The main aim of this article is to explore the purpose, behaviour and policy of the perpetrators towards civilians and their adversary in the Bosnian Civil Conflict from 1992 until 1995. The article emphasizes common traits, behaviours of the perpetrators and recognizes factors and elements that relate to their motives and hostility to commit mass getting rid of and offences against humanity. This essay will also describe the factors that drive people, who previously co-habited harmoniously, to committing brutal functions of assault against their friends, neighbours and compatriots. The principal emphasis will be on three different cultural groupings in Bosnia through the conflict; the Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims and the Croats and the essay will target more on the conflict between Serbs and Muslims. It will focus upon violent acts devoted by Serbs against Muslims; although as the warfare developed, Serbs also became victims of specific kinds of Croat and Muslim violence.
Sometimes, it is difficult for scholars to determine the real reasons or motives that make 'regular' people with no previous criminal record commit unexpected brutal functions of violence. Concentrating on the particular case of the ethnic conflict in Bosnia, this article aims to demonstrate why behaviour and demeanour of the perpetrators of genocide and conflict crimes is important. This will highlight the personality of perpetrators and also to illustrate the complexness of perpetrators' behavior and thought process. The perpetrator-focused research in Bosnia can be justified over a combo of moral, cognitive and practical grounds; it emphasizes the importance of circumstances as an explanation for perpetrator conduct; and shows that Erwin Staub's idea of a "continuum of damage" reflecting the actual fact a perpetrator's behaviour can swiftly fluctuate between serves of cruelty and kindness.
The Bosnian Civil Warfare was very complex and full of tragic events including the forced migration and killings of inhabitants based on their ethnicity, also known as ethnic cleansing. To attain the objective on managing territories, the perpetrators, usually with the entire support from the largest ethnic group, violently displaced or killed members of other ethnic groups who stood in their way. In all cases, assault on civilian populations was both an goal and instrument of warfare. The perpetrators included regular military, paramilitaries, militias, reservists, police, internal security pushes or armed civilian group. The war in Bosnia was waged by ultranationalists who targeted civilians because they stood in the form of the thought of their nationwide interest. This was achieved by ethnic cleansing, using violence and deportations of other cultural communities who possessed previously lived mutually peacefully in Bosnia. For example, the Srebrenica massacre, the most infamous violent function by the perpetrators through the war, was described as the worst atrocity witnessed in the history of modern Western european world after the World War II and the largest single war criminal offense in European countries.
By demography, Bosnia is a multiethnic nation, in which there was no majority cultural group. From the population of 4. 4 million, Bosnian Muslims constituted 43. 7 percent, Serbs constituted 31. 4 percent, while Croats constituted 17. 3 percent. Prior to the turmoil erupted in 1992, Bosnia was a good example of a harmonious world where Muslims, Serbs and Croats lived side by side, free of cultural subordination. There was not serious ethnic issue after the World War II, and even though after the election in 1990 have made the cultural romance became more salient, the groups tried to solve any conflict without the element of assault. As a result, the vast majority of folks in Yugoslavia co-existed in tranquility irrespective of their cultural or spiritual group.
From one perspective, the war in Bosnia could be viewed as a clear-cut circumstance of civil warfare which can be an internal warfare among ethnic categories unable to agree on arrangements for posting power. Very much like other civil wars, different get-togethers who fought in this war had enjoyed substantive political and military support from neighbouring expresses. The Serb and Croat paramilitaries included volunteers from Serbia and Croatia, and were backed by nationalist political celebrations in those countries. Although Bosnian self-reliance was fully identified by the United Country, neither Serbia nor Croatia accepted the quality. A further circumstance could be produced that the Bosnian Serb army was under the de facto control of the Yugoslav Army and Belgrade and was therefore an instrument of external hostility.
A main factor to the conflict in Bosnia is the role of leaders as voices of extremism or nationalism. The attitude of Serbian leaders in Serbia and Bosnia performed a crucial role in channelling the behavior of common Serbs contrary to the Muslims and Croats. Soon after the break-up of Yugoslavia, they led a nationalist movement, shape the progressions of occurrences and made the decisions to lead the hostility against other ethnic organizations. As an power in the highest position, leaders could order the trust and behavior of their fellow ethnic, while the normal man could claim that there were just following orders from the specialist.
