Herzegovinaor Croatia with Montenegro. ample, Slovenia with Kosovo, Macedonia with Bosnia- drivetowards European integration. Compare, for ex lowed dramatically different dynamics in the ambitious remaining countries of the former Yugoslavia have fol EU, NATO, the Council of Europe and the OSCE). Thedefined multi-layeredthrough asits architecture (the have made substantial progress on the path already“to partEurope” of “Europe,” whilst others, such as purposes,Albania, countries such as Romania and Bulgaria are withandvarying degreessuccess, of practicalall for situation. Although they have done so at different their normalised rates gradually have region” “Balkan the though other countries in what is commonly known as its legacy can still be felt today, twenty years on, even role in Balkan geopolitical problems reaffirmed, butFrom this perspective, also not only is Yugoslavia’s central 1991. in over boiled tensions where Tito, by founded YugoslavFederation, former the of region the specifically, to and, Balkans the to called be should attention special politics, world of field the growing importance of regional studies within the of point vantage the from and end, Tothis aspects. to reflect on one of its most dramatic partial/regional prefer, the collapse of the bipolar system, it is useful Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, or, if you Defence,of Ministry Madrid Collaborator,DAES Barcelona (IBEI),Internacionals d’Estudis Barcelona Institut Relations International in MA López Olinta Defence,of Ministry Madrid Security (DAES),and Division Strategic Affairs Director Barcelona of University Politicalof Professor Science Vilanova Pere Paradigm orException? The Disintegrationof Yugoslavia: of theBipolar World. Twenty Years aftertheEnd PoliticsMediterranean | T urkey-Balkans - - cumulated tensions, and sparking the emergence, emergence, the sparking and tensions, cumulated people, giving rise to further border changes and ac- the continuation of this phenomenon, displacing more Turkish power. of The two detriment world wars the saw (andto caused) east, shifted gradually empire) Russian the edges, outer the on and, empires ian the major empires (the Ottoman and Austro-Hungar- (1815) and the early 20th Vienna century, of Congress the the borderBetween near. between and far ers ferent groups and strong competition between pow- of conflict due to friction between territories and dif - to today reveals constant border changes, a high rate 1810 from Balkans the of maps at glance simple A Yugoslav/Balkan geopolitics has always been volatile. Variables:Consideration Initial account. into risk of oversimplifying, several factors must be taken the at short, In alone. Europe, Eastern and in Central liberal most the accounts all by etc.), ideology, formally authoritarian regime (single party, communist Tito’s of dint by years 45 for survive not did clearly federation the as itself), Yugoslavia within rivalries old of resurgence (the perspective “micro” a or on, plete functional autonomy within the bloc from 1948 tegration of the Soviet bloc), as Yugoslavia had com- ro” perspective (the collapse of the USSR, the disin- be attributed to a single cause, whether from a “mac- cannot crisis the words, other In since. passed have that years 20 the in forward put convincingly been factor triggered the crisis, as no such explanation has ess. Straightaway, one can hypothesise that no single on and analyse the variables that affected that proc- Eastern bloc,former then the it of is necessary oncerestructuring again entire to the reflect in soil) pean Euro- (on episode dramatic most the disintegration its and Balkans, the of core the was Yugoslavia If

