Understanding The Causes Of Ethnic Violence in Yugoslavia - Term Paper Example

 Understanding The Causes Of Ethnic Violence in Yugoslavia I. Introduction Ethnic violence is one of the most divisive and deeply rooted events in the history of humankind. Throughout time, violence of ethnic origins has erupted all over the world which caused the loss of many live and damage to properties. Many scholars have studied and attempted to explain the nature and causes of ethnic violence. However, this phenomenon remained to be one of the most misunderstood events in the lives of many. To help us understand the causes of ethnic violence, let us take a look at the case of ethnic violence in Yugoslavia. The unrest in Yugoslavia can be traced back far into the history of the nation. However, the turning point of the unrest in this area was probably the ratification of the new constitution in 1974 which gave more autonomy to the individual republics that are part of the Yugoslavian jurisdiction (Devic, Ann (1998). According the new constitution, the republics have the option to declare its independence from the federation. Although this provision of the constitution is well-meaning and very democratic, this paved the way for people in the different republics in the Yugoslavian territory to seek independence and become a full-fledged nation on its own. The seed of nationalism is said to be planted by this provision of the constitution and spur the people from the republics to dream of becoming independent. The need to be independent by the republics became more apparent when the Yugoslavian President Josip Borz Tito died in the 1980s (Cairns E. and Roe M. (2003). The tension between the republics became more intense that June of 1991, Slovenia and Croatia decided that they want to become independent and severe their ties with the other federal republics (Cairns E. and Roe M. (2003). Later, in September of the same year, the republic of Macedonia made its intention to become independent while Bosnia and Herzegovina followed in March of 1992(Cairns E. and Roe M. (2003). Unfortunately, Serbia and Montenegro did not approve of the move of Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina to leave the federation. They however supported the idea of Slovenia leaving the federation. The assumption of Slobodan Milosevic in 1989 as president of Serbia, the largest and the most heavily populated republic in Yugoslav region brought the tension in the area to a higher level. In December 23, 1990, 88% of the voting populace in Serbia voted for independence (Spencer, Metta (1998). President Slobodan Milosevic also started his plan to unite the regions of Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia into a great Serbian republic Oberschall, Anthony (2000). Unfortunately, the move of President Milosevic did not please Croatia thus the conflict between the Serbs and the Croats begun. The ethnic Serbs living in Croatia sow terror in the streets which prompted the Croats to try to strike a deal with Serbia to divide or trade some of the territories of Croatia to try to abate the worsening situation of violence in the area (Oberschall, Anthony (2000). On the other hand, the federal government based in Belgrade was not also happy with the move of Slovenia to breakaway from the Yugoslav federal government and made moves to stop Serbia from becoming independent. In preparation for the suppression of the move of Serbia to break-away from the Yugoslav federal government, the Yugoslav People’s Army made a new defense doctrine that would centralize the army of the federation. Serbia resisted the idea of a centralized army and fought to keep control over military equipments within its territories. The conflict between the federal army and Serbia led to the 10 day war in June 1991(Oberschall, Anthony (2000). II. Ethnic Violence According to Oberschall, Anthony (2000), four views can be taken in the Yugoslav conflict. These views are the premordialist view, the instrumentalists views, the constructive views and the view that centers on the breakdown of security dilemma. Although there are many political scientists that express their skepticism about the premordialists point of view stating that ethnic wars is more of a political and economic event, there is a clear showing that the primordial point of view do have a lot of bearing in understanding ethnic violence, especially in the case of Yugoslavia. According to Steven Grosby (1994), the arguments of the premordialists are that ethnic groups and nationalities adhere to the traditional beliefs and actions towards certain primordial factors. These primordial factors that control the actions of the person may include biological feathers and territorial situations. In other words, the feeling of kinship of the premordialists with his or her given group gives rise to that feeling of kinship (Grosby 1994). Horowitz (1985) is of the opinion that this sense of kinship is responsible for that feeling of recognition among members of certain ethnic groups towards each other as members of a family. The idea of kinship in the case of Yugoslavia can be clearly seen in the way Slovenia and Croatia fought each other to gain control of certain territories. The ethnic cleansing that happened during the 1990s in many territories in Yugoslavia clearly shows how the people in this area wanted