The Historical Background:
The collapse of Yugoslavia into smaller states is a significant event following the collapse of the Soviet Union. To understand the complexities involved in this outcome, we have to grasp the history of the region going back a millennium. The middle centuries of first millennia AD was a period of continuous change in Europe. There were widespread animosities between various tribes in their quest for geographic locations rich in natural resources. At this period of time, around 6th and 7th century AD, no one tribe could claim nativity over a piece of land as there were constant displacement from and conquering of new lands. It was then that “the Slavonic tribes, mixed with the Avars, made their appearance in the Balkans, which was sparsely inhabited by many different tribes of the Illyrians, the Dardanians, the Thracians and probably others whose names have fallen into oblivion” (Almond, 1998). The present day hostility between Albanians and Serbians could be traced back to this period. Contemporary Albanians, who descended from the aforementioned tribal groups, were defeated in warfare by migrating Slavonic tribes. While some of the conquered were assimilated into Slavonic tribes, the rest took refuge in inaccessible geographic locations like mountain tops. The victorious Slavs on the other hand took control of the most fertile and irrigable lands in the region. Hence, the geography of the Balkans is an important aspect of ethnic rivalries there.
“There is little doubt that the process of appropriating the possessions of the pre-existing population created a deeply felt resentment between those who lost their homes and their land and those who profited from the conquest. This hatred was transmitted from father to son over many generations and it became a constant factor in the relationship between the Serbs and the Albanians. Inherent to this feeling remained a strong desire to retake the lost areas if an opportunity appeared”. (Velebit, 1999)
The other important historical development occurred during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when Serbian leader Nemanyitch made Kosovo his capital. This meant that Serbs who made Kosovo their home were forced out of this rich and fertile piece of geography. Serbian peasants suffered the most in the process. But the balance of power continued to change through the following centuries, with no particular ethnic group able to maintain dominance over other groups and geographic locations for long. Toward the end of the fourteenth century, some of the dominant groups staking claim for Kosovo were the Brankovitch, the Balstich, the Altomanovitch and the Hrebeljanovitch (Miller, 2001).
The battle for ascendancy assumed a different complexion with the arrival of Ottoman Turks toward the end of the century. Unlike other contenders, the Ottoman Turks were more powerful, militarily better organized and renowned for shrewd tactics. Serbian attempts to push back Turkish troops were unsuccessful. The Ottoman inroad into the heart of Europe was finally accomplished at a great battle near river Maritsa in Macedonia. This is a turning point in the history of the Balkans. The subsequent Ottoman rule was marked by religious tension between the Mohammedan rulers and their Christian subjects.
“This is particularly true in the first two hundred years of Turkish rule over southeastern Europe, when the natural economy prevailed and the central power of the sultans was still respected. After the gradual introduction of the money economy and the appearance of greedy and rapacious local pashas, the fate of the Christians deteriorated considerably and became almost unbearable. It led to religious conversions and numerous uprisings, which in the 17th and 18th centuries became a regular feature in the Ottoman Empire”. (Almond, 1998)
From this boiling pot of different ethnicities, religions and languages, the state of Yugoslavia were to emerge. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the concept of Yugoslavia emerged. The word Yugoslavia, when literally translated, means “land of the South Slavs”. By early twentieth century, the word Yugoslavia became a rallying cry uniting all southern Slavs. Then the events of the two world wars, which had such a profound effect on the rest of the world, will determine the course of Balkan history for the rest of the twentieth century. At the Treaty of Versailles, the international community agreed to grant the Southern Slavs their united homeland and formed the nation of Yugoslavia in 1918. But, due to deep rooted linguistic and cultural differences between the various strands of southern Slavs, there would be continued political tension in the new nation. But this construed unity would be severely tested during the Second World War, when many minorities in the Balkans suffered under Nazi command. But in 1945 the concept of Yugoslav nationhood was reinvented and propagated by the dictator Tito. Tito, who started his political career as a communist in 1917, secured power in the fashion established in Serbia in the 19th century, by waging guerilla warfare against the Germans. Emerging victorious from World War II, Tito proclaimed the brotherhood and unity of the South Slavs. But true to a dictatorship, the post Second World War period saw Yugoslavian economy and culture attain stagnation due to the Cold War drama unfolding throughout Europe. That brings us to the last episode in the region’s history, which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union (Miller, 2001).
