Tourism which erases borders: an introspection into Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Abstract

This chapter deals with the newly constructed internal political 'borders' of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H), which divide B&H citizens by their ethnic background, thus recreating the unfinished discourse of a national identity. It considers tourism as the discourse under which the importance of the natural borders can be recreated, and as such, a tool for enhancing the process of social reconciliation in this divided country. Research into the development of tourism in B&H shows that initial efforts to develop tourism project partnerships involving people from differing ethnic groups were hampered by suspicion, distrust and a lack of knowledge about 'the Other'. However, there is a perception that tourism is not a threatening activity and some success has been achieved with the help of international agencies.

Tourism for Peace? Reflections on a Village Tourism Project in Cyprus

“…The fi rst concerns the limitations on trust in the absence of social knowledge, as Causevic found in post-war Sarajevo, where adequate social knowledge to form a judgement about 'the other' as a potential partner simply was not available, as a result of the massive population movements produced by the war (Causevic 2010). This problem is amplifi ed in Cyprus, where the dominance of the 'Cyprus issue', and uncertainty about the outcomes of potentially high-risk strategies (such as, for Greek-Cypriots, entering a tourism partnership with a village in the north), call for high levels of generalized trust, to which Cyprus's highly polarized 'zero sum' environment is antithetical.…”

“…Yet despite the widespread view that there is a substantial 'peace dividend' to be reaped from collaborative initiatives -as evidenced by examples from Northern Ireland (Simone-Charteris and Boyd 2010) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (Causevic 2010; Causevic and Lynch 2011) -att empts to use tourism to build confi dence and cooperation over the past two decades in Cyprus have proved largely unsuccessful (Scott 2012).…”

“…Finlay has noted in the case of Northern Ireland, and Causevic for Bosnia-Herzegovina, that government bodies and international aid agencies have the tendency to frame the divisions and resource confl icts of post-war societies in primarily ethno-national terms, entrenching discourses of corporate identities and associated rights through the application of an outmoded model of culture as a way of life of a whole group or society (Finlay 2006;Causevic 2010). Anthropologists seldom have the opportunity to frame the agenda within an anthropological analysis of power, reciprocity and resource allocation issues.…”

Branding Post-War Sarajevo

“…The population after the war decreased to 63 per cent of the pre-war population in Sarajevo (Donia 2006). At the end of 1995, the United States oversaw the Dayton Peace Agreement, which distributed land in Bosnia between ethnic groups, creating the Republic Srpska to be run by the now Serbian majority out of much of the ethnically cleansed areas in eastern and northern Bosnia (Causevic 2010;Lapping 1995;Ramet 2002). In turn, Bosniaks maintained control of Sarajevo and the national government in BiH (Lapping 1995;Ramet 2002).…”

“…This article aims to address this research gap. While some tourism scholars point to the educational benefits of conflict-related tourism (Bell 2009;Causevic 2010;Moufakkir and Kelly 2010), critical scholars are quick to articulate the problematic need to simplify narratives of conflict and pain for mass consumption to meet present needs (Cole 1999;Gilmore 2010;Lisle 2004;Loewen 1995;Rothe 2011;Sturken 2007). Journalists as narrators of the memories and image makers are crucial agents in putting the past into the perspective of the present (Volkmer 2006;Zelizer 2008).…”