PEACE STUDIES AND PEACEBUILDING AS A NEW FIELD IN USE OF ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

Öz

This study aims to reveal the role of anthropology in peace studies and the peacebuilding process. In this way, the question of why liberal peace that is accepted as an effective paradigm after the Cold War cannot build a sustainable peace will try to be answered with the country of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In other words, considering the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the study will show how the liberal discourse that forms the basis of the West’s intervention in conflict zones, failed in peacebuilding. While it is argued that the main reason for the failure of liberal peace is to exclude the local from peacebuilding and ignore the fragility of the post-conflict process, it rejects Western peace's top-down approach of Western peace. Instead, it is emphasized that peace based on the expectations and demands of local and international populations enables sustainable peace. Therefore, it is argued that anthropology will contribute to peacebuilding, which ensures the sustainability of peace and contributes to peace studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anthropology
• Peace Studies
• Liberal Peace
• Conflict Resolution
• Bosnia-Herzegovina

BOSNA-HERSEK BAĞLAMINDA ANTROPOLOJİNİN YENİ KULLANIM ALANI OLARAK BARIŞ ÇALIŞMALARI VE BARIŞ İNŞASI

Öz

Bu çalışma, antropolojinin barış çalışmaları ve barış inşası sürecindeki rolünün ortaya konulmasını hedeflemektedir. Bu doğrultuda, Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde etkin bir paradigma olarak kabul edilen liberal barışın, neden sürdürülebilir barış inşa edemediği sorusuna, Bosna-Hersek örnek ülkesi ile cevap verilmeye çalışılacaktır. Diğer bir ifadeyle, Batı’nın çatışma bölgelerine müdahale etmesine temel teşkil eden liberal söylemin, Bosna-Hersek örneği göz önünde bulundurularak, barış inşasında nasıl başarısızlığa uğradığı analiz edilecektir. Liberal barışın temel başarısızlık nedeninin, yerelin barış inşasının dışında bırakılması ve çatışma sonrası sürecin kırılgan yapısının dikkate alınmaması olduğunu savunan çalışmada, Batı’nın ön planda olduğu (yukarıdan-aşağıya) barış inşa şekli araştırılmaktadır. Yerelin ve uluslararası olanın beklenti ve taleplerine göre oluşturulacak bir barışın, sürdürülebilir barışı mümkün kılacağı üzerinde durulmaktadır. Bu nedenle antropolojinin, barışın sürdürülebilirliğini sağlamada barış inşasına ve dolayısıyla barış çalışmalarına katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Antropoloji
• Barış Çalışmaları
• Liberal Barış
• Çatışma Çözümü
• Bosna Hersek

Kaynakça

1. ABBINK, Jan, “Violence and Culture: Antropological and Evolutionary-Psychological Reflections On Inter-Group Conflict in Southern Ethiopia”, Anthropology of Violence and Conflict, (ed.) Bettina E. Schmidt ve Ingo W. Schröder, Routledge, London 2001, ss. 121-142.
2. ALP, İlker, “1990’larda Yugoslavya ve Bosna Hersek”, Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayı 1, 2011, ss. 1-50.
3. AYDIN, Yeşim, EMİNOĞLU, Ayça, “Liberal Barışın Kırılma Noktası: Çatışma Sonrası Süreç ve Toplumlar”, 3. Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Tam Metin Kitabı, Trabzon 2019, ss. 46-58.
4. BARCOTT, Rye, PEACOCK James, GONZALEZ Roberto vd., “Anthropology in Conflict: An Exchance”, Survival Global Politics and Strategy, Cilt 50, Sayı 3, 2008, ss. 127-162.
5. BELLONİ, Roberto, “Civil Society and Peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Journal of Peace Research, Cilt 38, Sayı 2, 2001, ss.163-180.
6. BRINGA, Tone, BENDIXSEN K. N. Synnove, “Introduction”, Engaged Anthropology, (ed.) Tone Bringa ve Synno Bendixsen, Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland 2016, ss. 1-22.
7. CRETU, Anca Doina, “Twenty Years After: The Dayton Accords, Legacies and Opportunities in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Fondation Pierre du Bois, Sayı 6, 2015, ss. 1-7.
8. CUSHMAN, Thomas, “Anthropology and Genocide in The Balkans”, Anthropological Theory, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 2004, ss. 5-28.

