International Involvement in the Bosnian Genocide
Background Summary
Everything in Bosnia started to fall apart when Josep Tito, the president of Yugoslavia, died in May of 1980, and Yugoslavia was split into separate independent nations. Following Serbia and Croatia’s example, Bosnia declared itself as an independent nation in April of 1992. Then, Bosnia consisted of three different ethnicities: the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims (Sunnis), and the Bosnian Croats (Roman Catholic Christians). The new independence resulted in the forming of the Republika Srpska, the Bosnian Serb Army, which occupied ¾ of Bosnia.
The tension between these ethnic groups had built up after Tito died, so the Bosnian Serb Army made it its goal to cleanse the nation, and rule Bosnia as a single ethnic group. Tito represented the glue that held Yugoslavia together, and because he was now gone, the Bosnian Serb leaders immediately started to put their plotting to action. They would reach their goal of a singular ethnic nation by driving out the remaining Croats (most of the Croats had been driven out at the forming of the Republika Srpska) and get rid of the Muslims using whatever means necessary. This plan was named the Ethnic Cleansing Campaign, a term used to make the plan for extermination less obvious to international watchdogs. This is a classic example of the propaganda technique euphemism.
The Ethnic Cleansing Campaign was carried out from 1992 to 1995, and used the method of assaulting key cities, such as Srebrenica, Sarajevo, Bijeljina, and Zvornik to carry out the killing. These major cities were shelled and bombed by the Serbs until nothing was left. A street in Sarajevo was even named “Sniper Alley” because of how frequently civilians were shot in the designated area. The assaulting lead to the demolition of a significant population as well as several important institutes and landmarks in Bosnia, such as the Stari Most, or “Old Bridge”, one of the most famous bridges in the world. The Bosnian Serb Army also used concentration camps, which were eerily related to the camps used by Nazis in World War II in the sense that both used mass shootings, forced confinement in the camps, and terrorizing to repopulate towns and manipulate women.
The most tragic event during the Bosnian genocide occurred in Srebrenica in July of 1995, resulting in the mass murder of 9, 300 men and the deportation of all women out of Bosnia or into nearby concentration camps. The tragic event in Srebrenica started with heavy shelling of the city, resulting in the evacuees of Srebrenica to dodge the snipers, some unsuccessfully, and flee to the UN base, which was supposed to provide a safe haven to the Muslims. When the Serbs saw that the majority of the population had made it to the base, they promised the Muslims a safe exit out of Serb territory. The Serbs lied, and the UN did nothing. The Srebrenica Massacre was a result of poor judgment by the UN Secretary-General, Boustros Ghali, lack of equipment to keep the Serbs at bay, and the Serb in charge during the happenings in Srebrenica, Ratko Mladić. Once word got out about the Srebrenica Massacre, international committees took action, and went to work on putting an end to the Bosnian Genocide. Unfortunately, one of the greatest perpetratorsof the crime of genocide, Ratko Mladić, remains at large, even today, serving as a constant reminder of the horrors that occurred in Bosnia.
The tension between these ethnic groups had built up after Tito died, so the Bosnian Serb Army made it its goal to cleanse the nation, and rule Bosnia as a single ethnic group. Tito represented the glue that held Yugoslavia together, and because he was now gone, the Bosnian Serb leaders immediately started to put their plotting to action. They would reach their goal of a singular ethnic nation by driving out the remaining Croats (most of the Croats had been driven out at the forming of the Republika Srpska) and get rid of the Muslims using whatever means necessary. This plan was named the Ethnic Cleansing Campaign, a term used to make the plan for extermination less obvious to international watchdogs. This is a classic example of the propaganda technique euphemism.
The Ethnic Cleansing Campaign was carried out from 1992 to 1995, and used the method of assaulting key cities, such as Srebrenica, Sarajevo, Bijeljina, and Zvornik to carry out the killing. These major cities were shelled and bombed by the Serbs until nothing was left. A street in Sarajevo was even named “Sniper Alley” because of how frequently civilians were shot in the designated area. The assaulting lead to the demolition of a significant population as well as several important institutes and landmarks in Bosnia, such as the Stari Most, or “Old Bridge”, one of the most famous bridges in the world. The Bosnian Serb Army also used concentration camps, which were eerily related to the camps used by Nazis in World War II in the sense that both used mass shootings, forced confinement in the camps, and terrorizing to repopulate towns and manipulate women.