Leaders in both Serbia and Croatia, sometimes aided by journalist, academics, and military services organization, deliberately revived and exploited painful memories of the annals of the former Yugoslavia in growing the propaganda to produce dread and hatred between cultural communities. They exploited the brutality and atrocities among one another before especially in the Second World Warfare and inflamed national sentiments between ethnic organizations. The Serb nationalist revival also led to intense public debate of World War II about the atrocities of the Ustasha against Serbs. During 1980s, when tension among ethnic groupings began to escalate, Serbs were often reminded about the massacres, betrayal, and extended hostility between Serbs, Croats and Muslims. In order to seed the seed of nationalism among fellow Serbs, Ustasha killings has been portrayed frequently in mass media, memoirs, plays, and background, and it became clear when Milosevic ignited the hearth of the Serbian nationalism in everyday activities especially on tv. Each side doubts that they will be the sufferer of genocide if others gain political and military electricity in Bosnia which reason has been justified by Serbian and Croatian nationalists to thrust their people into wars of 'self-defence'. Leaders of ethnic groupings such as Franco Tudjman of Croatia, Alija Izetbegovic of Muslims, and Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic of Serbia inflamed the sentiments on their people by firmly taking several actions and utilizing some policies which favoured on their side. For example, Radovan Karadzic experienced warned the Bosnian authorities that if they choose self-employed, "They will disappear. That folks will disappear from the face of the planet earth. "'
In general, perpetrators are those who start, facilitate, or perform acts of genocide or crimes against humanity. Through the Bosnian discord, the motive of the perpetrators could be categorized into various categories. In order to eliminate what the respective perpetrators believed as a 'real or potential hazard', as well as to 'disperse terror among real or potential foes', mass getting rid of and other atrocities were used. It is quite difficult to totally understand the motives of the perpetrators because the average person and group changes that lead to increasingly vicious acts could become not only more comprehensible, but even seemingly natural. Perpetrators make many small and great decisions as they improve over the continuum of destruction. They choose market leaders, adopt ideologies, create regulations and ideas, and engage in harmful and violent works and their circumstances and characteristics move them using directions.
In order to accomplish the intent of expulsion or getting rid of of other cultural groups, armed service and paramilitary organizations were used as a typical institutional set ups. Such organizations enforce behavior, encourage conformity, provide training, desensitize their members' responses to eradicating, and planted the ideology of the struggle to all person in the business. All parties to the discord in Bosnia are actually guilty of perpetrating abuse and assault, although to differing degrees. The main perpetrators of the abuses may vary from certain circumstances depending which forces are in control in the particular territories. On the whole, however, the primary aggressors have been the Serbian armed forces and paramilitary pushes. As the primary offenders, they are simply able to inflict great destruction and their insurance plan of 'cultural cleaning' with the motive to dominate the whole Bosnia. For example, the infamous Arkan's Tiger, one of the most ferocious Serbian paramilitary organizations which accountable for crimes focused on Muslims and Croats all over Bosnia, is a Belgrade-backed paramilitary business where soldiers under his command line brutally imprisoned, defeat, raped, and carried out non-Serb persons. During the war, most the territory in Bosnia forcibly arrived under Serb domination and large sections of the Muslim population were either wiped out or expelled by paramilitary which positively participated in these operations in order to secure Serb control over territories.
While the majority of the Serbian perpetrators were conducted by a larger teams which is paramilitary or militia, the abuses due to Croats and Muslims were usually perpetrated by specific and don't associated with certain groups. Bosnian Croat and Muslims also found guilty of serious maltreatment of individuals right and criminal offense against mankind. The damage of Serbian property, removal by make, the detention and killing of the inhabitant in many cases appear to be known but little had been done to prove it. For instance, by committing the offense against Serbs in Kravica and for other atrocities committed around the region, Naser Oric, a Bosnian Muslims, was convicted by the International Judge Tribunal for failing to take measures to avoid the murder and cruel treatment of Serb prisoners. As for the Croat atrocities, the terrifying violence perpetrated contrary to the Serbian populations in Krajina following its recapture by the Croatian HVO company led by Mladen Markac in August 1995 will never be easily overlooked.
