Conflicts in Balkans | The Case of Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia | |

|

|

WARSAW 2012
Introduction
Balkan Peninsula is a problematic region in the continental Europe. People of Balkan region testified wars and misery for long years. The war is over in Balkans, Balkan countries try to ensure compliance with Western European countries now. Balkan countries had lots of internal and external problems due to their ethnic and religious diversity. Separation, merger and genocide materialized in this land. Balkans experienced all that three results of war. In this essay, it is tried to examine conflict between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia.

Conflict in Balkans To understand historical background of the conflict which resulted in war in 1990’s, we need to read about Yugoslavia.(see: Gagnon, The Myth of Ethnic War, Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s, 2004)
Gagnon says that the conflict is not caused by only ethnic differences. He claims that political differences caused the conflict and the conflict emerged in the form of ethnic war.
“…Conservatives wanted to hew to an authoritarian, orthodox, Marxist-Leninist line, keep a strong party-hand on the economy, minimize reliance on market forces and material incentives and maintain a centralized political system Reformers, however, wanted to democratize the party at the micro level, to rely more on market forces, in order to rationalize the economy and to loosen party control and decentralize the country; in sort they sought to move away Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy and to construct a democratic socialism and a more efficient economic system.”(Gagnon, 2004) Gagnon tries to explain the reason of conflict by political reasons.
Bourg and Shoup’s explanation for the background of conflict includes a few more factors. “Several factors seem to contribute to the emergence of ethnic conflict. These include a history of intergroup antagonism; a pattern of ethnic domination and/or inequality; the perception of contemporary intergroup competition as a zero-sum game; an electoral triumph or other changes that brings nationalist forces to power, and the inadequacy of existing political arrangements for

Gagnon, Valere Philip, The Myth of Ethnic War; Serbia and Croatia in 1990s, 2004, p.52,Cornell University Press, USA

moderating or constraining their behaviors; the existing of competing, exclusivist claims to authority over territory; a pattern of settlement that lends itself only too easily to secession or partition… The struggle over rights and the struggle over the national question were thus intertwined, in Bosnia as elsewhere through Eastern Europe. But they were of fateful significance for Bosnia: a multi ethnic (or multinational) state in which no group could claim titular status on the basis of numbers alone, and all three major groups thus vied for the status of a state-constituting nation. Because Bosnia was surrounded by the more powerful national states of two groups contesting these issues –The Croats and the Serbs- the contests over rights and the national question inside Bosnia could not be resolved without the participation of Croatia and Serbia. With the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the emergence of nationalists states in Croatia and Serbia, the struggles in Bosnia-Herzegovina took on international dimensions, and raised a third contentious issue; how to international community should respond to the collapse of a multinational state and the onset of conflict among its peoples. Each of these three contested issues was viewed differently by the parties to the conflict. Each raised fundamental issues for the international community as it attempted to mediate the conflict. The contest in Bosnia over individual versus collective rights and over the competing claims of the Muslims, Serbs and Croats as state-constituting nations were manifest first in a political struggle over the definition of decisionmaking principles and institutions.” (Burg& Shoup, 1999) As Burg& Shoup mentioned ethnic conflicts emerged after dissolution of Yugoslavia. Some Croats and Serbs stayed in Bosnia-Herzegovina territory and also religious differences took part in the case. When battle started, comments about players started to be shown on Western Media. “Between 1991 and 1995 the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were characterized in Western media, and much of the scholarly work on the conflict, as the result of ethnic hatreds whose source identified particularly with the Serbs. The focus has been on Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, seen as mobilizing Serbs into violent conflict against non-Serbs by appealing to their hatreds and resentments. Much of this coverage has also focused on historical symbols and events that tap into deep-rooted aspects of Serb identity. According to this story, the resulting mobilization allowed Milosevic stay in power at a time when communist parties in the rest of Eastern Europe were being replaced.”(Gagnon, 2004)
Burg, Steven L, and Shoup, Paul S., The War in Bosnia –Herzegovina: Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention, 2004 p.4,6, New York
Gagnon, Valere Philip, The Myth of Ethnic War; Serbia and Croatia in 1990s, 2004, p.87,USA

Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic played important role in the events in Balkans. NATO as an international actor is engaged the events after the war in Bosnia. They try to stabilize area with their efforts.

“NATO conducted its first-ever crisis response operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) was deployed in December 1995 to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement and was replaced a year later by the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). SFOR helped to maintain a secure environment and facilitate the country’s reconstruction in the wake of the 1992-1995 war.
In the light of the improved security situation in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region, the Alliance brought SFOR to a conclusion in December 2004 and the European Union (EU) took on NATO’s stabilization role.
NATO provides planning, logistic and command support for the EU-led Operation Althea, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements agreed between the two organizations.
NATO is also maintaining a military headquarters in Sarajevo. It carries out a number of specific tasks related, in particular, to assisting the government in reforming its defence structures, working on counter-terrorism and apprehending war-crime suspects. Bosnia and Herzegovina became a NATO Partner country in December 2006 and is focusing on introducing democratic, institutional and defence reforms, as well as developing practical cooperation in other areas.”*
Conclusion
In this essay, I tried to show historical background, reasons and some important players in this Balkan conflict. This case is not the only problematic case of Balkans. Problem has been solved between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. But all the ethnic problems has not been solved yet. Kosovo declared its independence in 2008. The region is dealing with new problems.

*available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52122.htm