Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us
Kategorien
Aktuelles Kommentare und Analysen

Echoes of Grief, Whispers of Responsibility: Three Decades After Srebrenica

by Nikola Gajić

Thirty years after the Srebrenica genocide, denial and glorification of war criminals remain dominant in Serbia and Republika Srpska. In his blog post, Nikola Gajić explores how shifting from discussions of guilt to shared moral responsibility could break through nationalist narratives and foster genuine reconciliation.

There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant.
-Japers, 1965, p. 26.

Responsibility, that “dubious” matter, still keeps the post-Yugoslav societies locked into a nationalistically tailored cage. Their biased and historically unrooted hatred makes these societies unbalanced and furiously unsecured in a long-lasting grievance Olympics. The favourite disciplines of Serbian and Republika Srpska “athletes” are loud and explicit denial of crimes committed by Serbs and glorification of war criminals. Their dominant success in this discipline kept them active and agile from the beginning of the 1990s until today, securing them adaptability that they apply so often in creating a collective impenetrable membrane around the political and social structure of these two entities. Within many successful denialist approaches and strategies, they have been most prone to deny one of the most awful and systematically planned, executed and unsuccessfully hidden war crimes in the last years of the 20th century, the Srebrenica genocide.

The span of 30 years after the Army of Republika Srpska committed genocide against the Bosniak population in Srebrenica, the narratives and inter-ethnic dynamics have not changed. While the number of identified victims is still growing and has reached 8372, it has not unhitched people from the unreasonable approach and perception towards it. For 30 years already, people who have suffered, people who have compassion, people who understand, people who grieve, and those who repent have been overshadowed by the immense intensity of nationalistic demagogy by those who have held political and social power in Serbia and the Republika Srpska for the same period.

The reactionism is needed, but it does not have to be the only way to oppose denial. The ones whose voices should be heard are victims, survivors, families and friends of those killed, whose narrative clears a blurred perception of a crime, shifts the perception from the protected perpetrators, which would spark sensibility and humanize the emotional exchange that is badly needed in nationally polluted societies. Listening to a surge of emotion from another human being—even thirty years after the crime, once it has been legally proven—can serve as a powerful remedy for the deep-rooted spread of artificially constructed ethnic hatred.

Victim voices being silenced by the loud expressions of denial and reciprocity in crime and suffering led us to question the perception of responsibility of this phenomenon.1 The established facts are available, as well as many testimonies, and the commemorative practices related to the Srebrenica genocide. However, their visibility and effect gradually become distorted within the territory of Republika Srpska, particularly around Srebrenica, and then are overwhelmed by the Drina River.

The civil society in both entities that fights the denialist narratives faces the same destiny and often hears a political and social judgement of endangering the ontological security of a state that everyone wants to label as genocidal. This spin-off discursive strategy of collectivizing guilt got deeply embedded into Serbian memory politics, and even got its place in many commemorations of Serb victims of the 1990s war. During last year’s anti-Srebrenica UN declaration campaign, Serbian and Republika Srpska officials presented a well-designed billboard in the capital cities. The billboards were not enough as a graffiti sparked in the centre of Belgrade in the most crowded and touristic pedestrian street in Belgrade, which reminded the Serbs that: “The only genocide in the Balkans was against the Serbs”.2

The main problem lies in societal upbringing, as the only state-sponsored and created narratives are heard, institutionally spread and promoted, which leaves little space for the general public to question them. From denying the legal term of genocide, decontextualization of the genocide in Srebrenica by placing it next to non-timely crimes against Serbs in the past, glorifying war criminals as Ratko Mladić, the general of the Army of Republika Srpska, and Radovan Karadžić as the former president of the same entity, and numerous other patterns lead to devastating results.

In preparation for the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide, Al Jazeera conducted a poll to investigate attitudes and perceptions of these two figures by the general public in the Republika Srpska.3 What can strike some people, unaware of the nurtured denialist, self-victimizing and nationalistic memory politics, is that 59% share the opinion that the crime was not a genocide, and 52% think that Ratko Mladić is a war hero. Someone would assume that the situation is getting “better” as it might be the case that the rest of 48% think the opposite, but unfortunately, it is not the case, as only 6% perceive him as a war criminal.

With constant emphasis on the perpetrators and reminders of Serb victims and their perpetrators, the perception of the topic of the Srebenica genocide circles only around one concept: guilt. In the struggle to fight the “imperial and westernly imposed” manipulative accusation that the whole Serbian nation is genocidal, the political and religious actors provoke a sense of threat and an urge to defend, to protect the “purity and defenselessness” of Serbian national identity.4

However, it requires a subtle shift in addressing the issue that aligns with Jasper’s approach to questioning German guilt during WWII.5 Guilt is a widespread emotion, but also a serious legal term — one that leaves little room for the Serbian public to confront the dominant narrative around the Srebrenica genocide, in the way a discussion of shared moral and societal responsibility could. The responsible person does not only mean that they are accountable for doing something unplausible, but can be treated as a socially and politically accountable person showing human features that could lead to enlightening changes. The responsibility that Serbs would have to question and acquire is not only embedded in pointed fingers at individuals involved in logistically demanding and systematically executed war crimes, but also the spiritual, humanist, and metaphysical responsibility.

Referring to metaphysical responsibility, I shape a more digestible and less contested concept than metaphysical guilt, coined by Jaspers. Contrary to guilt, responsibility might help decompose the defensive attitude when dealing with problematic and conflictual pasts.6 Staying in line with Jaspers’ belief that people are interconnected and that the actions of one can affect broader society, we inevitably ideologize human nature. We expect the creation of a sense of solidarity, where group members are implicitly implicated in the wrongdoing of others, especially those who committed such acts in their presence or the name and ‘interest’ of the group.7 However, all civilizations underwent historical changes due to the ideologization, whether positive or negative.