The most tragic event during the Bosnian genocide occurred in Srebrenica in July of 1995, resulting in the mass murder of 9, 300 men and the deportation of all women out of Bosnia or into nearby concentration camps. The tragic event in Srebrenica started with heavy shelling of the city, resulting in the evacuees of Srebrenica to dodge the snipers, some unsuccessfully, and flee to the UN base, which was supposed to provide a safe haven to the Muslims. When the Serbs saw that the majority of the population had made it to the base, they promised the Muslims a safe exit out of Serb territory. The Serbs lied, and the UN did nothing. The Srebrenica Massacre was a result of poor judgment by the UN Secretary-General, Boustros Ghali, lack of equipment to keep the Serbs at bay, and the Serb in charge during the happenings in Srebrenica, Ratko Mladić. Once word got out about the Srebrenica Massacre, international committees took action, and went to work on putting an end to the Bosnian Genocide. Unfortunately, one of the greatest perpetratorsof the crime of genocide, Ratko Mladić, remains at large, even today, serving as a constant reminder of the horrors that occurred in Bosnia.
International Involvement Analysis
Based on what you’ve read, you’re somewhere in the spectrum of mildly surprised to extremely disgusted by the international inaction. Or you think I’m conspiring against the existing system of international powers. Even though what people may desire is more international involvement in instances such as the Bosnian Genocide, there is a point at which this involvement does more damage than good. It’s not that international involvement isn’t advantageous or helpful, because it’s a fact that international involvement helped to end the Bosnian genocide. But what’s important is what happens post-genocide, in the reconciliation stage, which is where the advantage of international involvement crumbles. This is important because if international involvement interferes with the natural cycle of violence, the country may not be able to reconcile itself as effectively as a country independent of foreign assistance. Although international involvement helps in all stages of conflict, there are stages that require different types of international involvement at different times. For example, peacemaking should happen in the of the negotiation stages in the natural conflict cycle mentioned above, not in the middle of the violence. In Bosnia, international involvement was ineffective in certain stages of the genocide because the right type of support was not given at the right time.
In a normal life cycle of genocide and intervention, the first stage is generally that of difference or disagreement. Even in the first stage, peacebuilding can be found, when international powers try to smooth over the situation. This is a period of negotiation, but if negotiation is not accomplished, this may result in a stage of social conflict; which can be exemplified by hate speech or discrimination. This is the stage at which the friction builds, but the collective violence doesn’t usually happen until the barriers slip and all hell breaks loose. At this point, peacekeeping is enforced, and barriers are set up between the two conflicting groups. After the groups have been separated, the stage of relief and cease fire, international involvement really starts to concentrate itself, with organizations such as UN Security Council enforcing something along the lines of a cease fire, and UN human rights agencies and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would provide relief for the oppressed. Despite the international involvement, almost as soon as the barriers have been taken down (literally and legally), there is almost always more collective violence until peacekeeping has been enforced once more. At this point, negotiation would be necessary again, unless the conflict has been resolved on its own. Normally at this point, the bloodlust has been set aside, which is why the second negotiation is usually much more effective and successful the second time around, and peacebuilding would take place once again to help the country get over the differences and disagreements that sent the country into the tumult initially.
International Involvement is too broad a term, so from now on the category will be classified as two sub-categories: international governments and international aid. Both have been outrageously helpful, the governments arresting and trying 98% of the genocide oppressors in the Bosnian genocide, and the aid providing as much of a sanctuary as possible for the victims. Unfortunately, that remaining two percent escaping the hand of justice consists of the second highest ranked officer, Ratko Mladić, along with a few other insignificant others. But the problem is these two percent were not insignificants, they committed the crime of genocide.
There is no way that the existing system of corporations, non-profits, and governments can be efficient in situations such as the Bosnian Genocide. With several different organizations working together to find a solution to the same problem in their own way, it’s no wonder the process isn’t always successful; there are too many methodologies and too many different interests. For example, even determining whether or not the tragedy in Bosnia was a genocide proved difficulty between the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), who did not declare the happenings in Bosnia as an official genocide, and the United States House, who classified the events as genocide. If international governmental powers can’t even decide whether something is or isn’t a genocide, how can they expect to end the genocide in question effectively? The Srebrenica Massacre is an example of the downfall of this involvement. The Massacre was the UN’s responsibility as well as the Bosnian Serbs, the point being that the international powers stayed too long and did little after the genocide, and in the specific instance of the Srebrenica Massacre, did little to nothing at all. In this specific instance, the lack of coordination between the international powers was partly responsible for the inaction in Srebrenica. Coordination and communication are vital for success in these instances, and if these two necessities are not performing optimally, there is no way these powers can expect to save the lives of thousands from those who are so eager to kill them.