9. DARBY, John, MAC GINTY, Roger, “Introduction: WhatPeace? WhatProcess?”, Contemporary Peacemaking: Conflict, Violence and Peace Processes, (ed.) John Darby ve Roger Mac Ginty, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2003, ss. 1-6.
10. DOBBINS, James, MILLER Laurel E., PEZARD Stephanie. vd., Overcoming Obstacles to Peace: Local Factors in Nation-Building, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh 2013, ss. 93-124.
11. ERIKSEN, Thomas Hylland, What is Anthropology, PlutoPress, London 2004.
12. GALTUNG, Johan, Theories of Peace: A Synthetic Approach to Peace Thinking, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo 1967.
13. ________, “Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution: The Need Transdisciplinarity”, Transcultural Psychiatry, Cilt 47, Sayı 1, 2010, ss. 20-32.
14. GHALI, Boutros Boutros, “An Agenda for Peace”, International Relations, Cilt 11, Sayı 3, 1992, ss. 201-208.
15. HAVILAND, William A., Cultural Anthropology, Horcourt Brace College Publishers, Tokyo 1994.
16. HURTADO, Fina Anton, ERCOLANI, Giovanni, “Introduction: Anthropology and Security Studies”, Anthropologyand Security Studies, (ed.) Fina Anton Hurtado ve Giovanni Ercolani, Universidad de Murcia, Nottingham Trent University College of William and Mary, USA 2013, ss. 25-54.
17. KAMİL, İbrahim, “Dayton Sonrası Bosna Hersek: İdari-Siyasi Yapı, Ekonomik Durum ve Dış Politika”, Soğuk Savaş Sonrasında Balkanlar (1990-2015), (ed.) İbrahim Kamil, Nobel Yayınları, Ankara 2017, ss. 163-216.
18. ________, “The Bosnia-Herzegovina Crisis and the UN’s Dispute Resolution”, The United Nations and its Conflict Resolution Role, (Ed.) Muharrem Hilmi Özev ve Aydın Erdoğan, Istanbul University Press, İstanbul 2019, ss. 163-187.
19. KENAR, Nesrin, Yugoslavya: Yugoslavya Sorununun Ulusal ve Uluslararası Boyutu, Palme Yayıncılık, Ankara 2005.
20. KOTTAK, Conrad Phillip, Antropoloji: İnsan Çeşitliliğine Bir Bakış, (çev.) Serpil N. Altunek vd., Ütopya Yayınevi, Ankara 2008.
21. LANGHOLTZ, Harvey, “The Psychology of Peacekeeping: One Domain Where Political Realism and Critical Security Theory Will Meet”, Anthropology and Security Studies, (ed.) Fina Anton Hurtado ve Giovanni Ercolani, Universidad de Murcia, Nottingham Trent University College of William and Mary, USA 2013, ss. 153-167.
22. LEDERACH, John Paul, Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington 1997.
23. LEENDERS, Reinound, “Regional Conflict Formations: Is the Middle East Next?”, Third World Quarterly, Cilt 28, Sayı 5, 2007, ss. 959-982.
24. MAC GINTY, Roger, “Hybrid Peace: The Interaction Between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Peace”, Security Dialogue, Cilt 41, Sayı 4, 2010, ss. 391-412.
25. MERLİNGEN, Michael, OSTRAUSKAİTE, Rasa, “Power/Knowledge in International Peacebuilding: The Case of the EU Police Mission in Bosnia”, Alternatives, Cilt 30 Sayı 3, 2000, ss. 297-323.
26. MULLENBACH, Mark J., “Reconstructing Strife-torn Societies: Third Party Peacebuilding in Intrastate Disputes”, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding in Post-War Societies, (ed.) T. David Mason ve James D. Meernik, Routledge, London 2006, ss. 53-80.
