by the Mostar office of the Aga Kahn Trust for Culture (AKTC). 140 These 139 140 N.Hu., “Dobili Odobrenje za Produženje Radovi do 31. Decembra 2004” [Permission Granted to Extend Work until December 31, 2004], Dnevni Avaz, September 18, 2003, 7; The World Bank, Annual Report 1999 (Paris: The World Bank, 1999); and The World Bank, Bosnia and Hercegovina Country Brief (Paris: The World Bank, c2002). The World Bank, “Cultural Heritage Pilot Project, Bosnia-Hercegovina: Procurement,” c.2006, http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P059763&Type=Procurement &theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64330663&menuPK=64282136&piPK=64302788 . 326 sites were selected from among the fifteen pilot projects identified in 1999 by a joint initiative of the AKTC and the World Monuments Fund (WMF). The AKTC/WMF dossier identified sites primarily for their architectural significance, but also clearly to reflect the range of confessional and national affiliations in the city and in BosniaHercegovina. 141 The fifteen potential projects also included secular sites meant to reflect all Mostar residents, such as banks and schools. Colloquially the reconstruction of these three particular buildings with the remaining World Bank loan has been dubbed the “Three Monuments, Three Nations” project because of its recognition of an important cultural building from each of Bosnia’s constituent nations. 142 This separate but equal treatment reflects the general trend among governmental and non-governmental European and American based donors to Bosnia’s postwar reconstruction. These organizations and countries have almost always either supported projects they feel were “neutral” or shared, such as the Old Bridge, or a selection of sites representing distinct groups, such as these three institutional buildings. But by singling out sites and associating them with distinct groups within the Bosnian population, this kind of “three nation” initiative can also be understood as highlighting their separation. Implicitly, by acknowledging that the Croats, Serbs, and Muslims are distinct and by restoring a project for each of these groups, the international community is indicating that there is no collective Bosnian identity or nation, and no Bosnian collective culture, and that each group must be addressed individually. 141 142 AKTC/WMF, Reclaiming Historic Mostar: Opportunities for Revitalization (Istanbul: AKTC/ WMF, 1999). L.B., “Tri Spomenika Tri Naroda u Novom Ruhu” [Three Monuments for Three Nations in New Clothes], Oslobođenje, March 17, 2005, http://www.oslobodjenje.ba/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=44258&Itemid=0. 327 No church or mosque was included in the selected sites, despite the fact that there were some arguably more architecturally and historically significant sites that could have been selected for restoration using the remaining World Bank funds. Potential choices included the late nineteenth-century Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, which had been the largest orthodox church in Bosnia-Hercegovina, or the sixteenthcentury Karađoz-Beg Mosque. 143 Perhaps these buildings were overlooked because there was not a Catholic church in Mostar to be included as a third site, since the cathedral’s roof had already been repaired and the Franciscan Church had already been replaced. It is also likely that a conscious choice was made to focus on cultural, rather than religious, aspects of Bosnia’s “three nations,” even though religion is one of the few distinguishing characteristic between the peoples of Bosnia-Hercegovina. As a result the Napredak Cultural Center and the Muslim Vakuf building were selected. The Metropolitan’s Palace, as property of the Orthodox Church, is more closely linked to religion that either of the other two sites, but this institution has traditionally been the protector of Serb culture in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The reconstruction and restoration of these three buildings was completed in 2005 and early 2006 and the Napredak and Vakuf buildings were returned to their grateful owners. 