Many of the abuses related to Serbian perpetrators have long followed a recognizable pattern that has come to be known as 'cultural cleansing. ' The primary goal of Serbian pushes is to fully capture or increasing complete control of the whole place and forcibly taking away or killing non-Serbs the region. In most Serbian-held territories of Bosnia, pattern of abuses against non-Serbs were clear and the method of abuses including rounding in the inhabitant, detaining in the attentiveness camp or just simply eradicating the civilian taken. Even though a lot of the abuses devoted by the Serbs were done in group, there were such abuses were been done by individual soldiers or one armed service, policemen and home safeguard. The nature of the abuses, and the style and frequency which happen indicates that there is no order from the more advanced than stop the abuses.
The habits of behavior of the perpetrators during the conflict were evident when the tension escalated through the war. During the conflict, behavioural patterns among ordinary military indicated habits of racial hatred and prejudiced, manifested both in their activities against their victims and their feelings towards each other. The decision to make use of a large amount of perpetrators can also be influenced by certain political objectives. Those that start genocide may seek to get support for their actions by allowing components of society to fulfill their passions and greed at the trouble of the victims. By plunging large numbers of the populace into murder, the makes encouraging the mass killing may more firmly bind the perpetrators to the regime.
The perpetrators have emphasised on collectivistic value that produce group membership central to personal personal information. Such regimes have been especially adept at using such collectivistic beliefs to highlight limitations between in-groups and out-groups by making extreme categorical judgements predicated on the polar opposites of 'good us' versus 'bad them'. They have set in their head that their cause is sacred; while the enemies are wicked, they themselves as righteous, innocent or victimized; and more are wicked, guilty, and the victimisers. It is clear in this issue that the Serbs always portrayed themselves as the sufferer of the wicked regime of Ustasha that murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs during World Battle II.
There were types of practices utilized by the perpetrators to make their reprehensible conducts suitable and to distance them from the moral implications of their actions. For instance, there is a moral justification where mass murder is made in person and socially suitable by portraying it as portion socially valuable or moral purposes. Perpetrators may imagine this rationalisation to this scope that their bad isn't just morally justifiable, but became a moral one. Perpetrators can then justify their bad as essential to their own self-defence, to be able to safeguard the cherished beliefs with their community, attack ruthless oppressors, preserve peace and stableness, save mankind from subjugation, or honour their national commitments.
Moral disengagement is also facilitated by the dehumanisation of the victims. Using this method, perpetrators categorized a group as inhuman when the mark group can be commonly identified as another category of individuals belonging to a new race, ethnic, religious or political group that the perpetrators regard as substandard or threatening. These isolated organizations are stigmatised as subhuman and remembrances of their previous misdeeds, real or imaginary, are triggered by the prominent group. The dehumanisation of victims helps perpetrators to justify their aggressive, sadist and brutal behavior. A typical form of dehumanisation is the use of vocabulary to redefine the victims so they'll be viewed as warranting the hostility. The moral disengagement of the perpetrators is complemented with a vulgarity of words that dehumanises the victims. Constantly, perpetrators dehumanised their victims that the words themselves become substitutes for perceiving humans. For example, generally, Serbs explained the Muslims in derogatory term as 'Balijas'(grubby), 'Turkish yoke', 'uncultivated' and 'outrageous dog. '
One of the surprising elements in this turmoil was that many of the violence and abuses were perpetrated by their own neighbours. Assault against neighbour emerges as a significant theme in numerous accounts of warfare and ethnic cleaning in Bosnia, amidst cordial and amicable relations between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs and Croats. Before the conflict, ethnic relationships in Yugoslavia is at reasonable level, and many recall friendly and warm relationships between neighbours, co-workers, or acquaintances of different ethnic or religious identities. Even once warfare began, many recognized that individuals of different cultural or religious personal information were not always their enemies, and they assume that they can still get along together throughout the battle.