to get rid of those whom they do not consider as part of their family. Somehow, the idea here is that homogeneity of the race should be achieved to unify the people. Unfortunately, the fact that Yugoslavia is a multi-racial nation made it impossible to separate the people by race, color and religion without causing massive backlash. The overpowering emotional and non-logical energy that goes with the idea of kinship and belongingness to a family triggered a fierce competition for political power in many parts of Yugoslavia during the break-up (Oberschall, Anthony (2000). The uncertainties of territories and the fact that people who have minority status are uncertain as to what will be their status after the break-up made the tension even greater. As aggression and reprisal in the streets heighten, we can see a clear manifestation of how latent nationalism and ethnic fear can spark violence (Oberschall, Anthony (2000). However, the loophole in the premoridialists point of view is that it failed to consider the fact that there is a chance for people of different race and religion to co-exist together if given the right form of state (Oberschall, Anthony (2000). Still, if we take this point of view in the case of Yugoslavia, we can say that the ethnic violence in Yugoslavia can be traced back to two major causes, namely national self-determination and religion. On the second point of view which is the Intrumentalists view, Oberschall, Anthony (2000) pointed out that the cause of the conflict can be traced back to the way politicians manipulated the loyalties and sentiments of the people to attain their goals. The idea here is that political leaders used the emotions of the people to mobilize them in the effort to compete for power and resources. Anthony Smith (2001) believes that the common sentiments of the people can be more effective than any social class in fighting for certain battles that are close to their hearts. Ethnicity, race and religion therefore can be seen as instruments for some particular ends (Cornell et al 1998). A clear manifestation of the this situation can be seen in the way President Slobodan Milosevic spurred the people of Serbia to rally against Croatia and purge out the Croats from the territories of Serbia and vice versa. For the Serbs, Greater Serbia needs ethnic cleansing of the people who are non-Serbs. According to Oberschall, Anthony (2000), the ethnic cleansing could be a result of the deeply-rooted longing of the Serbs to establish a nation that has deep cultural roots. The idea of establishing deep cultural roots can be traced to the memory of the people about themselves (Cairns E. and Roe M. (2003). Technically, memory here plays a big role. Scholars have noted that the link between memory and identity can be very strong indeed that it can shape their perceptions of the present and future. Members of ethnic communities tend to share the same views about their past that it becomes easier for them to think as one and act as one (Cairns E. and Roe M. (2003). On the other hand, people belonging to different ethnic groups may have different point of view when it comes to interpreting history. Given this difference in the way of thinking, there is bound to be conflict between groups of people who are thrown into a certain situation such as the break-up of the republics belonging to the Yugoslav federation. These situations led some political scientists to believe that certain groups of people are bound to clash and that it is only a matter of manipulating that difference for ethnic violence to erupt. In the case of Yugoslavia, the crisis framework started with the Balkan wars, the first and second world war. Note that during these wars, civilians and combatants were treated alike (Manzower, Mark (__). Although President Tito tried to erase the memory of violence in the face of war in the minds of people, the very idea of violence remained in the minds of many people especially the older generations. In other words, it was not really the likes of President Milosevic that created the crisis mind frame of the people in Yugoslav republics but rather he merely activated the dormant feelings of hatred in the minds and hearts of people ( ). By dangling the idea that a Greater Serbia can be established where the people are homogenous in race and in beliefs, President Milosevic awakened the longings of the people for independence and self-determination. For the Serbs and the Croats who have suffered much from the atrocities of World War II, the promise of orderly and progressive existence through a homogenous constituency was enough to trigger a fanatic rampage of ethnic cleansing (Denich, Bette (1994). The third point of view that we can take in the case of Yugoslavia is the constructive view. Under this view, we take a look at Yugoslavia in terms of constructed ethnic groups and the concept of imagined community (Monica Duffy Toft (2003). In actuality, the constructive point of view supports the theories of instrumentality and premordialism which we already discussed above. Under the constructive point of view, religion or ethnicity are taken into everyday context where people of diverse origins and beliefs can co-exist with each other, however, there are certain situations that simply calls for drawing the line and identifying roles in a given a situation. Taken into the