The model of the cycle of conflict and intervention mentioned above shows that after the violence has subsided, there is a stage of peacekeeping, which would normally lead to peacebuilding internally, using the basic rules of law as well as an internal effort to break down the psychological and cultural barrier that built up during the stage of social conflict. This was not the case in Bosnia. Instead, peacekeeping, the enforcement of the barriers between groups, spread into the stage at which peacebuilding should be taking place, which is the natural time in which these barriers should be broken. Even if these barriers have not quite been broken so far, it is necessary that international involvement allows the country to, once again, reconcile itself so that it does not become dependent on peacekeepers and NGOs.
There is no question that countries in a state of emergency need international involvement to help pull them out of the crisis, but once the extermination has been stopped, the only involvement within the country should be that of NGOs providing aid and the minimal amount of soldiers hunting down those who have escaped arrest so far. All other corporations should be left to trying criminals outside of the country, at The Hague or another international court. With the power of international governmental agencies, such as the International Criminal Tribune, hanging over the head of the country, and a handful of peacekeepers stationed throughout Bosnia, an outburst is unlikely from the Serbs; therefore, it can be reasoned that the genocide was ended as effectively as possible and from that point it would be left to the responsibility of the Bosnian’s to restore its country.
***The two pieces above are the two major pieces of writing that I have excerpted from my project
In a normal life cycle of genocide and intervention, the first stage is generally that of difference or disagreement. Even in the first stage, peacebuilding can be found, when international powers try to smooth over the situation. This is a period of negotiation, but if negotiation is not accomplished, this may result in a stage of social conflict; which can be exemplified by hate speech or discrimination. This is the stage at which the friction builds, but the collective violence doesn’t usually happen until the barriers slip and all hell breaks loose. At this point, peacekeeping is enforced, and barriers are set up between the two conflicting groups. After the groups have been separated, the stage of relief and cease fire, international involvement really starts to concentrate itself, with organizations such as UN Security Council enforcing something along the lines of a cease fire, and UN human rights agencies and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would provide relief for the oppressed. Despite the international involvement, almost as soon as the barriers have been taken down (literally and legally), there is almost always more collective violence until peacekeeping has been enforced once more. At this point, negotiation would be necessary again, unless the conflict has been resolved on its own. Normally at this point, the bloodlust has been set aside, which is why the second negotiation is usually much more effective and successful the second time around, and peacebuilding would take place once again to help the country get over the differences and disagreements that sent the country into the tumult initially.
International Involvement is too broad a term, so from now on the category will be classified as two sub-categories: international governments and international aid. Both have been outrageously helpful, the governments arresting and trying 98% of the genocide oppressors in the Bosnian genocide, and the aid providing as much of a sanctuary as possible for the victims. Unfortunately, that remaining two percent escaping the hand of justice consists of the second highest ranked officer, Ratko Mladić, along with a few other insignificant others. But the problem is these two percent were not insignificants, they committed the crime of genocide.
There is no way that the existing system of corporations, non-profits, and governments can be efficient in situations such as the Bosnian Genocide. With several different organizations working together to find a solution to the same problem in their own way, it’s no wonder the process isn’t always successful; there are too many methodologies and too many different interests. For example, even determining whether or not the tragedy in Bosnia was a genocide proved difficulty between the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), who did not declare the happenings in Bosnia as an official genocide, and the United States House, who classified the events as genocide. If international governmental powers can’t even decide whether something is or isn’t a genocide, how can they expect to end the genocide in question effectively? The Srebrenica Massacre is an example of the downfall of this involvement. The Massacre was the UN’s responsibility as well as the Bosnian Serbs, the point being that the international powers stayed too long and did little after the genocide, and in the specific instance of the Srebrenica Massacre, did little to nothing at all. In this specific instance, the lack of coordination between the international powers was partly responsible for the inaction in Srebrenica. Coordination and communication are vital for success in these instances, and if these two necessities are not performing optimally, there is no way these powers can expect to save the lives of thousands from those who are so eager to kill them.
