b: Mostar : The role of the international community in reconstructing a city

14 B: MOSTAR : THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN RECONSTRUCTING A CITY

The Bosnian conflict (1992-1995) which played a role in the break-up of Yugoslavia, saw the Bosnian Serbs and Croats, aided by Serbia and Croatia respectively rise up against the republic of Bosnia. This mixture of inter and intra-state conflicts appears a more familiar situation to Aleppo than the case of Warsaw. Mostar’s relevance to the Syrian city comes following the ‘contrived reconstruction’ of one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the region and poses two questions. The first, who should take control over the post-conflict plans for the built environment of the city, and secondly, a question asked by Slavenka Drakuli with reference to Mostar, “Why do we feel more pain looking at the image of the destroyed bridge than the image of massacred people?” (Bevan, 2006).

During 1992, the Old Bridge, locally known as ‘Stari Most’, was deliberately targeted by Bosnian Croat artillery fire and collapsed after being hit by a reported 60 shells. With both the bridge and its’ bridge-keepers, ‘Mostari’, giving their name to the city it is, perhaps, understandable why so many would ‘mourn’ (Bishop, 2008) for this architectural piece of history(Fig.7). However, it appeared to have been more than sadness, there was a sense of disbelief. Somehow, and the Aleppian surveys (The Aleppo Project, 2015) report similar observations that, in such conflicts, there is an expectation that people will die, but an assumption that the architecture, especially that which is already older than us, will outlive us further.

‘A dead woman is one of us; but the bridge is all of us for ever’ (Drakulic, 2013).

However, is this the only reason the international community paid so much attention to the reconstruction of the bridge? Undeniably, there was a need for the bridge to be rebuilt but with several thousand dead and over thirty thousand displaced, was heritage a priority? The division of the city -with Bosniaks and Muslims in East Mostar and Croatians and Christians in the West- was not seen before 1992, when ethnically diverse marriages made up 30% of the 1991 total. The frontline ran along a no-man’s land at the Bulevar, just 200 metres west of the Neretza river, which itself was long considered the front line by international organisations and media. Stari Most, contrary to belief, did not bridge the divided communities, and in fact, further divisions existed among either side, with

Figure 7: The reconstructed bridge as a tourist attraction and object of beauty (2005)

Figure 8: Political cartoon depicting UNESCO falling along with Stari Most (1993)

16 distinct districts all surrounding the neutral ‘Central Zone’. (Calame & Pasic, Post-conflict reconstruction in Mostar: Cart before the Horse, 2009)

Prior to the conflict, the bridge was indeed a point of pride and a landmark in Mostar but since its destruction, and reconstruction, it has become a symbol of reunification for its international funders. UNESCO, calls it ‘a symbol of reconciliation, international co-operation and of the coexistence of diverse cultural, ethnic and religious communities,’ (UNESCO, 2016) and whilst it lays testament to the success of international co-operation, for the local community -whilst historic and beautiful- it is little more than a connection from one part of Mostar’s Muslim and Bosniak East to the other.(Fig.8)

This became a sore point for the Croatian West, as it’s reconstruction apparently marked a ‘reconciliation’, politicising a structure of little significance to the Western community.

‘Stari Most was transformed from an outstanding relic of Ottoman architecture and engineering and symbol of local and national pride to representing a bridge between cultures’ (Makas, n.d.)

Makas notes the aesthetic qualities of the bridge which is used as the logo of the local football team, the city of Mostar, and features on the Austro-Hungarian stamp. It was then posthumously defined as this ‘multicultural symbol’ by Amir Pasic in a talk to the international community in 1994. (Grodach, 2002) This attention provided an unmissable opportunity for the NGOs who, having been previously criticised for their lack of involvement in protecting Bosnian culture set to work ‘bridging communities’. Interestingly however, whilst the bridge did little to ease ethnic tensions, it has revitalised the tourist industry of the city, subsequently leading to an increase in both private investment and self-funded projects. The image of the formerly ‘backwards’ Balkans has begun to improve. (Grodach, 2002).