context of the Yugoslavia setting, the challenging political setting in the country created a sense of uncertainty among different ethnic groups. The change in the political situation calls for the drawing of territorial boundaries in most parts of Yugoslavia. In other words, people have to define who they are and which republic they belong to so that they could become part of certain groups. In the process of identifying roles and territories, conflict erupted. Note that along the line of delineating boundaries we also touch on the idea of dividing resources. Bigger territories usually connote bigger resources thus it is normal for people to fight for a bigger chunk. Since in the past, Yugoslavia functioned as one nation and the different republics, although running their show independently, still gets a share of the pooled resources from the central government, the idea of delineating territories and resources can be quite unsettling to say the least. Thus, fueled by the idea of identifying what belongs to whom, Yugoslavia sends itself into a spiral of violence that lasted for several years. People begin to ask themselves if their neighbor would protect them or attack them if they stray into their territories. The fourth point of view of identifying the causes of the ethnic violence in Yugoslavia is the breakdown of security and anarchy. Since there is political uncertainty in the area, ethnic groups proceeded to arm themselves in anticipation of attacks on their persons and properties (Denich, Bette (1994). Even religious groups who usually promote peace and unity felt threatened by the political uncertainty that they too become involved in the conflict (Mart Bax (2000). Although these religious groups did not directly advocate violence and ethnic cleansing, these groups provided an avenue for unity of belief and bonding (Mart Bax (2000). In other words, these religious groups become the breeding ground for fanatics who want to protect what he or she believed to be right at any cost. Coupled with ethnic zeal, the passion borne out of a religious belief became a tremendous force that sends people into the streets to purge out anything and anyone whom they think poses a threat to their way of life. III. Conclusion The causes of ethnic violence in Yugoslavia can be traced to multiple causes. Saying that the ethnic violence was caused by political unrest is too simplistic a view to take. If we take a look at the case of Yugoslavia from the four points of view of ethnic violence, we can see that political situation is but one of the reasons for the violence. Yes, the changes in the political environment caused by the break-up of the federation have triggered the whole thing but what really sustained the acts of ethnic violence in the area is a combination of many factors namely religion, the deeply rooted memory and longings of the people, religion and the sense of kinship, nationalism, security of life and limbs and the need people’s need to define who they are. Furthermore, the political ambitions and manipulation of political leaders who knew the deep longings of their people contributed much to the violence in the area. In other words, the drivers of ethnic violence reach deep down into the political, economic and social structures of a given community. Bibliography 1. Anthony Smith (2001) Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 54-55 2. Banac, Ivo (___) The National Question in Yugoslavia. Cornell University Press 3. Cairns E. and Roe M. (2003) The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict. Palgrave McMillan 4. Denich, Bette (1994) Dismembering Yugoslavia: Nationalist Ideologies and the Symbolic revival of genocide. American Ethnologist V21 May 1994 p. 367-390 5. Devic, Ann (1998) Ethonationalism, Politics and the Intellectuals: The case of Yoguslavia International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. II, No.3, 6. Donald Horowitz (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 57 7. Hayden, Robert (1996) Imagined Communities and Real Victims: Self-determination and Ethnic Cleansing in Yugoslavia. American Ethnologist V23 N4 1996 p. 783-801 8. Hutchinson J. and Smith A. (1996) Ethnicity. Oxford University Press 9. Manzower, Mark (__) The Balkans. Weidenfield & Nicolson 10. Mart Bax (2000) Warlords, priest and the politics of ethnic cleansing: a case-study from rural Bosnia Hercegovina. Ethics and Racial studies 11. Monica Duffy Toft (2003) The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 12. Montserrat Guiberrau & John Rex (1997) Nationalism, Multiculturalism & Migration 13. Oberschall, Anthony (2000) Manipulation of Ethnicity: From Ethnic Cooperation Violence and War in Yoguslavia. Ethnic and racial studies V 23 N 6 Nov. 2000 p. 982-1001 14. Schopflin, George (_____) Nations Identity Power. New York University Press 15. Spencer, Metta (1998) Breakup of Yugoslavia in “Separatism, democracy and disintegration” Rowman & Littlefield p. 161 – 183 16. Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann (1998) Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World, Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge, p.59 17. Steven Grosby (1994) ‘The verdict of history: The inexpungeable tie of primordiality – A response to Eller and Coughlan’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 17(1), pp. 164-171, p. 168 Read More