Independence to Kosovo: A Just Result
Given this historical background, the subsequent breaking up of Yugoslavia into smaller states is in the interest of its inhabitants as well as the mediating international community. We have to understand that autonomy to smaller geo-political entities divided on lines of ethnicity is the only viable solution for a region in perpetual turmoil for most of its modern history. The most recent episode in this political rearrangement is the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. This result is a welcome relief for all peace loving nations, including the United States. The Balkans, which had earlier been a theatre for Cold War animosities between the United States and the USSR, has finally seen peace and harmony, thanks mainly to the persistent and brave efforts of the United States government as well as the NATO. The numerous ethnic groups that inhabit this resourceful landscape, including the Slavs, Croats, Serbs, Albanians, Bosnians, Slovenes, etc, can finally look forward to a period of peace and prosperity, thanks to the justified intervention by the NATO. The independence to Kosovo, which was achieved recently, is in the long term interests of both Kosovo as well as Serbia. A noteworthy aspect of the Kosovo conflict is the demonstration of what genuine peace loving nations such as United States can do. Under leadership from Washington D.C. 19 countries joined hands and stood shoulder to shoulder through tough and trying moments in recent world history. And the result is for all to see: “an end to the killing and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The ethnic Albanians of Kosovo, the underdog heroes of this saga, are streaming home to a safe and secure environment” (Beeman, 1999).
Benefits for the United States and the rest of the World:
Credit has to be given to the United States for bringing Slobodan Milosevic to trial in the international court in Hague. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Milosevic rose to power in the erstwhile Yugoslavia. Following on the legacy of Dictator Tito, he carried out many despicable atrocities against his own countrymen. The situation called for military and judicial intervention, both of which were provided by the American leadership. For example,
“The history of the conflict over Kosovo is well known. For eleven weeks, NATO war planes continually degraded Serbia’s ability to wage war and conduct ethnic cleansing. In the last weeks of the war, a resurgent Kosovo Liberation Army (now flush with angry recruits from refugee camps) waged limited but important ground offensives in south-west Kosovo which finally forced Yugoslav troops from their protective warrens. Fully exposed to NATO air power, Serbian amour and troops suffered heavy losses. With Yugoslav army morale in tatters, NATO unified, and the KLA’s strength growing daily, Milosevic finally realized his situation was untenable”. (Beeman, 1999)
The role of the United States and NATO in this sustained effort to preserve basic human rights of the people of the Balkans cannot be overstated. It is also an accomplishment that NATO achieved its goals with no allied casualties and minimal civilian casualties. This is “an astounding feat, a testament to the use of high-tech warfare, and a warning to those considering a future course of action similar to Milosevic’s” (The Washington Times, 1998). As the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair noted, “NATO’s success in Kosovo will be the biggest deterrent to tyrants the world over and the biggest rallying cry for democracy” (The Washington Times, 1998). It is also a favorable result for American interests, as American leaders can focus their efforts on bringing peace and prosperity to the rest of the world. The result is a setback for Russian designs for the region. After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Russia had pursued a policy of dominating “near abroad” nations. While the Balkans falls in this zone, the assertive intervention by NATO had reinforced the standing of the United States as the only superpower in the world, thus weakening Russian influence in the region. In the end, Russia paid for its opportunistic diplomatic maneuvers.
Works Cited:
Almond, Mark. “Balkanized: The Wonder Is Not That Serbia Attacked Kosovo, but That It Waited So Long.” National Review 20 Apr. 1998: 32+.
“The Ancient History of Kosovo Is Irrelevant to Today’s Crisis.” The Washington Times 30 Aug. 1998: 2..
Beeman, Josiah., “THE UNITED STATES, NATO and KOSOVO.” New Zealand International Review 24.5 (1999): 6.
Doder, Dusko. “Yugoslavia: New War, Old Hatreds.” Foreign Policy Summer 1993: 3+.
Miller, Nick. “Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise.” The Historian 63.4 (2001): 875..
Velebit, Vladimir. “Kosovo: A Case of Ethnic Change of Population.” East European Quarterly 33.2 (1999): 177..