At a glance, Serbs, Croats and Muslims found one another as acquaintances, colleagues, neighbours, friends, and sometimes even relatives. However, deep the truth is, they determined others as users of groups designated by history as foes. These groups didn't intend to make battle, but there is an actual latent and resilient anger. This profound hatred were advised with a Serb staff in the American Consulate to the American diplomat about his real feeling on Croat 'sometimes when he looked into their eyes, he could not help recalling the blood that stained the hands of these in charge of the slaughter of Serbs through the Second World War'. The Conflict in Bosnia developed into a nightmare for the several ethnic groups, which had lived there in relative peace because the end of the next World War. The peace was not meant for last forever, as ethnic leaders had created an atmosphere of common fear and hatred that led to three. 5 many years of conflict and terror.
Many survivors of cultural cleansing through the conflict have advised some problems by their ex - neighbours. Rezak Huzanovic, a ex - detainee in Omarska camp, writes in his memoir about his Serbian neighbour who joined up with in the getting rid of and torture. 'They were our neighbours and then they burnt our residences. At Prijedor, local Serbs joined up with in murders and cultural cleansing. ' Refugees consistently told about series of attacks by friends or neighbours they recognized well. In Foca in Southern Bosnia, one female told about her Serbian neighbour arrived in her family home late night with machine weapon and detained his man. 'In fact, we had espresso with him a day before'.
Multiple similar accounts both at the time of ethnic cleansing and afterwards explain the strong grassroots factor to ethnic cleaning and violence which were carried out in a variety of parts of Bosnia. It is true that neighbours didn't carry out cultural cleansing exclusively. Witnesses, reporters, and researchers working for human rights group also made clear how paramilitary causes and militia swept through many Bosnian neighborhoods, undertaking violent take action and killing, and the fighters in these forces included teens, peasants, local people who had also grown up in this multiethnic Yugoslavia pledged to the idea of "brotherhood and unity. "
A point to note that the same neighbour of everyday life can mutate into an foe when regarded as a physique in a long-term historical narrative of nationalist have difficulty. Accounts of close relations between neighbours typically recall scenes of each day life, of people as friends, classmates, and fellow workers. Stories of cultural rivalry, on the other side, present narratives where the same individuals function as members of foe nations. This same paradox of a friendly neighbour who eliminates can be described with the idea of cognitive structures or "a mental composition which situates and attaches happenings, people and groupings into a important narrative.
Apart from that, a specific framework of nationalism takes on an integral role in producing ethnic detoxification in Bosnia. As an ideology of cultural detoxification, nationalism is more a tale than simply a kind of identity. Within national narratives, the country as an entity can be regarded as the true protagonist. National narratives have a tendency to be similar in their composition; they present their hero, the country, as unique in anguish; plus they depict the national narratives of rival nations as valid.
Concerning the perpetrators motives, they emphasized of betrayal and victimization that links to national narratives. Testimonies of national struggle recount attacks and even treason by other countries. These stories screen hatred of the foes of the ethnic groups, and for this reason they can be referred to as "national hate narratives. " The nation's opponents are inherently and irredeemably bad, and for this reason the problems created by the hated group can be fixed by its removal, disappearance, or damage. For Serbs, these were being indoctrinated as the victims of the Ustasha and Muslim atrocities through the Second World Warfare. They noticed other ethnic groups as a real threat, and in order to ensure that the annals would not took place again, and ensure their own success, they collectively get rid of the threat by killing others.
The Bosnian issue brought the practice of killing predicated on ethnicity shows that these violations weren't random acts completed by the few dissident military. This insurance policy has been masterminded by Serbian politics and military leaders which is being systematically prepared and strategically executed with the support of the Serbian and Bosnian Serb armies and paramilitary organizations to make a "Greater Serbia" that will led to a religiously, culturally, and linguistically homogenous Serbian region.
Some scholars, politician and commentators were quick to point out that the war was triggered by the "ancient hatreds" that the various ethnic teams bore toward each other. That is inaccurate, because the multi cultural groups of previous Yugoslavia did not coexist in traditional times by any means; they were only joined jointly following the creation of the Yugoslav in 1918. Unlike some world market leaders, commentators and scholar's says that this ancient hatreds stemming from a long history of turmoil and ethnic cleaning in the Balkans were in charge of the conflict, the reality, however was different. Instead of 'old hatreds', the issue in Bosnia shown a combination of varied factors. The term 'ancient cultural hatreds' were manipulated by opportunist through the break-up of Yugoslavia, exploited and revitalized by ethnic group market leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, Radovan Karadzic in Bosnia and Franjo Tudjman in Croatia as their hold on power slipped. All of them felt that the thought of building an ethnically clean state would contribute of the expansion of their politics power also to fortify their position as a innovator of each region.