27. NEWMAN, Edward, PARIS Roland, RICHMOND Oliver, “Introduction”, New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding, (ed.) Edward Newman, Roland Paris ve Oliver Richmond, United Nations University Press, Hong Kong 2009, ss. 3-25.
28. ÖJENDAL, Joakim, LEONARDSSON, Hanna, LUNDQVİST, Martin, Local Peacebuilding-Challenges and Opportunities, Elanders Sverige AB, Stockholm 2017.
29. ÖZERDEM, Alpaslan, Barış İnşası Kuram ve Uygulaması, Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara 2013.
30. PARIS, Roland, At War’s End, Cambridge University Press, New York 2004.
31. ________, “Saving Liberal Peacebuilding”, Review of International Studies, Cilt 36, Sayı 2, 2010, ss. 337-365.
32. RAMAZZOTTI, Marco, “Anthropology and Conflicts. Today’s Wars and Peace-Keeping Operations: Why an Anthropological Perspective is Needed”, Anthropologyand Security Studies, (ed.) Fina Anton Hurtado ve Giovanni Ercolani, Universidad de Murcia, Nottingham Trent University College of William and Mary, USA 2013, ss. 199-226.
33. REYCHLER, Luca, LANGER, Arnim, “Researching Peace, Building Architecture”, Cahiers Internationale Betrekkingen En Vredesonderzoek, Cilt 75, Sayı 24, 2006, ss. 1-82.
34. RICHMOND, Oliver, A Post Liberal Peace, Routledge, USA 2011.
35. ________, Peace Formation and Political Order in Conflict Affected Societies, Oxford University Press, New York 2016.
36. ________, “Rescuing Peacebuilding? Anthropology and Peace Formation”, Global Society, Cilt 32, Sayı 2, 2018, ss. 221-239.
37. ________, The Transformation of Peace, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2005.
38. ROSS, Marc Howard, “Psychocultural Interpretation Theory and Peacemaking in Ethnic Conflicts”, Political Psychology, Cilt 16, Sayı 3, 1995, ss. 523-544.
39. SARAN, Nephan, Antropoloji, İnkılap Kitabevi, İstanbul 1992.
40. SCUPIN, Raymond, “Antropology, Conflict, and International Relations”, Advancing Interdisciplinary Approaches to International Relations, (ed.) Patrick James ve Steve S. Yetiv, Palgrave Mac Millian, New York 2016, ss. 153-187.
41. STIFTUNG, Bertelsmann, BTI 2014 Bosnia and Herzegovina Country Report, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann Stiftung 2014.
42. THİESSEN, Charles, “Emancipatory Peacebuilding: Critical Responses to Neoliberal Trends”, Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Theory, Practice and Pedagogy, (ed.) Thomas Matyok vd., Lexington Books, Maryland 2013, ss. 115-140.
43. WALDMAN, Thomas, Conflict Resolution, Peacebuilding and Youth, SPW Primer 2009.
44. TÜYSÜZOĞLU, Göktürk, “Bosna-Hersek Çöküş Halinde Olan Bir Devlet mi?”, Karadeniz Araştırmaları, Sayı 51, 2016, ss. 75-100.
45. DİZDAROĞLU, Cihan, Çatışma Çözümü, Güvenlik Yazıları Serisi, 19 Ekim 2019, ss. 1-6, https://trguvenlikportali.com/wp-ontent/uploads/2019/11/CatismaCozumuCihanDizdaroglu_v.1 .pdf., (15.03.2020).
46. SANTANDER, Monroy, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Forever Divided Nation?, https://theglobepost.com/2018/10/24/bosnia-divided-nation/, (31.01.2020).