144 On the other hand, rumor had it that the Orthodox Metropolitan of the 143 144 In 2005, preliminary plans were made for raising the estimated US $2 million to restore the Orthodox Cathedral; however without a remaining local Serb population to lobby for it, international donors have overlooked it thus far. The symbolic significance of reconstructing this largest and most visible sign of one of Bosnia’s three constituent groups will undoubtedly lead to eventual international interest. BiH Commission to Preserve National Monuments, “Orthodox Cathedral: The Holy Trinity, the Site and Remains of the Historic Monument,” Decision No.: 06-22-1067/03-3, January 20, 2004, http://www.aneks8komisija. com.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang= 4&action=view&id=1932 ; and “Serbian Orthodox Congregational” Virtualna Hercegovina, February 28, 2005, http://www.virtualnahercegovina. com/mostar/vijest.php?id15 . L.B. “Tri Spomenika Tri Naroda” 328 Zahum-Hercegovina Diocese repeatedly stalled work on his Palace as a result of his disinterest in actually returning to Mostar now that he is comfortably resettled in Trebinje, a southern Hercegovina city that is on the other side of the Interethnic Boundary Line in the Republika Srpska. 145 Friendship Fountain: Broken Bridge? The Friendship Fountain, an inconspicuous, peculiar piece of public art, was a gift to the city of Mostar from its Italian sister city, Montegrotto Terme, a small medieval town near Padua. 146 The connection between the two cities began during the war, when a nongovernmental organization called AUSER from Montegrotto Terme brought humanitarian aid to besieged Mostar. The two officially became sister cities in 2000 through an agreement signed by their mayors. In July 2003, a park in the Italian city was named for Mostar and a friendship monument was erected and dedicated there on a Day of Solidarity and Peace. A year later, a duplicate of the Montegrotto Terme monument was erected in Zrinjevac Park in Mostar (fig. 72). Erected the same month as the New Old Bridge was opened, this small fountain barely received a passing notice in local Mostar newspapers and was not even mentioned by state level media in Bosnia-Hercegovina. It caused no controversy or public discussion, despite its seemingly provocative form. The fountain’s design, the work of 145 146 Since its establishment in the thirteenth century, the seat of this diocese which includes parts of Croatia’s Dalmatia region, of Bosnia’s Hercegovina region as well as of Montenegro, has moved frequently. It was located in Ston, Blagaj, Trebinje, Herceg Novi and since the nineteenth century in Mostar. Lawrence Hannah, World Bank Project Manager for the Mostar Cultural Heritage Pilot Project, personal conversation with author, December 2005. “Inaugurirana Fontana Prijateljestva u Parku Zrinjevac” [Inaguration of the Friendship Fountain in Zrinjevac Park], Hercegovačke Novine, July 23, 2004, 27; D. L., “U Parku Mostar u Montegrottu Izgrađena Fontana” [Fountain Built in Mostar Park in Montegrottu], Dnevni List, July 22, 2003, 14; and Vesna Leto, “Park Zrinjevac Dobio Novu Fontanu” [Zrinjevac Park Gets a New Fountain], Dnevni List, July 20, 2004, 13. 329 Figure 72: Friendship Fountain, Zrinjevac Park, 2006. (image: author). Odorici Renato, includes a circular pool of water, over which springs a low arch with a missing keystone. According to Bosnian newspapers, on the occasion of the opening of the Italian fountain, the mayor of Montegrotto Terme said the stone and water symbolized the shared elements connecting the two cities and the link of the arch represented friendship. 147 The Mayor of Mostar, Hamdija Jahić, acceped the Bosnian fountain as a “beautiful gift for all Mostar residents, especially its children.” 148 However, the two sides of the monument’s arch do not meet, and one’s first impression on seeing the Friendship Fountain is that it looks unmistakably like a broken bridge, a form wrought with meaning in contemporary Mostar. This connection is reinforced by the fact that both the fountains in Montegrotto Terme and in Mostar were purposefully constructed out of the same Tenelija limestone from the same quarry as the Old Bridge and the New Old Bridge in order to create connections between the monument and the city’s heritage. Nonetheless, the potentially offensive 147 148 D.L., “U Parku Mostar u Montegrottu,” 14. Leto, “Park Zrinjevac Dobio Novu Fontanu,” 13. 330 form of this fountain has solicited little criticism within Mostar. Though probably if it had been built by local Croats it would have been condemned and been considered offensive, the fact that it was a gift from a foreign city can not completely explain the lack of discussion. The foreign-funded New Old Bridge evoked local criticism, and in Sarajevo, the form and meaning of the highly controversial Multicultural Man have been much debated since the Italian government gifted that sculpture to Bosnia’s capital. 