DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8055371
title: URPEACE - Brčko

description: This study aims to contribute to knowledge about the peace-building agency of civilian actors in marginalized social-housing neighborhoods, who deal with the consequences of terrorist violence in European cities. The bulk of peace and conflict studies literature has provided insight in the dynamics of violence rather than peace. The innovative character of this study therefore is that it interprets existing and new data on dealing with violence with a novel approach, that of geographies of peace. This innovative approach breaks with the tendency of peace and conflict studies to focus on the Global South, state processes and armed conflict and makes it very relevant for studying initiatives in European cities that deal with the aftermaths of paroxysmal violence. The study draws on data collected in three different cities: Grenoble, Freiburg and Brčko. This dataset concerns the data that has been collected in Brčko. This sub-project of the larger URPEACE project consists of developing a spatial approach to peacebuildingin cities dealing with the aftermaths of armed violence. While studies of post-war cities usually focus on past violence and continuous divisions, we in addition look at spaces where the coming together of people from different ethno-national groups is unproblematic. To understand the different dynamics in these spaces we draw on Björkdahl’s distinction between war- and peacescapes and Bollen and Brand’s distinction between socio-fugal and socio-petal spaces. This dataset is the outcome of a collaboration between Claske Dijkema, senior researcher at swisspeace interested in contested monuments and exclusive nation-building projects in Europe and Ayla Korajac, intern at swisspeace and originally from Brčko. The field research carried out for this project focused on two sites in Brčko; the space surrounding the three war monuments (site one) and the space along the Sava River at Ficibajr (site two). In <strong>site one</strong> Ayla Korajac carried out 5 semi-structured in-depth interviews with local politicians and representatives of associations involved in the construction of the monuments; and 25 street interviews with people who were in the vicinity of the war monuments or who participated in one of the commemorations organized at the monuments. She used observation as an additional method. Three local politicians participated in the in-depth interviews, one from each ethno-national group as well as two representatives of associations (one Bosniak and one Croat) who were involved in the negotiation process regarding the war monuments. Street interviews provided an additional perspective on the relation of the public in the city with the monuments and the monuments represented for them. The questions of the street interviews can be found in annex 1. Street interviews were carried out with people (10 women and 15 men) who passed by the monuments or sat in their vicinity. People were not very comfortable to speak about the monuments in this public space so the street interviews were short (approximately 3 minutes). Many interviewees framed their answers very carefully in order not to hurt or provoke any ethnic group. We further rely on two forms of observation: passive observation, conducted without verbal communication, which entailed observing people’s behaviour in the vicinity of the war monuments, and active observation, which included 9 short interviews with people attending one of the commemorations organized at the sites of the war monuments. During the period of field research the 29<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the foundation of all warring factions in the war in Brčko were celebrated. A search on Facebook had been informative for the dates of various commemorations taking place at the monuments, the main actors involved and the different types of uses. Interviews were carried out in Bosnian, Serbian, or Croatian. The in-depth interviews have been audio recorded, manually transcribed and coded. Relevant passages were translated in English for a joint analysis by the co-authors. Street interviews and observations have led to field notes. In <strong>site two</strong> Ayla carried out a focus group with six young adults (18-26 yrs) who carry out volunteering work in Ficibajr and conducted 23 street interviews with users of the leisure area. We further rely on observation, archival data and social media. Ficibajr is an intergenerational site where associations are active that speak to different age groups. We have chosen to focus on associations run by and for younger people because the latter are born after the war but inherit this past-present in many ways, while their voices are generally absent in formal politics. Two participants in the focus group were from the NGO Proni Center for Youth Development that operates in various cities in BiH and focuses on promoting activism and peace among the youth. They are involved in the EcoFic project, which was an internationally funded project that includes repairing multiple benches and tables in Ficibajr and painting concrete paths in the area. The main goal of this project was to inform the youth and the wider community about the importance of preserving of public goods and the local community through environmental workshops and specific activities for the restoration of Ficibajr. The project involved tens of volunteering children, adolescents and young adults. Four participants in the focus group were from Nema Labavo, which is an informal group that is not formally registered as an NGO. This group aims to beautify Ficibajr and to promote ecological behavior among the population in Brčko. A search on Facebook had been helpful to identify actors participating in the shaping of Ficibajr, their projects and aims. Street interviews were carried with 9 women and 14 men. In comparison to site one, it was easier to initiate discussions in this site: it was always possible to ask the five questions (see annex 1), people seemed to be more comfortable with expressing themselves and interviews lasted longer (approximately 7 minutes). For an overview of the (approximate) age distribution of participants see attached document. The local archive of Brčko District did not have any information on Ficibajr or on the monuments. However, the director of the archive suggested Ayla to contact Atah Mahić, an independent chronicler and collector of archival material with regard to the history of Brčko. He provided a letter on the history of Ficibajr. Data provided in this letter is used as information that needs further exploration. As Ayla grew up in Brčko, this study therefore also builds on her lived experience as a citizen of Brčko District, which is especially informative about the urban atmospheres and about the ways the two sites are used and by whom. However, being a local also has important limitations. As a local in a divided post-war city, one is assigned a position and Ayla Korajac’s name and the language she speaks signals to other locals that she is Bosniak. As mentioned, this may have played a role in getting access to the Serb point of view in in-depth and street interviews on site one. Ayla has the impression that interviewees quoted in other studies on B&H, carried out by researchers from other countries (e.g. Peres 2018, Jouhanneau 2016) were more vocal and honest in their answers. Unsurprisingly, women are underrepresented in in-depth interviews as they did not occupy the political functions important for understanding the negotiation process with regard the monuments. They are also underrepresented in the focus group (2F and 4M) and in the street interviewees (19 F and 29 M). The latter can be partially attributed to a selection bias: it soon turned out that in street interviews women were less vocal than men, disregarding whether they were in the company of men, which led to privileging the latter. In order to include women’s experiences and points of view and the gendered uses of the two sites, it is necessary to adapt the interview protocol in follow-up research.