The model of the cycle of conflict and intervention mentioned above shows that after the violence has subsided, there is a stage of peacekeeping, which would normally lead to peacebuilding internally, using the basic rules of law as well as an internal effort to break down the psychological and cultural barrier that built up during the stage of social conflict. This was not the case in Bosnia. Instead, peacekeeping, the enforcement of the barriers between groups, spread into the stage at which peacebuilding should be taking place, which is the natural time in which these barriers should be broken. Even if these barriers have not quite been broken so far, it is necessary that international involvement allows the country to, once again, reconcile itself so that it does not become dependent on peacekeepers and NGOs.
There is no question that countries in a state of emergency need international involvement to help pull them out of the crisis, but once the extermination has been stopped, the only involvement within the country should be that of NGOs providing aid and the minimal amount of soldiers hunting down those who have escaped arrest so far. All other corporations should be left to trying criminals outside of the country, at The Hague or another international court. With the power of international governmental agencies, such as the International Criminal Tribune, hanging over the head of the country, and a handful of peacekeepers stationed throughout Bosnia, an outburst is unlikely from the Serbs; therefore, it can be reasoned that the genocide was ended as effectively as possible and from that point it would be left to the responsibility of the Bosnian’s to restore its country.
***The two pieces above are the two major pieces of writing that I have excerpted from my project
Artist Statement
During the research stage of the project, I kept switching my area of focus for the project, because there were so many typical genocide happenings that were present in Bosnia. I decided on International Involvement because I thought that the involvement in the Bosnian Genocide was an interesting case. The amount of involvement that resulted in successfully ending the genocide was interesting in itself. However, “A model of the cycle of conflict and intervention shows that after the violence has subsided, there is a stage of peacekeeping, which would normally lead to peace building internally… This was not the case in Bosnia. Instead, peacekeeping, the enforcement of the barriers between groups, spread into the stage at which peace building should be taking place, which is the natural time in which these barriers should be broken.” When I was writing this piece, this was the part in which I started to take notice of the abnormalities of international involvement to the norm of which this involvement occurred in other genocides, and this new knowledge really helped me to realize the errors and validities of the taken actions.
While I was writing this analysis, I actually narrowed down my opinion on the issue. At first, I thought that International Involvement was minimally beneficial, in the sense that it was only good for halting the violence and then international involvement should be limited to NGOs. This opinion changed as I found out more about cycles of conflict, and that although efforts have been made by the international community to assist in rebuilding the country, interference in the country’s affairs in order to obtain peace is usually a hit or miss. This is because of the country’s inability to recover their key infrastructures (economic, physical, political), and they have become dependent on international aid.
From this point, my opinion expanded to the idea that international involvement should be minimally present post-genocide, strictly in order to provide aid and maintain peace until agreements can be made between groups. Once these agreements have been arranged, international officials should leave excluding a handful of peacekeepers, which should be stationed for a certain amount of time until noticeable progress has been made to reconcile the country.
The points above were made in my International Involvement Analysis, which is what I thought really tied together the project and all of the different stories and analyses. This was my favorite part of the project because I thought it was one of the more professional analyses that I have ever written and it closely resembled a peace and conflict analysis. Specifically, my favorite part of the analysis was when I compared the happenings of the genocide to a model of a typical conflict cycle, and the abnormalities that occurred inBosnia. Writing the International Involvement Analysis specifically introduced the great challenge to me of writing a very careful conflict study paper. I found it increasingly difficult to take a side on the analysis while still trying not to draw radical conclusions from the limited information available to the public. However, I am confident in my final product and am proud of the conclusions and points I was able to draw out of my research and reflect in the analysis.
While I was writing this analysis, I actually narrowed down my opinion on the issue. At first, I thought that International Involvement was minimally beneficial, in the sense that it was only good for halting the violence and then international involvement should be limited to NGOs. This opinion changed as I found out more about cycles of conflict, and that although efforts have been made by the international community to assist in rebuilding the country, interference in the country’s affairs in order to obtain peace is usually a hit or miss. This is because of the country’s inability to recover their key infrastructures (economic, physical, political), and they have become dependent on international aid.
From this point, my opinion expanded to the idea that international involvement should be minimally present post-genocide, strictly in order to provide aid and maintain peace until agreements can be made between groups. Once these agreements have been arranged, international officials should leave excluding a handful of peacekeepers, which should be stationed for a certain amount of time until noticeable progress has been made to reconcile the country.