215 Med.2010 Panorama 216 Med.2010 Panorama management rather than state (Soviet) socialism, socialism, (Soviet) state than rather management Gorbachev’s reforms were how perceived. in Promoting lies Union self- Soviet the of collapse and crisis the to regard with paradoxes Yugoslav the of One view.partial merely and restrictive a is this However, on Yugoslavia. influence strong a exerted had which order, international the of disintegration the to rather but dictatorship, political classic a of not only to ethnic tensions, nor due even was to the collapse breakdown Yugoslavia’s that argued be can It project. feasible and stable relatively a standards, Westernby even was, what undermine to on) 1986 from nationalism Serbian radical particular, in (and, tutional crisis, which was used by ethnic nationalists factors the of (though not the only one) responsible for the one consti- was hardship Economic 91). forms undertaken by the Markovic government (1988- re- economic the support to failure its in patent was West’s imperviousness to Yugoslavia’s new situation The West. the from support economic and political attract to able longer no was it result, a As evant. irrel rendered were Movement Non-Aligned the of Westas and East between mediator leadership its and role Its Wall. Berlin the of fall the of “casualty” a YugoslaviaWar.was Cold the of end the at tures unable to withstand the collapse of the bipolar struc- were equidistance political and ideological of policy its and Europe post-war in blocs political-military However, Yugoslavia’s strategic location between two state. of form and government its for support popular solid also was There pendence. inde its retain and country a as survive Yugoslavia Stalin in 1948, the balance with of out power falling in Tito’s Europe all, helped above and, War Cold the Worldof end start Warthe at Following but I. Yugoslaviathe of de- international its made had that The year 1945 saw the emergence of a new version International the of the of Collapse dramatic. singularly so Wall, Berlin the of fall the after years geopolitics.” This is what makes the results, some 20 War “post-Cold own its have to considered is tory today as the former Yugoslavia. As a result, the terri- known is what on impact powerful a had it extent, certain a to Albania or Bulgaria Greece, Romania, ances. Whilst this affected Balkan countries such as disappearance and re-emergence of additional griev ipolar System: Bipolar Order Breakdown - - - 3. 2. 1. follows: as were ones important most The (n). variables the To perform this analysis, it is necessary first to define Yugoslavthe to led importance of collapse. grees de- varying of n) of maximum a and one of minimum (a causes multiple of total sum the words, other In pressed thus: pressed ex be could This separately. taken usually are that was the accumulation of several variables (or Yugoslavia causes) of collapse the triggered what short, In 2001). and 1991 between war (the consequences fatal such in resulted have could alone taken none Consequently, one. just than rather causes, several shows analysis brief A cause. the identify to is then, step, first The Yugoslavia.on impact of the Iron Curtain as a whole did have an undeniable there was little overlap. This notwithstanding, the fall tween the two cases, such as the end of communism, be similarities key certain Despite factors. specific collapse were the same or whether there were other in order to see whether the reasons for the Yugoslav case of Yugoslavia the to the comparing breakup of worth the is Soviet it Union level, geopolitical the At visibility.international high of end of the bipolar system took away from this position the earlier, noted As forums. international other eral sev and Nations United the in influence siderable had a sufficiently independent foreign policy and con As leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, Yugoslavia tionalisms”dynamic. of state) = end of federalism = rise of separatist na- not compete with the “end of communism (as a type could ultimately view this However, changes. the by and Yugoslav leaders did not feel in any way imperilled taken in Eastern Europe were not viewed as a threat under- reforms The socialism. to Yugoslavpath the of success the of recognition another yet as West and East between détente of policy the welcomed socialism. With few exceptions, Yugoslav communists of brand own their for victory a rather but loss, a as not glasnost and perestroika saw leaders Yugoslav Foreign intervention Foreign Union Soviet the of Collapse order international the of Breakdown Event (crisis) = Event= (crisis) multiple causes must be identified, as Max.No.Variables n=1 importance · causes · importance ∑ n - - - - 3. 2. 1. least: Yugoslavat the to, traced be can crisis of causes internal the as approach, formal a is This the West from support economic and political attract to able longer irrelevant. result,a no wasAs it MovementAligned were rendered Non- the of leadership its and and East between mediator West Berlin the of fall Wall.as role Its Yugoslaviaa was “casualty”the of article. this of scope the Yugoslavia.beyond of falls that However, to be studied as a whole to understand the collapse each individual republic.in The cause causes each would of then need importance specific the account into take to modified be to need ideally thus would weights thereof, varied in each republic. respective The the equation or causes, the that is approach this with problem One whole. a as YugoslavFederation the for causes 8 as defined Accordingly,“n”be can 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. tioned declarations of independence. of declarations tioned aforemen the predated and legally held were participated) republics all which (in republics Federation’s the in elections the that fact The year. same the communists Slovenian the expelled ready al had Yugoslavia of the and Communists of 1990, League August in on referendums self-determination illegal held already had nia Slavo Eastern and Krajina of regions Croatian the in minority Serb the indeed, that, fact The Mesic´’sturn. Stipe Croat the been have would what before presidency federal rotating the block to aged man- it when bloc”1987, “Serbian in beginning the by caused paralysis the and 1980 in death Tito’s following vacuum leadership federal The Yugoslavthe of demise and Crisis federation causes Nationalist causes Economic causes Demographic causes Ethnic - - - 1. Considerations Few A 4. 3. 2.

