Debating the reconciliatory use of heritage. European post-monumentalism versus regional national-monumentalism

Abstract

In the 1990s, numerous religious monuments were destroyed in former Yugoslavia. National heritage formed one of the main targets of ethnic cleansing, literally removing the symbolic markers of ethnic groups. Responding to this destructive use of heritage, the Council of Europe and the European Commission introduced the Regional Programme on Cultural and Natural Heritage in south-east Europe. By means of this programme, they seek to change local perceptions on heritage and instigate debates about uses of the past. The premise is that only by learning from past conflicts will the region be able to continue its path to EU integration. However, progress of the programme is slow. Discussions about the interpretation of the past, let alone of a shared past, are largely avoided. The reconciliatory function of heritage that the two European actors aspire to is still hard to find. By taking Serbia as a case study, this article presents some of the typical difficulties that one can expect to encounter when heritage is used as an instrument for reconciliation in an area where reconciliation is still seen as a challenging and threatening process.

Keywords:

• cultural heritage
• post-conflict
• reconciliation
• European integration
• Serbia

Notes

1. See for example the 1954 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the 1954 Cultural Convention of the CoE, the 2005 Faro Convention of the CoE, the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the 2011 document of the CoE: The Role of Culture and Cultural Heritage in Conflict Prevention, Transformation, Resolution and Post-conflict action: the Council of Europe Approach.

2. The programme has been implemented since 2003. In 2011 it was officially handed over to the region in the form of ‘Ljubljana II’. Bulgaria and Romania are the only two countries that were not part of former Yugoslavia. Yet they were integrated in 2003 due to their former status as applicant countries. See: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/cooperation/SEE/IRPPSAAH/default_en.asp, last accessed 25 July 2013.

3. In June 2003, the member states of the European Union together with the leaders of the Western Balkan countries reached an agreement on the Thessaloniki Declaration. In this joint statement, the Western Balkans were promised full membership of the EU once they had met the established criteria

4. In the Granada (1985) and Valetta (1992) Conventions of the CoE, the urge was expressed to involve the public at the various stages of the decision-making process. Nevertheless this was primarily for conservationist reasons.

5. Since 2011, all of the countries of former Yugoslavia have ratified this Convention. With an exception of Norway and Luxemburg, none of the Western European countries have signed the Convention.

6. The programme is mentioned in diverse communications on enlargement of the Commission such as in the communication ‘The Western Balkans on the road to the EU: consolidating stability and raising prosperity’ of 2006 (COM 2006) and in the communication: ‘the Western Balkans: Enhancing the European perspective’ in 2008 (COM 2008).

7. See http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/cooperation/SEE/IRPPSAAH/default_en.asp, last accessed July 2014.

8. See http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/serbia.php?aid=61, last accessed 7 June 2011.

9. The Ministry of Culture had a department of international cooperation and European integration. The Regional Heritage Programme was accommodated at this department.

10. Interview with the Serbian programme coordinator, June 2009.

11. See http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/cooperation/see/irppsaah/consolidatedprojects_EN.asp last accessed 28 July 2014.

12. See http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/cooperation/see/irppsaah/consolidatedprojects_EN.asp?, last accessed June 2014.

13. Ravanica monastery, Manasija monastery and the Resavska pecina (Resava cave) are located only a few kilometres from the mine.

14. Interview with the Serbian programme coordinator, July 2009.

15. The Committee consisted of the curator of the mining museum in Senje, an architect, and conservator from the Institution for the Protection of Monuments in Kragujevac, an industrial archaeologist, an art historian from the Republican Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Belgrade, and a conservation architect from Stockholm.

16. Serbian programme coordinator at a business meeting in Senje discussing the preparation of the Business Plan with the local stakeholders of the Senje community, May 2009.

17. See http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/cooperation/see/irppsaah/ljubljanaprocess_EN.asp?, last accessed July 2014.

18. Speech held by Nebojša Bradić at event Senje Coal Mine, recorded June 2009.

19. Interview with CoE project coordinator programme, November 2009.

20. Interview with CoE project coordinator of the programme, November 2009.

21. Interview with director of the Republican Institute for the Protection of Monuments, July 2009.

22. See http://www.czkd.org/, http://grupaspomenik.wordpress.com/, http://chwb.org/, http://www.dahteatarcentar.com/aboutus.html, http://chwb.org/, last accessed July 2014.

23. Interview with the CoE project coordinator of the programme, November 2009.

24. Interview with Serbian cultural policy expert, May 2009.