149 Perhaps the Friendship Fountain has not been controversial simply because it is located in an obscure corner of a park no longer frequented by many of Mostar’s Muslim and other east side inhabitants who would be most likely to take offense. Old Gymnasium: Microcosm of a City The Old Gymnasium, located on the central Spanish Square along the divisive Boulevard, is another shared site, which like the Liska Street cemetery could have been a starting point for cooperation but instead has caused additional controversy in the city. In the few years since Mostar’s political reunification, developments at the Old Gymnasium have revealed a glimpse of hope however, that institutions and spaces in the city may slowly begin the process of reunifying with the assistance and encouragement of the international community. 149 “Agresija na Kulturu ili na Zdravu Pamet” [Aggression on Culture or Mental Health], Dani, September 14, 1998, 9; Francesco Perilli, “Interview: Kipar Francesco Perilli” [Interview: Sculptor Francesco Perilli], by Edin Avdić, Slobodna Bosna, November 21, 1998, 44-45; Adnan Butrović, “Multiculturne Genetalije” [Multicultural Genitalia], Hrvatska Riječ, September 26, 1998, 217218; N. Džanko, “Stihija Egzotike” [Exotic Verses], Dani, May 12, 2000, http://www.bhdani.com/ arhiv/2000/154/+154ops1.htm ; Merima Sijarić and Dženana Alađuz, “Multikulturni Čovjek između Talijana i Talibana” [Multicultural Man between the Italians and the Taliban], Slobodna Bosna, September 26, 1998, 38-41; and “‘Skulptura Razvrata’ u Parku Svjetlosti” [Lecherous Sculpture in Svijetlost Park], Oslobođenje, September 8, 1998, 15. 331 Figure 73: Old Gymnasium building with separate schools operating on the first and second floors, Spanish Square, 2003. (image: author). The Gymnasium was built in the late nineteenth century as an academic high school in the Bosnian Pseudo-Moorish style of which Sarajevo’s National Library is the most famous example. As one of the most important and impressive Austrian-era public buildings in Mostar, it is included on the Provisional List of National Monuments. Despite its front-line location, its wartime damage was superficial compared to many other sites in the city, and it remained structurally sound. Mostar’s gymnasium was contested during negotiations for the boundaries of the Central Zone in 1996: the local Croat authorities wanted it on the west side, while the local Muslim authorities and EUAM wanted it within the Central Zone, where it ended up (fig. 73). Despite the fact that its Central Zone location was meant to preserve it as a shared space, Mostar’s Southwest Municipality partially repaired the first floor of the building and opened the Brother Dominik Mandić Grammar School 332 there in 2000. 150 This school was only for Catholic Croat students and was named after a Franciscan priest to reinforce its exclusivity. Its opening was quickly followed by protests from Mostar’s Muslim population and officials to which the regional office of the OHR responded by “mediating an agreement between the two sides on ‘future joint use’ of the gymnasium premises.” 151 According to this agreement, once the building had been restored, both Croat and Muslim run high schools should operate separately on the same premises. It was over two years until the second, Muslim-controlled school opened, and only after repeated complaints from Mostar’s Old Town Municipality that their schools were overcrowded and that they too should be able to make use of the largely unoccupied Gymnasium building. 152 This second school operating within the same building was called the Aleksa Šantić Gymnasium, as the prewar school had been known. The two schools maintained separate administrations, curriculum, students and even separate entrances. This truly segregated system, with “separate but equal” schools, was not only sanctioned by the local governments and the international community in Bosnia-Hercegovina, but was proposed and run by them as well. In the summer of 2003, at the time when talks on the political reunification of Mostar were underway, the international community began discussing proposals for integrating these two separate high schools. The OHR and the Organization for 150 151 152 A. Dedić, “Obnova ‘Stare Gimnazije’” [Renewal of the “Old Gymnasium”], Slobodna BiH, October 29, 1998, 16 Bose, Bosnia after Dayton, 136; OHR, “HRCC Human Rights Quarterly Report, May 15-August 31, 2000,” August 31, 2000, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/hr-rol/thedept/hr-coord-cent/info-reps/hrreports/default.asp?content_id=5101; and “Stara Gimnazija za Sve Učenike” [The Old Gymnasium for All Students], Slobodna BiH, July 25, 1999, 3. Jelana Dalipagić, “Zahtijevamo Korištenje Gimnazije u Središnjoj Zoni” [We Demand the Use of the Gymnasium in the Central Zone], Dnevni List, October 30, 2002, 15; and “Neiskorištena Zgrada Gimnazije” [Unused Gymnasium Building], Jutarnje Novine, October 30, 2002, 3. 333 Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) proposed combining their administrations as well as the math and science curricula of the two schools. 153 This proposal was viewed as a preliminary test of how cooperative the nationalist HDZ and SDA parties were actually feeling. 154 That fall, all the city’s elite high school students began learning together in a school known simply as the Mostar Gymnasium. Though they shared a school name, administration, and physical building, the students still studied in separate classroom from separate teachers. Once Mostar’s residents and educational authorities had taken these preliminary symbolic – yet largely superficial steps – towards reuniting the Gymnasium, donations to fund the restoration of the building came from the governments of Spain, Germany, Norway, Canada, Great Britain, Turkey, and BosniaHercegovina. 155 These offers were all hinged on the idea of continued moves towards a shared school, and the City’s Ministry of Education was asked to research integrating the more sensitive subjects of language and history and to provide recommendations. Articles and editorials in both Croat and Muslim local papers continue to debate the name of the gymnasium as well as raised concerns about what mechanisms would ensure students would be instructed in their mother tongues in this potentially unified 153 154 155 OSCE, “Transcript of the Press Conference in Mostar,” by Richard Medić, OSCE, July 16, 2003, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-offices/mostar/transcripts/ default.asp?content_id=30323; and OSCE/OHR, “Mostarska Stara Gimnazija: Plan Integracije” [Mostar’s Old Gymnasium: Integration Plan], Advertisement, Dnevni List, July 16, 2003, 13. Zvonimir Jukić, “Mostarska Gimnazija: Test Iskrenosti za HDZ BiH” [Mostar’s Gymnasium: Test of the Honesty of HDZ BiH], Dnevni List, July 10, 2003, 8; and Vildana Selimbegović, “Kakva Gimnazija, Takav i Grad” [Whatever kind of Gymnasium, That kind of City], Dani, July 25, 2003, 22-24. Hasan Eminović, “Gimnazija Opet Mostarska” [The Gymnasium is Mostar’s Again], Hercegovačke Novine, July 19, 2003, 3-4; and Ivica Glibušić, “Imaju li Hrvatska i Bošnjačka Djeca Pravo na Materinski Jezik?” [Do Croat and Bosniak Children have a Right to their Mother Tongue?], Dnevni List, July 30, 2003, 9; 334 school. 156 Croatian and Bosnian vary slightly in vocabulary and grammar, but are virtually indistinguishable to outsiders and many native speakers. Recent efforts to differentiate these and argue they are separate languages are attempts to create distinctions among people and reinforce separate identities. Despite the rhetoric and insistence of the international donors, in 2006, the final phase of the Gymnasium’s restoration began though two largely separate schools continued to operate inside it. Though its total unifying objective was not achieved, Mostar’s Gymnasium partial merger has nevertheless been advocated as a model for combining segregated schools elsewhere in the Federation, including Rama, where two primary schools, one for Croat children and one for Muslim children, were similarly operating within a single building. Merging the schools but maintaining separate curricula for certain subjects was proposed for Rama “following the example of Mostar Gymnasium.” 157 In addition, in 2005, an EU initiative attempted to unify the two universities in Mostar with pilot projects including a joint applied biology training lab and an EU language center. 