Breakdown of the international order worth remembering that Kosovo’s autonomous autonomous Kosovo’s that remembering worth likewise is It 1987. in power to rise Milosevic’s by in the Academy published 1986 Serbian and memorandum the with beginning nationalism, Serbian radical with lies Yugoslavia of breakup the for plan) the for responsibility the (indeed, day, most that believe experts most of the blame To groups. between gaps socioeconomic the and lopsidedness demographic did as conflict, the to contributed factors religious) nominally causes Ethnic EU. 12-member kept by almost all the of other countries the then profile low the or inhibition general no Kingdom’s was United the there bias, pro-Serbian France’s denying pro-Croatia, being of cused ac was Germany Whereas crisis. the in tries coun different by engagement of degrees ent differ and Union European the by mediation at attempts failed of series a of consisted slavia Yugo in interventions foreign of total sum the intervention Foreign democracies.” “people’s or of so-called the itself of USSR the part not were that countries in including rope, Eu Eastern throughout differences substantial with continent, the across consequences had in Union the of Soviet communism The collapse natives to the the failed model of a state. communist as alter liberation” “national of themselves standard-bearers depicted which forces, nationalist different “legitimising” and making for way fragilities, European Eastern and tral to Cen vulnerable Yugoslavia left Union Soviet the of collapse The USSR). the of demise the of implications direct – order international the Union Soviet the of Collapse West.the from support nomic eco- and political attract to able longer no was result, a as and, world the of regions other with goslavia could no longer compete in importance War.Cold the of end the at structures polar Yu - bi- the of collapse the withstand to unable were its policy of ideological and political equidistance and Europe, post-war in blocs political-military two between sandwiched Movement, Non- Aligned the of leader as position strategic via’s Yugosla East-Weststandoff). - the of end the of . Both ethnic and religious (or (or religious and ethnic Both . . Between . 1991 and Between 1995, egarding the Causes the Regarding (breakdown of of (breakdown (implications ------

217 Med.2010 Panorama 218 Med.2010 Panorama differences. differences. such as perceived was what by differ least, at or, ences, demographic and economic by multiplied quences. For example, the impact of conse nationalism was of series a triggering effect, domino a had sometimes causes different between interactions that and of others result the were causes some that shows importance cause’s each of assessment An 8. 7. 6. 5.