Recognizing our shared humanity fosters a sense of responsibility, encouraging individuals and societies not to ignore wrongdoing but to confront it, prevent its recurrence, and actively work toward protection, justice, and greater civic and political engagement. The lives continue, and with them, the daily individual existential struggles that certainly place a heavy burden on the backs of the majority of those in post-conflict and transitioning societies. However, it cannot push them away from their true selves, driven by emotions of compassion, sensibility, and empathy that are unfortunately dissociated in the collective social mind. Someone’s misery cannot be treated as just another brick in a high, nationally fortified wall that repels miserable calls for help and solidarity.

Even if we take Jasper’s theory, it is clear that the co-responsibility for every injustice stems from our failure to react as humans, rather than being defined by our ethnic, racial, or cultural backgrounds. The responsibility and guilt in this case have their earthly regulators in judicial and political institutions; however, the only relevant judgment of guilt is taken from the blindfolded Justitia and given to God himself.8 Given the significant role that religion and religious institutions played in the wars of the 1990s—including instances where some offered benediction to members of the Army of Republika Srpska on the morning they went on to kill more than 8,000 people—we can intentionally incorporate divine authority into a mnemonic and reconciliation game-play.

Placing a moral decision-maker far away in space and fitting it into an unattainable, untouchable entity could also have a positive effect. In the post-secular societies of the former Yugoslavia, religious identity often serves primarily as a marker of national belonging. Many people proudly declare their affiliation with a church—often on the census or in public discourse—without engaging in religious practices or spiritual life. This performative, identity-based religiosity is deeply rooted in the national imaginary.

If the respective religious authorities now stood for responsibility—if they publicly called for compassion, solidarity, and repentance, not as a political demand but as a moral and spiritual imperative—they could create a mnemonic shift. By situating responsibility within religious dogma, it may become less threatening, more culturally acceptable, and harder to ignore.

Therefore, adhering to religious dogmas would only reinforce the perception of interconnectedness, making individuals less tolerant and more callous to the injustice and suffering of others. This can lead not only to dealing with the aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide and its denial but to a just and humane attitude towards the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all other unjust and horrendous acts, which are nowadays perceived as a quantified mass of lost human lives.

Responsibility, a concept and an emotion that is often difficult to awaken, still has its cathartic potential in any living society. However, the questions that still haunt us are: are we ready to embrace it from the very bottom of society and make it fully alive in existing institutional setups? Are we prepared to stop benefiting from someone else’s suffering? Will we ever stop repeating the same platitude – ‘never again’ – without harnessing the equal human grief into a unifying force for civilized prosperity?


  1. Radio Televizija Republike Srpske. “Specijal: Obilježavanje Stradanja Srba U Srednjem Podrinju I Birču (Video).” RTRS, July 5, 2025. https://lat.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest.php?id=606120.; “Obilježavanje 33 Godine Od Zločina Nad Srbima U Srednjem Podrinju I Birču.” Obilježavanje 33 godine od zločina nad Srbima u srednjem Podrinju i Birču – Predsjednik Republike Srpske | Milorad Dodik, July 5, 2025. https://www.predsjednikrs.rs/rs/obi%D1%99ezhava%D1%9Ae-33-godine-od-zlochina-nad-srbima-u-sred%D1%9Aem-podri%D1%9Au-i-birchu-rs/ []
  2. Radio Тelevizija Republike Srpske. “У Београду Се Појавили Билборди Са Поруком ‘Срби Нису Геноцидан Народ’ (ФОТО).”СРБИЈА – РТРС, May 22, 2024. https://www.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest.php?id=556159. “Graffiti Denying Srebrenica Genocide Appears in Centre of Belgrade (Photo).” N1 info, June 4, 2024. https://n1info.ba/english/news/graffiti-denying-the-genocide-in-srebrenica-appears-in-center-of-belgrade-photo/.; Novosti. “Blokaderi Predstavili SVOJ Program: Srbi Su Genocidni Narod! (FOTO).” Novosti, July 8, 2025. https://www.novosti.rs/vesti/politika/1507135/blokaderi-predstavili-svoj-program-srbi-genocidni-narod-foto []
  3. Visnjic, Borislav. “Glorification of War Criminals ‘Obstructing a Better Future’: Hague Prosecutor.” Balkan Insight, December 31, 2024. https://balkaninsight.com/2024/12/30/glorification-of-war-criminals-obstructing-a-better-future-hague-prosecutor/; Al Jazeera Balkans. “Anketa al Jazeere u Rs-U: Mladić I Karadžić – Heroji Ili Zločinci?” Al Jazeera Balkans, July 9, 2025. https://balkans.aljazeera.net/news/2025/7/9/anketa-al-jazeere-u-rs-u-mladic-i-karadzic-heroji-ili. []
  4. Sudar, Vladimir. “Osam Decenija Manipulacija: Navodni Genocid U Srebrenici Kao Sredstvo Imperijalizma Zapada.” Sputnik Srbija, July 10, 2025. https://lat.sputnikportal.rs/20250710/osam-decenija-manipulacija-navodni-genocid-u-srebrenici-kao-sredstvo-imperijalizma-zapada-1187753628.html. []
  5. Jaspers, Kark. The Question of German Guilt. Translated by E. B. Ashton, Fordham University Press, 1965. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13wzz9w. []
  6. Ibid. 26 []
  7. Ibid. []
  8. Ibid. []

OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Redaktion ostBLOG (16. Juli 2025). Echoes of Grief, Whispers of Responsibility: Three Decades After Srebrenica. ostBLOG. Abgerufen am 20. Januar 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/14clm


Eine Antwort auf „Echoes of Grief, Whispers of Responsibility: Three Decades After Srebrenica“

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.