158 From 2003 onward, public discussion of how the Old Gymnasium would be organized and of how the city of Mostar would be reunited were linked, and the fate of these two plans were seen as intertwined, as indicated in the headline of one Dani article, 156 157 158 Eminović, “Gimnazija Opet Mostarska,” 4; Glibušić, “Imaju li Djeca Pravo”; “Gimnazija,” commentary on RTV-Mostar, reprinted in Most 76 (August 2003): http://www.most.ba/076/ 000.htm; Hercegovina Franciscan Province, “U Povodu Brisanja Imena Fra. Dominka Mandića Gimnaziji u Mostaru” [On the Occasion of the Erasure of the name of Brother Dominik Mandić Gymnasium in Mostar], Mostar, March 4, 2004, http://www.franjevci.info/gimnazija.htm; Selimbegović, “Kakva Gimnazija,” 22. Anja Vrebac, “Incident in Rama is to be solved Following the Example of Mostar Gymnasium,” Dnevni List, September 21, 2005, translated and reprinted by OSCE, http://www.oscebih.org/ public/default.asp?d=6& article=show&id=1102 . “Joint University Structures at the City of Mostar,” Europe and the Balkans International Newsletter 2 (April 2005): http://137.204.115.130/newletters/aprile%202005.pdf?PHPSESSID =097e6039f2038d0c32273e06b4881bc5 . 335 “Whatever Kind of Gymnasium, that Kind of City.” 159 Indeed, the process of integrating Mostar’s Gymnasium has represented Mostar’s recent history in microcosm. It was taken step by step: first the building, then non-controversial natural science subjects, and perhaps in the future, a fully unified school will be formed. The process was also driven by the international community, whose pressure and threats to withholding financing moved the project along. Both sides of local constituents were reluctant, but in the end came together in a forced marriage, as in the reunification of the city itself. Both the city and the school remain socially and culturally divided today, despite their common administrations. Mostar Gymnasium’s new shared administration and the city’s new shared political structure have only symbolically plastered over the very different attitudes and interests of Mostar’s separate communities, visible so clearly in many other projects being built and rebuilt throughout the city. Yet as was the case for the Old Bridge’s new associations with multiculturalism and reconciliation and for the New City Statute itself, the odd Gymnasium arrangement seems to have been accepted by the international community as close enough, despite its shortcomings. CONCLUSION The visibility, orientation, and history of the sites of the monuments, rebuilt heritage, and new construction in postwar Mostar have all informed the meaning of these projects. Many have been interpreted in different ways by different audiences and have caused long public debates about their relative merits and potential meanings. The arguments made in support or criticism of these sites have also influenced 159 Selimbegović, “Kakva Gimnazija,” 22. 336 perceptions of them, and their meanings have continued to evolve. The most controversial projects have been the most visible, but at the same time, dozens of smaller architectural interventions in the city have overtly and subtly participated in postwar identities debates. Those projects which either explicitly advocated unifying and multicultural symbolism or that subtly reflected these sentiments were all sponsored by foreign governments or organizations or by local groups which could be classified as Bosnian for their distinction from the institutions directly associated with Mostar’s two main groups. Within the city, on the other hand, the Islamic Community and especially the Catholic Church and clearly Croat institutions, have used architecture to reinforce distinct identities and manipulated it to accentuate national differences and clearly mark national territory. Whether these institutions represent the constituencies for whom they claim to speak is difficult to gauge, and it is likely that there is a silent majority among the Bosnian Croats and Muslims in Mostar who do not actively support these nationalistic projects. Because though the contestations in Mostar often seem intractable, the partial unification of the Old Gymnasium into a high school for all citizens of Mostar and the universal reacceptance of the numerous monuments to Aleksa Šantić are significant symbolic steps indicating the slow unification of Mostar’s society. They offer a gleam of hope that tensions in Mostar have reduced and demonstrate a marked break from the postwar building and rebuilding projects in the city that have represented the continuation of the war’s identity conflict. 337