On Monday October 10th, a group of government officials from Montenegro and Croatia gathered at the site of a former detention camp near Kotor, Montenegro, to unveil a memorial plaque commemorating the Croatian prisoners of war and civilians who were held at the facility. Six former inmates of the Morinj camp attended the unveiling ceremony along with the Montenegrin ministers of foreign affairs and defense. The inscription on the plaque reads, ‘We remember the crimes committed to defile Montenegro’s name and spirit. We express regret at the suffering of the inmates. Lest it ever happen again.’ The plaque distinguishes that Morinj was a detention camp ‘during the Greater Serbian Aggression against Croatia,’ which caused locals to protest the memorial plaque and block the road to the unveiling ceremony. 

The protesters argued that Morinj was not a detention camp but, rather, a space for the military to conduct interrogations during the conflict of the early 1990s. According to the activist leading the protest, Morinj ‘in no way was a concentration camp as some Montenegrin and Croatian authorities want to present it today.’ The government officials who initiated and attended the unveiling ceremony felt the event was a necessary step towards recognizing and responding to the violence that took place in Montenegro’s past. Tomo Medved, Croatia’s Veterans’ Affairs Minister, stated, ‘Today’s protest is an act of acknowledgement of the crime committed against the Croatian people in the name of Greater Serbian ideology… We cannot erase the pain or remain silent about the camp.’

The Croatian War of Independence, fought between 1991-1995, was part of the Yugoslav Wars, a series of ethnic conflicts and wars of independence that eventually resulted in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The term ‘Greater Serbia’ refers to the Serbian nationalist desire to unite all Serbs into one state, the expanse of which would include Montenegro and various other territories outside of modern-day Serbia. Locals were upset about the use of the phrase ‘Greater Serbian Aggression’ to refer to the conflict because this alludes to Serbian nationalism, specifically ethnonationalism in the form of jingoism. In other words, the phrase can be interpreted as supportive of the desire for a ‘Greater Serbia’ formed on the basis of Serbian ethnicity and promoted by patriotism expressed by aggression and violence rather than peaceful relations. Therefore, the plaque’s reference to the war as ‘Greater Serbian Aggression’ does not represent the conflict in an unbiased way, causing locals to feel the memorial plaque intentionally adds tension to the situation being addressed.

The term ‘aggression’ inherently implies violence, and the use of this specific word on the plaque suggests that Montenegro, as a whole, views this recent conflict in this light. Memorial plaques, along with statues, represent a sort of solidarity around an issue, oftentimes an issue that is sensitive and perhaps unresolved. Because of this, the language presented on memorials or monuments of any kind must be language of neutrality and language that conceptualizes the topic at hand in a peaceful way. The physical presence of a memorial plaque represents the attitude of a place towards what the plaque commemorates, which fails to speak for the multiplicity of viewpoints in the situation and can become upsetting for those whose beliefs are unrepresented. This presents difficult questions that must be considered in acts of commemoration: Is memorializing a useful approach to reconciliation? When is it appropriate and when is it inappropriate? How can memorializing be used to alleviate, rather than provoke, tension? And, most importantly, how can it be used to promote peace?