I. Missing dimensions
Past, present and future challenges and problems that concern the “West Balkans” – now used to denote the former republics of the SFR of Yugoslavia that have emerged as sovereign states from this country’s break-up – cannot be understood fully unless analyzed within the broader context of world politics and with appropriate recognition of Yugoslavia’s post-World War II role and place in the global arena.
When this complex and controversial problématique is discussed in scholarly literature, the geo-political perspective is seldom given the importance and attention it deserves. The role of exogenous actors and forces among the significant factors of this country’s violent disintegration is usually denied or ignored. This dimension is also mostly absent in clichés and standardized explanations used in the mainstream policy discourse, or conveyed to the broad public, especially via the media.
The dominant analysis concerning Yugoslavia, both in the West Balkans and internationally, is generally negative and tends to belittle its record and experience. The country is treated as a deviation and a failed state, to be blamed for its own predicament and deserving to be relegated to the dustbin of history.
The above two closely interrelated blind spots in analysis, public perception, and debate, are not accidental. Yugoslavia was meant to be forgotten, while how and why it was eventually consumed by its internal conflicts had to be understood in a given, prescribed manner. A resulting explanation, imposed by the currently dominant unipolar, global power configuration, is a reflection of political preferences, ideological orientation and a framework of analysis that the new geo-political reality projects and seeks to impose worldwide, including in the European theatre and in its West Balkans-specific context. The choreography, control and management of analyses, knowledge, facts and information applied in the case of Yugoslavia were early instances of a significant dimension of unipolarity and globalization, namely that of a systematic configuration of public discourse and the shaping of world public opinion by the global power centres of the North.
A fuller understanding of the situation in this highly exposed and coveted strategic crossroads is called for. A holistic approach to Yugoslavia’s vanishing, and to what has taken place since then would be welcomed by many in the West Balkans. It would also be appreciated internationally, especially in developing countries where Yugoslavia enjoyed respect. Many in these countries felt affinity with Yugoslavia. They remain dissatisfied and skeptical of official “truths” and prevailing analyses available internationally, which emanate almost exclusively from Northern sources and reflect the official policy line and outlook of key developed countries, focusing selectively on domestic factors, failings and culprits.
The trajectory of Yugoslavia, starting with 1941, needs to be seen and explained from a global perspective. Yugoslavia played a role in North-South and East-West conflicts. It was a socialist country and a developing country. Its saga needs to be analyzed in the context of its quest for development, including its efforts to evolve a specific nationally derived model. It strived to maintain its sovereignty and dignity, and to participate in and play a role inthe management of world affairs. This is an aspiration common to the overwhelming majority of humankind living in developing countries, which are affected by and vitally dependent on the external environment. They have been and continue to be kept at bay, excluded and dominated, some for centuries, by those able and willing, in pursuit of national interests, to project their political, economic, military, financial and cultural power, beyond their own borders and often worldwide.
The story of Yugoslavia’s fall, with the appropriate emphasis on the role of external factors and forces, including in the fomenting of domestic conflicts and the ultimate debacle, is of wider significance. It concerns the nature of the evolving global order, how it is managed and will be managed, and by whom. It is of particular relevance for the countries of the South.
This story is also of significance for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, for their efforts at reconciliation and, their cooperation. Each of these peoples has been served a different, selective and self-serving version of the turn of events and of the responsibilities involved, much like in the classic Japanese film Rashomon. In spite of differences, the nationalist variants that are dominant today have one thing in common, that of being hostile to post World War II Yugoslavia, ideologically adverse to what it stood for, dismissive of its achievements and record, and assigning to it the blame for what happened.
The peoples of the West Balkans have been under the influence of and often entrapped by nationalist rhetoric, atavism and mythology, by local patriotism and chauvinism, and by events or characteristics specific to their parochial settings. They have also been exposed to and swayed by the tenets of neo-liberal globalization and promises of a wonderland awaiting them just around the corner through the so-called transition. They generally have an inadequate grasp of, and cannot assess critically, the larger picture and how it relates to the events in their former country and indeed to their own lives today. Incomplete or skewed knowledge makes it easier to channel local political discourse and public opinion in a manner that sustains divisions, tension and mistrust and undermines efforts to rebuild links and to renew cooperation.