A era of historians and communal scientists has turn out with the idea that the factors of early hatreds had cracked apart Yugoslavia. In some cases, the conversations of 'old hatred' made genuine violence inevitable, but the key shows in narratives of national victimization were already popular before the Tito's death, and these shows came from many durations and places rather from any one region such as Bosnia. For Serbs, the key events of historic hatred depicted in a narrative of countrywide have difficulties and victimization included the Struggle of Kosovo of 1389, the First World Conflict, and Serbs mass getting rid of by Usthasa and the Partisan in the Second World War in Bosnia.
The conflict in Bosnia cannot be explained by theories of inevitable ethnic hatreds, even though such explanations conveniently excuse outsiders from the obligations of intervening. Recently, there have been several racial and historical disputes in the past Yugoslavia but it was put down sensibly by Tito. The rhetoric of national interest became increasingly nationalist in the sense of determining one group and its goals towards another.
The sentiment of being oppressed where clearly noted in Memorandum of the Serbian Academy Arts and Sciences that was a draft shared by Serbian intellectual and scholars in 1986. This memorandum became questionable since it underlined the discrimination of the Serbs in Yugoslavia and possessed claim that Serbs were inferior to other ethnic communities in the Republic of Yugoslavia. This seventy four page memorandum, which became a bible for Serb nationalist, incited nationalism among Serbs in Yugoslavia. Serbs claimed that Tito's insurance policies experienced discriminated Serbia and also weakened Serbia politically and financially in the Republic. Serbs, especially nationalists, encouraged by the memorandum, argued that the time had come for all Serbs to revive their national delight by becoming the dominant ethnic teams in Yugoslavia.
Apart from reducing the real threat of the enemy, the perpetrators also wished to spread terror among the enemies in order to show their dominance and authorization. To show their supremacy, mass rape and other varieties of sexual violence were conducted as an take action of dehumanizing the cultural competitors. When committed on a mass level and using habits, such as in front of family or in public, sexual violence can speak an purpose to kill the group, or the very foundation of a specific group, and this is particularly true perhaps in social, cultural and spiritual communities where acts of sexual violence not only shame and humiliate the sufferer, but also rip the core foundation of this community. It appears that when committed over a mass level and using patterns, erotic and gender-based violence may have communicative value and as such may have something to say about the intention of the perpetrator. The organized rape of women from other ethnic categories was purposely made to reach "the foundations of the group. "
The main motive of organized rape is to show the more powerful ethnic groupings to demoralize others through terror and humiliation. Rape and erotic assault on women were common during all stages of the conflict and occurred on all attributes, but an extended report published by United Nation Commission rate of Experts possessed found extensive evidence of Bosnian Serbs sexual assault on Muslim women. Mass and systematic rape occurred often in a detention camp and in all, UN Commission put together reviews of mass rape instances from fifty seven seperate location in Bosnia.
Sexual assault perpetrated against Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat women through the Bosnian conflict was intimately tied to the procedure of destruction of these ethnic group. The mass scale, the extremely open public and humiliating character of the rapes and the systematic nature where they were devoted, evidently shows the violation of the main foundation of the group. This systematic rape weren't only destroying women's capacity to replicate, but some rapes also led to what both sufferer and perpetrator regarded as children of a new ethnicity. In patriarchal societies such such as the Balkans, the perpetrators of rape knew that the sufferer and her community would experience forced pregnancy in an effort to transmit a fresh ethnic identity to the kid. Perpetrated on the systematic scale, this design provides persuasive proof intention to violate the foundation of the group.