tion of “crisis drivers” hastened the final collapse. accumula- quick unusually an Indeed, emerged. re- had II War World of end the at over pered pa been had that problems underlying certain and rekindled been had schisms ethnic death, cohesion after Tito’s death). Within years of Federation Tito’s Yugoslav the of crisis The the in communism. of wake support most garner to alternative the therefore, and, ideologies competing Yugo slavia’s of strongest the was Nationalism tion. transi the on impact a decisive had and ances griev old of forms new to rise gave alternative an as identification national of emergence The new came for and economic opportunities social progress. communism of end the With ety. soci Yugoslav of aspects psychological social and on as well as economy, the on imprint causes. Nationalist itself. State tional conflict,which, in turn, led to constitu a crisis of a the triggered crisis The development. future towards eye an with independence for The more highly developed republics clamoured future. Yugoslavia’s hampered severely inces) undeveloped regions (whether republics or prov ies and the growing gap between developed and 1987. in vantage ad political for sentiments such already had manipulated Milosevic factor. new a not was this However, a Albanians. and the against backlash nationalism Serbian threat, in a rise a as cited sparking was This favour. banians’ Al the in tipped gradually had Kosovo in ance rates and the heavy bal immigration, population causes Demographic tions. ment in March 1989, well before the 1991 elec late nineteen-seventies and early nineteen-eight causes Economic parlia Serbian the by revoked unilaterally was constitution) federal the in (enshrined status . The economic crisis of the the of crisis economic The . Communism left a strong strong a left Communism . . As a of result birth higher (loss of of (loss ------Albanians the against backlash a and nationalism Serbian in rise a sparking threat, a as cited was favour. This Albanians’ the in tipped gradually had Kosovo in balance population The management. and prevention conflict andpost-war reconstruction both to regard with conflict Balkan the from draw the international community must, or, at least, should, that lessons the regarding reflection needed much for calls this above, noted As possible. as quickly to hard the of achieve signing the as peace accords Dayton pushed and Bosnia force in Serbs punishing the used against it on, point that from tory; contradic and ambivalent were September actions its to 1995, 1991 from inconsistent: glaringly was former Yugoslavia the in conflict the to proach ap community’s international the perspective, this From founded. was Nations United the since soil, community, called at international least on European and peacekeeping operations undertaken by the peacemaking so- ambitious most the of one of stock one to can begin later, take years Fifteen two dates. and 9 December in the interim 8 period between on those held was Conference Implementation Peace London the Third, December. 14 on Paris in was held ceremony signing formal a Second, vember. on 21 No signed were Herzegovina) and in Bosnia Peace for Agreement Framework (General accords at slavia the First and large. peace Dayton foremost, Yugo former the in extension, by and, Herzegovina garding the end of the war in the Republic of Bosnia- re 1995 late in taken were decisions crucial Three process are concentrated in Bosnia-Herzegovina. in concentrated are process historical peculiar this of aspects destructive most the all that coincidence no is it for show, the of act However, special mention should be made of the final definitive destruction of the Yugoslav Federation, etc. between the summer of 1991 and September 1995, Subsequent events are well known: successive wars Metaphor Peace Dayton Conclusion: osnia-Herzegovina and the and Bosnia-Herzegovina ccords as Paradigm and Paradigm as Accords

- - - - - horizon, and its name is Europe is horizon,name its and instability,one but is there crisis,of years long and war clear:is twentyoutcome after Balkans),the in the geopolitics regional for perspective valid a is this (and Overall results. the gauge to used frame time the on and pends on de which criteria are used it for the assessment words, other In are positive. and results complex the more then solution, possible same the towards progress to conflict the to parties the all pressuring steadily but slowly and adversaries separating the peace, consolidating starters, war, for the ending included, expectations where How ever, atrocious. out flat not are if results insufficient, the clearly calendar), election general the initial accepts one if less, (or year one ac within the cords with compliance full least, very the at ed, includ expectations where simply, Put pectations. ex original the on depend they extent, large a To contradictory. are results the and Dayton accords, the peace under launched process the of cons and pros the assess to come has time the short, In - - - - - Various Authors. Authors. Various M G References movement. regional the join to slow so B,” “plan has been Serbia that and it is eye-opening is simply, there no Quite of Europe. and the Council security architecture”: NATO,European the European the Union, of the OSCE “houses different the in integration and membership through and involved nal reconstruction processes in each of the countries Europe. by of means inter can be only reached horizon This is name its and horizon, one but is there instability, and war crisis, of years long twenty after clear: is outcome the Balkans), the in geopolitics regional for perspective valid a is this (and Overall S M ilber alcolm lenny azo 2001. région 1996. BBC-Penguin, London: via. guin, 1996. guin, millan, 1996. millan, & Nicolson, 2000. Nicolson, & w

Laura and er , Misha. , Noel. Bosnia, a short story . London: - Mac , Mark. Mark. . Paris: Institute for Security Studies-UE, Studies-UE, Security for Institute Paris: . The Fall of Yugoslavia. London: Pen - The Balkans The L Le sud des Balkans: vues de la la de vues Balkans: des sud Le ittle , Allan. The Death of Yugosla- . London: Weidenfeld London: . -

219 Med.2010 Panorama