The points above were made in my International Involvement Analysis, which is what I thought really tied together the project and all of the different stories and analyses. This was my favorite part of the project because I thought it was one of the more professional analyses that I have ever written and it closely resembled a peace and conflict analysis. Specifically, my favorite part of the analysis was when I compared the happenings of the genocide to a model of a typical conflict cycle, and the abnormalities that occurred inBosnia. Writing the International Involvement Analysis specifically introduced the great challenge to me of writing a very careful conflict study paper. I found it increasingly difficult to take a side on the analysis while still trying not to draw radical conclusions from the limited information available to the public. However, I am confident in my final product and am proud of the conclusions and points I was able to draw out of my research and reflect in the analysis.
Project Reflection
Although I am very proud of my collective project, I am the most proud of my International Involvement Analysis because of its professionalism and of how strong the conclusions are. The hardest thing about the analysis was that I had to be careful with where and when I drew my conclusions in the argument, because I had to draw conclusions based on facts, not assumptions. I think I was able to draw my conclusions accurately enough and I am very proud of how accurate the paper is while at the same trying drawing the right amount of conclusions.
If I had one more week to work on this project, I probably could have made a couple different, shorter analyses to follow up on specific parts of the project. For example, I probably could have drawn up a quick analysis on the Failure to Arrest Mladic piece so that people were able to understand my view of the issue before being thrown into my perspective all of a sudden in the final analysis. I also probably would have had time to kind of fine tune the project’s aesthetic presentation, finding more efficient ways to hang up the different pieces of writing instead of worrying that the entire project will fall down in the middle of exhibition. However, overall I am very satisfied of my project because during the entire project work time, I pushed myself and was able to do so much for the limited amount of time given, and am still very pleased with the final outcome of my project.
I think that my strongest category in the writing rubric was Development, mostly because my entire project was based on guiding the reader through all of the points to develop their mindsets in order to understand the points made in my International Involvement Analysis. The Development Category requires that ideas are fully explored through explanations. My project was able to tell these people about all of the things that were done to stop the Bosnian Genocide, yet argues that these things were not effective enough by going through a walkthrough of what lead up to the inefficiency and why it was inefficient, which essentially gives the who, what, where, when and why of the idea. I was able to support my perspective based on the facts that were given on the presentation, so there is no questioning the accuracy of conclusions draw because the audience has access to everything I used in order to draw these conclusions.
I think that the area that I am weakest in on the writing rubric is actually evidence. Although I do use evidence frequently in my project, the way in which I used it was probably not optimal. I used the same source of evidence in the same part of my project, which doesn’t really show different perspectives in that single piece of work. For example, in my Reconciliation piece, I only used my and Malek’s point of view on the issue, without taking into account another professional opinion. Although I used a ton of evidence on the project collectively, and some points were made using two pieces of evidence, I probably could have done a better job making the overall project more convincing using a surplus of resources as opposed to writing a part of the project based on one resource. I think that if I were to improve this project, I could either use the evidence I already had and loop that into the other parts of the project than what the resource was specifically used for, or I could have tried to find more resources in the first place, even if the information was somewhat limited on the specific part of that writing.
In the Organization category of the project, I think that I deserve an A because of how I presented the project. I had all of the little pieces, such as a piece of the Srebrenica Massacre, and International Criminal Tribunal Trials, which all made points that would help lead up to and support the points and conclusions drawn in my International Involvement Analysis.
In the Development category of the project, I think I deserve an A because it was my strongest category for reasons listed above.
In the Evidence category of the project, I think that I still deserve an A. Although this was my weakest category, I still used the evidence and resources well and was able to support points with these resources. The difficult part about the evidence was that the pieces I had needed evidence so specific to that point, that it was a slim chance that I would find anything relevant to such a specific subject. In the Srebrenica part of the project, I was able to use Hasan’s book as a second source, but I could not find much else for other parts of the project. So, considering what I had to work with, I think I used it as well as I could and therefore deserve an A.
In the Sentence Craft category of this project, I also think that I deserve an A. In order to direct the audience into a certain mindset before continuing to the International Involvement Analysis, I had to devise the sentences carefully in each specific part of the project, so that I implied things in certain parts, or shied away from focusing on other points. For example, I used very explicit evidence for my Boutros Ghali aspect, but on Milosevic’s speech, I focused on specific parts of his speech instead of other, more implicit parts.
In the Proofreading category of this project, I think I deserve an A. As you know, I am very anal about punctuation and grammar, so I proofread each piece at least twice. Unfortunately, I found one error in my International Involvement Analysis in the LAST sentence! Grr. I said Bosninan’s as a possessive instead of a plural form and I can’t believe I missed it until right before exhibition! Nevertheless, considering the amount of writing I had and that one stupid apostrophe, I still think I deserve an A because there were no other proofreading errors and by the time I had finished reading and proofreading everything, I was very close to brain dead.
If I had one more week to work on this project, I probably could have made a couple different, shorter analyses to follow up on specific parts of the project. For example, I probably could have drawn up a quick analysis on the Failure to Arrest Mladic piece so that people were able to understand my view of the issue before being thrown into my perspective all of a sudden in the final analysis. I also probably would have had time to kind of fine tune the project’s aesthetic presentation, finding more efficient ways to hang up the different pieces of writing instead of worrying that the entire project will fall down in the middle of exhibition. However, overall I am very satisfied of my project because during the entire project work time, I pushed myself and was able to do so much for the limited amount of time given, and am still very pleased with the final outcome of my project.
I think that my strongest category in the writing rubric was Development, mostly because my entire project was based on guiding the reader through all of the points to develop their mindsets in order to understand the points made in my International Involvement Analysis. The Development Category requires that ideas are fully explored through explanations. My project was able to tell these people about all of the things that were done to stop the Bosnian Genocide, yet argues that these things were not effective enough by going through a walkthrough of what lead up to the inefficiency and why it was inefficient, which essentially gives the who, what, where, when and why of the idea. I was able to support my perspective based on the facts that were given on the presentation, so there is no questioning the accuracy of conclusions draw because the audience has access to everything I used in order to draw these conclusions.
I think that the area that I am weakest in on the writing rubric is actually evidence. Although I do use evidence frequently in my project, the way in which I used it was probably not optimal. I used the same source of evidence in the same part of my project, which doesn’t really show different perspectives in that single piece of work. For example, in my Reconciliation piece, I only used my and Malek’s point of view on the issue, without taking into account another professional opinion. Although I used a ton of evidence on the project collectively, and some points were made using two pieces of evidence, I probably could have done a better job making the overall project more convincing using a surplus of resources as opposed to writing a part of the project based on one resource. I think that if I were to improve this project, I could either use the evidence I already had and loop that into the other parts of the project than what the resource was specifically used for, or I could have tried to find more resources in the first place, even if the information was somewhat limited on the specific part of that writing.
In the Organization category of the project, I think that I deserve an A because of how I presented the project. I had all of the little pieces, such as a piece of the Srebrenica Massacre, and International Criminal Tribunal Trials, which all made points that would help lead up to and support the points and conclusions drawn in my International Involvement Analysis.
In the Development category of the project, I think I deserve an A because it was my strongest category for reasons listed above.
In the Evidence category of the project, I think that I still deserve an A. Although this was my weakest category, I still used the evidence and resources well and was able to support points with these resources. The difficult part about the evidence was that the pieces I had needed evidence so specific to that point, that it was a slim chance that I would find anything relevant to such a specific subject. In the Srebrenica part of the project, I was able to use Hasan’s book as a second source, but I could not find much else for other parts of the project. So, considering what I had to work with, I think I used it as well as I could and therefore deserve an A.
In the Sentence Craft category of this project, I also think that I deserve an A. In order to direct the audience into a certain mindset before continuing to the International Involvement Analysis, I had to devise the sentences carefully in each specific part of the project, so that I implied things in certain parts, or shied away from focusing on other points. For example, I used very explicit evidence for my Boutros Ghali aspect, but on Milosevic’s speech, I focused on specific parts of his speech instead of other, more implicit parts.
In the Proofreading category of this project, I think I deserve an A. As you know, I am very anal about punctuation and grammar, so I proofread each piece at least twice. Unfortunately, I found one error in my International Involvement Analysis in the LAST sentence! Grr. I said Bosninan’s as a possessive instead of a plural form and I can’t believe I missed it until right before exhibition! Nevertheless, considering the amount of writing I had and that one stupid apostrophe, I still think I deserve an A because there were no other proofreading errors and by the time I had finished reading and proofreading everything, I was very close to brain dead.