No description available.

No description available.

The Bosnian war was not a purely “ethnic conflict,” as both in-group members and out-group members were sacrificed for the higher political objective, namely, ethnic homogenization of divided Bosnian territories. In particular, I argue the sacrifice of in-group members, especially those who lived on the out-territory, was integral to the violence directed against out-group members. The process of resettlement of the ethnic kin was just as important as the expulsion of the ethnic “other” for re-creating a new ethnic and political balance in select strategic areas. Furthermore, the practice of the appropriation of existing and the creation of new parallel state structures were the main mechanisms of the process of the sacrifice of in-group members from the out-territory. In turn, nationalist narratives were constructed not only to justify those new structures, but also to portray ethnic minorities as potentially dangerous and threatening. In order to complete ethnic homogenization, Bosnian nationalists directly targeted the private household, expelling Bosnians from their homes and appropriating and destroying their private property. I argue that violence against the household rendered the private sphere political. In the second part of the thesis, I reflect on actions and words of ordinary Bosnians, both in-group and out-group members, who resisted violence and helped each other during the war. In particular, I argue that although the lack of basic needs brought Bosnians of different ethnicities together, a long-term result of this necessity-driven action was political: the restoration of their citizenship and the preservation of their community at the local level for after the war.

No description available.

Doctor of Philosophy / Security Studies Interdepartmental Program / Donald J. Mrozek / From 1989 to 1999, the US had an opportunity to end its rivalry with Russia. However, a “loss aversion heuristic” dominated the decision-making processes of George Bush and Bill Clinton resulting in policies that provoked Russian fears of encirclement. This “loss aversion heuristic” manifested in four key security decisions: the reunification of Germany within NATO, NATO expansion to newly independent states, the Balkans interventions, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Although initially suspicious of Gorbachev, Bush eventually pursued a policy of supporting his reforms. However, as the administration came to terms with the inevitability of German reunification and increased European integration as outlined in the Single European Act of 1987, worries about the US leadership role in Europe emerged. By the fall of 1989, Bush backed German reunification to bolster pro-NATO political parties in Germany. As he assumed the presidency in 1993, Clinton wanted to increase financial assistance to Russia. However, when it came to security issues, Clinton’s fear of losing democratic gains in Eastern Europe to an emerging Russian nationalist movement made him less conciliatory to Russia. Despite Yeltsin’s dismay, Clinton pushed for NATO’s enlargement to protect the newly independent states. The same “loss aversion heuristic” was in play with the NATO interventions in the Balkans in 1995 and 1998. Criticisms of NATO’s ineffectiveness at preventing genocide on the continent called into question the necessity of a European security organization that could not provide security. Even though the interventions cemented a continued rivalry with Russia, the US backed them as a means of protecting the relevance of NATO. These decisions had implications to the US policy of protecting the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Instead of securing a nuclear security partner, US policy contributed to Russians selling technology to rogue regimes, and they resisted US attempts to create an Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (ABM) system in Eastern Europe. In this way, US policy success in securing NATO resulted in decreased nuclear security. In the first three security decisions, the US overestimated the probability of loss making them unable to consider a more cooperative posture vis-à-vis Russian security concerns. The result of this loss aversion was the protection of NATO and the loss of cooperation on the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

To understand the reasons for the increase in recent years of the Bosnian population in Bowling Green, Kentucky and their adaptation problems as refugees in their host country, this study focused upon the Bosnian community in Bowling Green and addressed what the role of their challenges is in the shaping of refugees’ new life in their host country. Extensive literature review helped to emerge that for an understanding of the situation of the refugees, their interaction in the host country is more meaningful topic for research. This study employed qualitative research methods, drawing from existing empirical studies addressing resettlement in the context of the informants’ wartime experiences. Initially, the researcher approached patrons at Bosnian restaurants and worshipers at local mosques to find Bosnian people. Snowball sampling used to identify Bosnian refugees living in the Bowling Green community. Twenty-five in-depth interviews were conducted for needs assessment and issue identification. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed in an attempt to understand the difficulties of adaptation among Bosnian refugees living in Bowling Green. A qualitative case study approach was chosen because it was the most effective way to gain knowledge of refugees’ experiences and perceptions in the context of the societies in which they resettled. Findings revealed that interviewed group struggled with mostly language and employment challenges to integration. Social support was provided through organizations that included Americans aided integration and the families resettled before as they provided significant support is directing resettlement. Banki’s (2004) and Jacobsen’s (2001) indicators of refugee integration were used to in order to determine to the extent to which this sample of Bosnian refugees are integrated into their host county.

This study considers the ontological value of metaphor as a site of ceaseless interaction among multiple (gendered) subjects, drawing on the theoretical work of Max Black, Victor Turner, Jacques Derrida, Paul Ricœur, George Lakoff, and Mark Johnson. Its focus is on the particular function of metaphor, locally and internationally, in three of the “new wars” of the twentieth century. The first chapter examines how the bridge metaphor, undergirded by cultural discourses on Mostar’s Old Bridge and Ivo Andrić’s The Bridge on the Drina, shaped knowledge of gendered experiences in the Bosnian War. The second chapter historicizes the cockroach metaphor, which features in many representations of the Rwandan Genocide, and identifies how “the cockroach” is gendered by metaleptic reference to ubuhake, or pastoral clientship—which gained metaphoric significance through populist movements in the 1950s, when Saverio Naigiziki published The Optimist. The third chapter explores depictions of female civilians, combatants, and suicide-bombers as “prisoners,” considering this metaphor’s gendered variations from Aleksandr Pushkin’s “Prisoner of the Caucasus” to discourses on the Chechen Wars. These three metaphors are of central importance to the production of knowledge about how and in what ways post-cold-war conflicts are gendered. Frequently, the international community objectifies “distant conflicts” through the same metaphors that, for local agents, articulate political self-identifications and enact gendered violence. Locally-initiated metaphors, thusly circulating among multiple discourses, produce interactive sites of semantic investment and imaginary exchange. Global and regional representations in metaphor of the Bosnian War, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Chechen Wars enter into common if asymmetrical networks of geopolitical and temporal interactions structured in part by human rights norms in the 1990s. By tracing the historical, cultural, and modal transformations of bridge, cockroach, and prisoner metaphors, this study investigates how fiction, poetry, journalism, memoir, testimony, film, and performance gender knowledge of the Bosnian War, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Chechen Wars.

This study considers the ontological value of metaphor as a site of ceaseless interaction among multiple (gendered) subjects, drawing on the theoretical work of Max Black, Victor Turner, Jacques Derrida, Paul Ricœur, George Lakoff, and Mark Johnson. Its focus is on the particular function of metaphor, locally and internationally, in three of the “new wars” of the twentieth century. The first chapter examines how the bridge metaphor, undergirded by cultural discourses on Mostar’s Old Bridge and Ivo Andrić’s The Bridge on the Drina, shaped knowledge of gendered experiences in the Bosnian War. The second chapter historicizes the cockroach metaphor, which features in many representations of the Rwandan Genocide, and identifies how “the cockroach” is gendered by metaleptic reference to ubuhake, or pastoral clientship—which gained metaphoric significance through populist movements in the 1950s, when Saverio Naigiziki published The Optimist. The third chapter explores depictions of female civilians, combatants, and suicide-bombers as “prisoners,” considering this metaphor’s gendered variations from Aleksandr Pushkin’s “Prisoner of the Caucasus” to discourses on the Chechen Wars. These three metaphors are of central importance to the production of knowledge about how and in what ways post-cold-war conflicts are gendered. Frequently, the international community objectifies “distant conflicts” through the same metaphors that, for local agents, articulate political self-identifications and enact gendered violence. Locally-initiated metaphors, thusly circulating among multiple discourses, produce interactive sites of semantic investment and imaginary exchange. Global and regional representations in metaphor of the Bosnian War, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Chechen Wars enter into common if asymmetrical networks of geopolitical and temporal interactions structured in part by human rights norms in the 1990s. By tracing the historical, cultural, and modal transformations of bridge, cockroach, and prisoner metaphors, this study investigates how fiction, poetry, journalism, memoir, testimony, film, and performance gender knowledge of the Bosnian War, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Chechen Wars.

The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was ended in 1995 with the signing of the Dayton Agreement. However, despite almost 25 years passing since its implementation Bosnia and Herzegovina is still a troubled state with deep internal divisions. This study seeks to analyzethe Dayton Agreement using an English School framework together with an examination of the most prevalent approach to peace within it. In Particular, it uses recent English School theoretical developments that place the concepts of order and justice on a spectrum where an ideal mix is sought. The focus is on discovering whether there is a focus on order to the detriment of justice. To accomplish this the thesis uses a combination of qualitative text analysis and the ADICO grammatical syntax which seeks to analyze statements by breaking them down into their constituent parts. The results of the analysis showed that the initial hypothesis was faulty, and order was in fact the least coded part of the Dayton Agreement. However, it also uncovereda number of problems, and contradictions within the Agreement, most of whom were to the detriment of the parts dedicated to justice and peacebuilding. Findings indicate that the parts of the Dayton Agreement focusing on justice and long-term peacebuilding have been negatively affected by inconsistencies and problems within it as well as the sheer variety of goals that the Agreement seeks to fulfill. This in turn has had implications for the long-term success and stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

No description available.