And although the Stari Most reconstruction provided immediate jobs and income for families left stricken after the war, both it and the tourism industry are unstable markets. The reconstruction process was useful in bringing together the local community on a much loved project, but once finished ‘The eyes are full and the pockets are empty.’ (Djulic, 2000)

Figure 9: The bell tower vs. the minarets (2011)

Figure 10: The bell tower vs. the crucifix (2015) Figure 11: The divided high-school on the Bulevar (2016)

Figure 12: The site of the old high-school, now inhabited by the Pavarotti Music Centre

18 ‘Not until some firms or some factories are rebuilt where those people could work will we need the old city’ [Djulic, 2000]

This returns to the question of ‘why do we reconstruct grand monuments’. There have been projects appearing later which have provided more useful results and, even, symbols, for the city than the grander monuments. These demonstrate the importance of communityled planning from the outset.

With the 2008 construction of the Jewish Synagogue in Mostar’s central zone, the city became one of only three in the world to have an Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Mosque and a Synagogue within 100 metres of each other. This, perhaps, is more a symbol of unity than that of the reconstructed bridge for “people who cannot abide the sight of each other will not build the houses and monuments of their religious life in the shadows of those of the others.” (Riedlmayer, 1995) However, there is an eerie sense of competitiveness between the oversized bell tower of the Franciscan church and the numerous minarets

of the mosque opposite (Fig.9). Ironically, the bell tower also competes with the crucifix dominating the local hillside (Fig.10) whilst even the minarets of abandoned mosques have seen extensive repairs in an act that the unbiased hand of international funders were all too willing to oblige. UNESCO’s insistence that the money be used in ‘a balanced manner and with shared responsibilities’, often meant that Mostar’s politicians ‘side-stepped’ the high priority projects, such as the housing and infrastructure of East Mostar –which had received more damage than that of the West- in favour of projects that promote interethnic peace such as, purportedly, the Stari Most. (Calame, 2005)

In contrast, the 2006 construction of the high-school on the Bulevar, bridging the frontlines has quickly provided a lasting impact. (Fig.11) For although ethnic tensions still exist within the area, the symbolism of children from opposing sides attending a single institution, albeit one with separated staircases and classrooms, has been compared by many, including Calame, to the unifying effect of the bridge. Furthermore, the opportunities for its students to develop, integrate and change over the years are far greater than opportunities provided by Stari Most. Such proof lies with the 1995 restoration of a ‘severely damaged historic structure’ in creating the Pavarotti Centre Music school with its’ new cultural centre for the area, and integrated student community. (Fig.12)

priority over the essentials in the scheme of reconstruction. Indeed, Adams argues that it is both ‘the survival of architecture and urban life [which] is important to the survival of people,’ (Adams, 1993). This denotes a relationship between the monument, ‘the architecture’ and the domestic, the housing, the industry, the ‘urban life’ of a city. A reconstruction plan needs to quantify what is most important and what is most useful for a community. Often, as in Mostar, these priorities can differ, but community involvement, as with the more recent projects, is a useful start. As Pasic mentions, education is often a cheaper, but longer, method of resolving tensions in community and whilst the benefits of resurrecting Stari Most are undeniable, and it has provided a kick-start to the economy, the long term benefits of educations are incomparable.

Mostar illustrates the problem of letting monuments stand for a divided city. Stari Most was only a significant symbol for one half of the city, and through its reconstruction it has become a politicised and divisive monument. Compared to Warsaw, Mostar offers little evidence that the reconstruction of heritage can help to heal divisions. This will be a major consideration in Aleppo. It also questions the role of the international community in this process. For Mostar, whilst there were more effective tasks and projects to be funded, the media coverage of the bridge led to its prioritisation. This is of concern in Aleppo where the damage to the citadel has already garnered considerable media attention.

For Aleppo, with the vulnerable predicted to be returning first, the reconstruction program requires tailoring to their needs. The importance of cultural heritage becomes almost insubstantial compared to the lives of the population. However, Adam’s argument that architecture and urban life are entwined dictates a need for the monuments –the history of a region- to entice the community to return to their urban life. Community involvement within projects cannot happen without a community present.

Lastly, Mostar is a lesson on the ties and conditions associated with external funding and questions the potential down sides to ‘strings-attached’ donations. If the decision of which projects to fund is taken away from the organisations and managed on a local scale, will that affect the scale of funding, and will it improve the distribution of resources, and the

outcome?