Recently, I have come across an interesting story by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), EU positive on Balkan entry bids. The European Union is seeking to expand its membership to include western Balkan countries, which are Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia. The main focal point will be the dilemma question that comes with membership. I will also focus on some of the recent and historic events in these countries as it relates to their entry bids. As a note, you may also be interested in reading my two posts related to the Balkans, The Kosovo Question and The Future of Kosovo.
Firstly, many of the western Balkan countries were those that fought during the Yugoslav secession wars in the 1990s. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia were the major sides. Serbia is faced with a major obstacle, especially its efforts to arrest two longtime Bosnian Serb war-crime fugitives, General Ratko Mladic and President Radovan Karadzic, who were involved in the massacres at Srebrenica in 1995. As for Croatia, the arrest of General Ante Gotovina in December 2005 has open the door widely for its ascension into the EU. Bosnia-Herzegovina still faced with major political and social strife among its three ethnic groups, the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniacs?), Croats, and Serbs. It is currently debating plans toward reform. The most important recent news concerning Montenegro was its independence from Serbia in June 2006.
Secondly, I will briefly discuss the historic national sentiment in these Balkan countries. Thus, the first question is, why did the breakup of Yugoslavia occur? Nationalism has been part of a long debate, especially in Europe, since the French Revolution. Since many of these present countries were either part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire [in Turkey] (sometimes both at different times), they have formed separate identities. For example, Serbia has long fought against Ottoman rule, while its neighbor and relative Montenegro has enjoyed a different heritage as a kingdom. Also, Serbia could be contrasted with Croatia, in which, their historical heritage was separated by the empire that ruled them. During and after the First World War, Balkan leaders decided to form Yugoslavia (first as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) to strengthen South Slavic position. First, it was a monarchy, and after the Second World War, a socialist country under the rule of dictator Josip Broz Tito, who was half-Serb and half-Croat.
So the second question is, did recent events accelerate the crisis? The answer is yes. Tito would particularly juggle with critics over economic reform. In my opinion, his government’s mismanagement was one of the major causes that led to the secession. For example, his plan to redistribute wealth to poorer republics, such as Serbia, caused major outcries with the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia; they would generate most of the wealth (tourism being an example) and felt that redistribution took away their income to help its own poor. After Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia fell deeply in debt, but the country’s leaders tried to hide growing strife among the ethnic groups, until it could no longer maintain control and began to implement some reforms too late.
Now that I have discussed briefly the history, there is a dilemma concerning EU membership verus national sentiment. The EU has laid requirements for these Balkan countries to conform with arresting war criminals from the Yugoslav wars to gain membership. Ideally, this requirement seems right, but does it disregard the populations’ sentiments? Returning back to the news story concerning Croatian General Ante Gotovina, his arrest caused some stir in the country, as some Croatians view him as a war hero. He was involved in Operation Storm, which fought to end a Serb separatist movement, which set up their own republic inside Croatia called the Serbian Krajina. In the process, civilians were killed on both sides. In 2001, General Gotovina was indicted for crimes against humanity and violations of laws and customs of war. So, the controversy, as in this example, is whether the arrest of war criminals should be the foremost requirement before entering the EU? Should justice have its place? Also, should national sentiments have its place? Can emphasis on justice and national sentiment be balanced? I will leave this open to discussion. As with the EU, this dilemma may be an issue that a Barack Obama Administration will face not only in the Balkans but in other conflict-inflicted areas in the world. What should be an Obama Administration's approach?
To view my other commentaries and news, click here.
Comments are closed for this post.