A broader analysis would be beneficial especially to younger generations that have grown up in the post-Yugoslavia period, which has been characterized by efforts to erase from collective memory anything positive about this country, whose ghost continues to be seen as politically menacing by the new establishments.[1] Brought up in the new environment, young people have little awareness and knowledge of Yugoslavia and of its place in the global system. They are mostly exposed to its negative and one-sided portrayals that ignore or discredit its significance and distort its record, while emphasizing issues that serve nationalist purposes and goals and/or demonstrate the superiority of the new order and state of affairs.
The above-identified gaps in analyses, public perception and knowledge should be recognized and gradually filled. The general remarks presented in this note are an attempt to contribute to this objective by drawing attention to some elements and interrelationships that are seldom given prominence in the currently dominant mainstream explanations. They offer an additional perspective and a different angle on the recent Yugoslav saga, by linking it with the broader, global context. This note is not meant to deal with events and places, name names or tell a story. Rather, it is an attempt to shed some light on the bigger picture by introducing some important missing pieces of the puzzle and widening the conceptual and analytical framework used to study and research, explain and understand this complex, and for those directly affected and involved, a highly emotional and controversial problematique.
II. Yugoslavia’s role recalled
It needs to be recalled that Yugoslavia occupied an important place and played a role in the post-World War II global order, beyond its real power and economic weight. Its political orientation, the policies that it advocated and what it stood for under its then leadership and socio-economic system were of more than local significance and, had an appeal beyond its borders. It showed that ideas, principles and objectives of universal value matter and can endow even a small country with a global presence and a degree of moral and political influence in the international arena.
Among the elements that accounted for Yugoslavia’s relevance and image that it projected were the following:
ü The uprising in 1941, followed by the epic People’sLiberation War (the only militarily significant home-grown resistance during World War II in occupied Europe) against the superior and dominant Nazi and Fascist aggressors (who, it might be recalled, broke up and carved the country among themselves, some of their local collaborators and also some neighbouring countries, and actively fomented inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts). The People’s Liberation War, which was accompanied with nation-building and a social revolution, served as a reference to many at the beginning of the age of liberation movements, popular rebellions and armed struggle against colonial powers in the Third World.
ü “Brotherhood and unity” and solidarity, as underlying principles of a multicultural, multi-ethnic, secular federation founded on the equality of the six constituent republics, which replaced the pre-war monarchy and unitary state, were of interest to the newly emerging countries, many of which also consisted of a patchwork of national and ethnic groups and, faced the challenges of statehood and nation-building following their liberation from colonial rule.
ü In the post-war period, fundamental socio-economic reforms, a system change, national mobilization and domestic self-reliance in rebuilding and lifting out of underdevelopment a predominantly agricultural country and launching its society and natural resources-based economy onto a path of industrialization, transformation and modernization of agriculture, and infra-structural development, as well as providing a wide strata of the population with secure livelihoods, employment, social services, social benefits and education, all appealed to the countries facing the challenges of independence, nation-building, development and modernization.
ü In 1948, and the aftermath, its resistance and standing up to the hegemonic designs of one super-power to dominate it, including through threats of a military invasion, to turn it into a marionette and determine its national politics and choices, and more generally its refusal in the period that followed to be drawn into military alliances or bloc politics and become a client-state or satellite of anyone, endowed it with a global standing and respect, planting one of the early seeds of the policy of non-alignment.
ü Its playing a major role in inspiring, establishing and making functional the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, both of which embody the shared, collective aspirations of the developing countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, thrust it into an active and prominent position in the world arena. Over the years it came to be perceived as one of the leading proponents of the Third World struggle for: economic and political independence; territorial integrity and non-interference in domestic affairs; influence and role in the multilateral arena; placing development at the centre of global concerns and, changing the inequitable structures and processes of the dominant world order. It also worked for a strong Organization of the United Nations, based on the democratic participation/representation of the member-states and multilateralism, serving both as a global rampart against hegemony, unilateralism and militarism of the powerful, as well as the institutional platform to bolster the influence and power of the small, weak and marginalized majority of its member-states in their quest for a new equitable international economic and political order and, a change in the global structural status quo that in more ways than one remained rooted in the age of power politics, colonialism and imperialism.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate