Yugoslavia is an interesting case because other states that had been socialist experienced a

Authors Avatar

Mark Harratt

“Discuss the view that the Balkan conflicts of the 1990’s derived from the ‘primordial hatreds’ of the different nationalities.”

The key terms of the question are the terms ‘primordial hatreds’ of the nationalities involved and also the time period that is set, the 1990s. The term primordial is an adjective defined as “existing at or from the beginning.” To address the question I will discuss the way in which the violent disintegration of the former Yugoslavia was due to this, and also to the extent that it was caused by other factors for example the economic collapse as each factor can only present part of the whole story with the latest conflict being an instalment in the saga.

Throughout history the Balkans has been a hotbed for conflict, from the two Balkan wars to one of the factors causing the Great War. However the disintegration was a war of recognised nations, involving ethnic Croats; they were in the main protesting the nationalistic policies of President Trudjman. Ethnic Serbs were opposing Slobodan Milosevic. The case of Bosnia is slightly more complex with both ethnic Serbs and ethnic Croats identifying themselves as Bosnians as opposed to those who saw themselves as Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats. These nations were members of Yugoslavia, later to become the independent states of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia. The participants were all members of the Yugoslav state and gained recognition as states later, after it’s collapse. It is often described as a “clash of civilisations – between civilised and barbarian, Western and Balkan.”

There are many theories as to the causes of war; International Relations theory claims multiple sources of conflict, as well as three casual factors. It is argued that the global system and the problems at the structural level have an impact. At the point of disintegration the global power configuration had a massive effect, with the Cold War helping to preserve Yugoslavia as a united state. It is seen that the USSR was “negative glue” and the Western ideas and policies of the USA was argued to be a “positive glue”. This is because the USSR was seen as a threat so therefore it was in everybody’s best interests to be part of a united Yugoslavia under one banner. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the security threat that it posed had diminished, undermining Yugoslavia’s one-party rule because economic reform was needed to adapt to the changing climate.

Join now!

Another theory is that of the state and societal level. Yugoslavia is an interesting case because other states that had been socialist experienced a “refolutiuon”, why did Yugoslavia have a revolution? To answer this question one has to look at the state and social level of the former Yugoslavia.

It had an authoritarian government from 1945 led by Tito. From this Tito created a new constitution, which was legitimised by the Wilsonian principles of self-help, determination and independence. It was a constitution that was independently socialist, and accommodating which helped to stabilise Yugoslavia. However, it had a Serb ...

This is a preview of the whole essay