However, most above all, the motive of the perpetrators to commit such violent take action was based on a opinion or an ideology. Inflamed by the rhetoric of nationalism sentiment of their leaders, the perpetrators of such assault are usually clear about their objectives to established a pure sole ethnic land and anxious to exclude 'non-nationals' and possibly disloyal 'minorities'. The intention of the pressure removal of different ethnic population is clear, which is to profit the more powerful groups or ethnic in order to determine a single ethnic nation. Despite taking away others off their existing place, the roots of practice are definitely more closely tied to ideology. If cultural cleansing was generally about greed or a kind of class hatred for the other cultural that had convenient life or wealthier than the others, it is improbable that it could express itself as assault against an ethnic groups. In the case of Bosnian turmoil, the Serb ultimate target is to make a purely single nation talk about called 'Greater Serbia'.
When the United Nation had recognized and granted standard reputation to Bosnia after the break-up of Yugoslavia, the Serbs and the nationalist were infuriated. The popularity of Bosnian self-reliance means that the Muslims in Bosnia will dominate the affair of the new country and for that reason, the Serbs will be marginalised. This development rapidly changed Serbs to arm themselves and began to expel non-Serbian inhabitants in Bosnia in early 1992. Sir Alfred Sherman, chairman of the Lord Byron Groundwork for Balkan Studies and adviser to Margaret Thatcher when she was Britain's best minister, published that ''once the Serbs were converted into a minority among hostile peoples who murdered them a couple of years ago, then they began to behave. ''
On the complete, the ethnic cleansing carried out contrary to the Bosnian Muslims by Serbian nationalists, who wished an ''ethnically clean Serbian republic'' was unmatched anywhere in the Balkan in its extent and level although Croats also engaged in ethnic detoxification against Muslims or that Muslims determined violence against Serbs and Croat civilians. This turmoil only ceased following the putting your signature on the Dayton Serenity Contract in Ohio, United States in November 1995 which accord end the three. 5 year long war in Bosnia. However the war had ended, the world had not been watch alone. The case of offense against humanity which perpetrated by various area during the entire conflict had been taken to the International Felony Tribunal for the ex - Yugoslavia (ICTY). This tribunal is a US court of law dealing with warfare crimes that occurred during the issues in the Balkans in the 1990's. While the most significant number of cases noticed at the Tribunal has dealt with alleged crimes devoted by Serbs and Bosnian Serbs, the Tribunal has looked into and helped bring charges against persons from every ethnic history. Convictions have been guaranteed against Croats, as well as both Bosnian Muslims as well as for crimes determined against Serbs and others. The key aim of the ICTY is to try those individuals most in charge of appalling acts such as murder, torture, rape, enslavement, devastation of property and other crimes posted in the Tribunal's Statute. By bringing perpetrators to trial, the ICTY aspires to deter future offences and render justice to a large number of victims and their own families, thus contributing to a lasting peacefulness in the ex - Yugoslavia.
In Feb 2007, the International Courtroom of Justice (ICJ) rendered its judgment on the merits of the Genocide circumstance through the Bosnian Civil Conflict, thereby writing the final chapter to a tale which have been pending before it for a few 14 years. This judgment will certainly end up being one of the ICJ's most crucial, both legally and politically. In simple, the Court concluded that genocide was perpetrated in Bosnia by the Bosnian Serb military, but that, entirely in the city of Srebrenica in July 1995. Moreover, in line with the Court docket, Serbia was neither in charge of the commission of that genocide nor complicit in it, but was in charge of failing to prevent it as well as for failing woefully to punish its perpetrators.
In the case of Bosnia it's been simplified for politics reasons. In the starting point of the warfare over Bosnia, the international community's operating consensus was that Serbia was the villain in the battle. So, while the burden of war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of individual protection under the law and genocide, were put on Serbian shoulder blades, the similarly serious crimes of the Croats and Bosnian Muslims were ge In the case of Bosnia it has been simplified for political reasons. In the onset of the battle over Bosnia, the international community's operating consensus was that Serbia was the villain in the battle. So, as the burden of warfare crimes, crimes against mankind, violations of human being rights and genocide, were placed on Serbian shoulders, the evenly serious offences of the Croats and Bosnian Muslims were generally, at least first, overlooked rated a distant second to the offences of ethnic cleaning associated with Serbia. The email address details are a distortion of actuality, and justice very seriously compromised.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay