The Break-up of Yugoslavia and the War in Bosnia-Hecergovina

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Yugoslavia’s break up in 1991 is a complex politics-driven phenomenon that requires an understanding of the historical events of Yugoslavia which dates back to the early 19^th century. Though the territory had inhabitants from different regions with different religious and ethnic backgrounds as early as the 15^th century, Yugoslavia did not exist until 1918 when it was formed as a Kingdom and later became a socialist federal republic under Tito’s rule after Second World War.

According to the constitution created at that time, Yugoslavia became a federation with six republics: Bosnia-Hercegovina, Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Serbia. Serbia had two provinces: Kosovo and Vojvodina. Bosnia-Hercegovina was the most ethnically diverse and the poorest of all the republics. But the big question remains, why was the break-up of Yugoslavia, a once communist state followed by a series of ethnic conflicts? That the breakup of Yugoslavia made the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia-Hercegovina inevitable is also another fact that also needs clear illustrations to justify. This essay, therefore, seeks to address these questions by first looking at the possible causes of Yugoslavia’s breakup. It also goes further to establish the relationship between Yugoslavia’s disintegration and the Bosnian war.

The events that finally led to the break up of Yugoslavia followed by the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina became more pronounced after Josip Broz Tito’s death in 1980. By 1990, Yugoslavia was faced with many problems including foreign debts, unemployment, and inflation. Of great importance are the political problems associated with nationalistic strong feelings that created the crisis in Yugoslavia. Zvonimir Baletic (1994) argues that Serbia played a major part in the break-up. “From the time it was adopted, the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution was fiercely disputed by Serbian nationalist politicians on basis of its federal element, especially the autonomy granted to Vojvodina and Kosovo.” It was these politicians who composed a memorandum in 1986 designing a framework for the formation of “Greater Serbia” clearly describing a political union plan for all the Serbs within and without Serbia borders. This was a strategy for Yugoslavia’s destruction.

The enactment of this policy was followed by the formation of populist and nationalistic movements, which comprised members from the Serbian League of Communists. The main aim of these politicians was to convert Serbia into a Unitarian state whose central authority applies to the entire region inhabited by Serbs and abolish the autonomous status of Vojvodina and Kosovo. They achieved this by enacting a new constitution in 1989. Serbians then used this constitutional enactment in their favor giving the federation a big blow. Their first attempt was to conquer Serbian minorities in Croatia, an attempt that is believed to have caused the early 1991 war (Zvonimir Baletic, 1994).

According to Burg, S. L and, Shoup, P. S (2000), the end of Cold the War in 1989 led to the disintegration of Communist federations of the Soviet Union including Yugoslavia and the other nations in Eastern Europe. The break up of these federations resulted in bloody civil wars both in the former Soviet Union and in the former Yugoslavia. The most destructive and costly in human life was the protracted civil war in the former Communist republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, constituted in 1945 as a constituent nation of Yugoslavia.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia reached its final stages when self-determination rights were accorded to all nations by the international powers leaving out Serbia which preferred to continue being in Yugoslavia. The nations that seceded from Yugoslavia were then granted independence without fulfilling the stipulated criteria for recognition in what critiques referred to as a clear violation of inviolability principles guarding international borders of independent countries. It is therefore clear that the breakup of Yugoslavia was politically driven. Having looked at the possible causes of Yugoslavia’s disintegration, the remaining parts of this essay address the relationship between this breakup and the Civil war experienced in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The 1992-1995 bloody war in Bosnia-Hercegovina was caused by many factors including the breakup of Yugoslavia. Burg, S. L, and Shoup, P. S in their book “The war in Bosnia-Hercegovina: Ethnic conflict and international intervention” also summarized them to include;” inter-ethnic antagonism history; ethnic domination pattern; the contemporary inter-ethnic competition perception as a zero compromise game; an electoral phenomenon masked with nationalism that brought to power nationalistic forces, and the existence of inadequate political arrangements for moderating their behavior; the existence of completion in claims to power over territory; a settlement pattern that could be easily overtaken by secession; and the role played by outside sponsorship for extremist politics” (Burg, S. L, and Shoup, P. S 2000). All these factors became prominent only after Yugoslavia’s disintegration leaving no doubt that the Bosnian war was to a greater extent the result of this unfortunate dissolution of this federation. To justify this, I illustrate some key issues which clearly explain how the break up of Yugoslavia impacted Bosnia-Hercegovina making the war inevitable as follows.

First was the issue of nationalism. Nationalism ideology masked with ethnicity broke out in Yugoslavia immediately after Tito died in 1981. The crisis in Yugoslavia started with the weakening of the communist system by the nationalists who instead were determined to spread their nationalist ideologies. Savich, K (2002) perceived the Bosnian conflict as a creation of three majors. Nationalist politicians capitalized on the feelings of political animosities based on ethnic and religious differences with some exaggeration when they needed to create a power base. This resulted in a crisis that was unstoppable, definitely causing the breakup of Yugoslavia. According to James Graham (2000), “Yugoslavia was for a long time an ethnic melting ground where great religions and civilizations have met.”

The death of Tito in 1980 coupled with the demise of the Cold War and the decline of pluralist ideology in most parts of Europe in the 1980s severely weakened Yugoslavia’s important unifying factors. Nationalist politicians then capitalized on this situation and divided the federation based on religion. Neven Andjelic refuted this fact when criticizing Huntington’s theory of the ‘clash of civilizations’. He argued that what most authors referred to as ethnic hatred was not widespread in Bosnian society during Tito’s reign thus does not have any basis in medieval history. According to him, there was so much co-existence and mutual understanding between the diverse ethnic groups than ethnic animosities. He however acknowledges the fact that Yugoslavia’s breakup made the Bosnian war inevitable stating that “the post-second world war Yugoslavia was Tito’s Yugoslavia, without him, Yugoslavia could not function and had no option but to be dissolved.

The dissolution of Yugoslavia was followed by the quest for territorial boundaries which was pursued under ethno-nationalist interests that became the main cause of conflict first in Croatia then Bosnia”(Neven Andjelic 2003). This ideology made the situation worse in Bosnia-Hercegovina, a tri-ethnic state. Mark Mazower (1997) views the breakup of Yugoslavia which precipitated the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia-Hercegovina as an ethnic driven process built around nationalism ideologies and the historical events that befell Serbia during the Second World War. In his view, nationalism, after Yugoslavia’s disintegration, capitalized on the existing ethnic differences to bring tensions, a situation which undoubtedly resulted in the experienced conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Bosnia-Hercegovina had the greatest religious mix mainly composed of Muslims (Bosniaks), Eastern orthodox (Bosnian Serbs) and, Roman Catholics (Bosnian Croats) forming a tri-ethnic coalition government with mutual respect. With the onset of nationalistic ideologies, the Muslim Bosnians felt a bit threatened since they had no links with Serbia. They thus encouraged the old Bosnian pluralist society for their survival in Bosnia. The feelings of ethnic differences cultivated by nationalist politicians mainly in Serbia mirrored well during independence arrangements in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Each ethnic group presented its agenda. Savich K considers the exclusive political and national agendas of the three communities-Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Croats- as the main cause of the war. “Bosnian Muslims wanted to break from Yugoslavia but maintain all the borders and political structure as existed in the federation. Bosnian Serbs on the other hand preferred to remain in the federation while Bosnian Croats wanted to first break out from Yugoslavia then create Herceg-Bosna, a mini-state that would unite with Croatia.” (Savich K, 2002). This created a conflict of interest and civil war became inevitable.

This situation was made worse by the ill-fated independence referendum of 1992 which delivered an overwhelming vote but was boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs who voted earlier in a referendum to opting that Bosnia remains part of Yugoslavia. This marked the onset of civil war as Bosnian Serbs, with the support of neighboring Serbia, responded with an armed force to petition Bosnia along religious/ethnic lines to create a “greater Serbia”. Bosnian Serbs rejected the referendum results just because they could not imagine being part of a Muslim-dominated Bosnia, a clear show of nationalism. Rusmir Mahmutcehajic viewed this conflict as a result of a broad process that included Yugoslavia’s collapse in the late 1980s. In his journal article, he argues that ^“the origins of Bosnia-Herzegovina war lie in the tri-ethnic nationalist projects, their relationship and their linkages to outside world forces.” Mahmutcehajic (1999).

Nationalism was a product of Yugoslavia’s breakup. If only communist was encouraged as opposed to nationalism, all the three ethnic groups would have lived united as they did before the break up of Yugoslavia and the civil war would have been avoided.

The second was the territorial issue. The situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina was a bit difficult following the breakup of Yugoslavia. Territorial quest was intertwined with ethnicity and external influence from the neighboring states. According to reports from Yugoslavia’s international criminal tribunal, Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro as well as Croatia were all involved in the conflict. Both the Serbian and Croatian presidents had arranged to annex Bosnia between themselves. Bosnian Serbs aided by the Serbian Yugoslav army then took advantage of the situation and pitched a power base at Sarajevo. This was then followed by the brutal and merciless campaigns of ethnic cleansing targeted at the Muslims.

Bosnian Croats also started carving out their own territory with the support of Croatia and finally the civil war became inevitable. This was definitely a result of Yugoslavia’s disintegration followed by the quest by these states to conquer greater regions. This clearly made the experienced civil war inevitable since Bosnian Muslims, the major ethnic group, would not sit back and watch their country being annexed along ethnic lines. This war was therefore a civil war between those who favored the survival of multi-ethnic society with its democratic rights and old tradition of statehood on one hand and those who were possessed with nationalism hence would no longer co-exist with other ethnic communities. Alan Fogelquist (1995) in his article, Yugoslav breakup, and Bosnia-Hercegovina War: implications for Kosovo described this war as, “ having no relationship with any perceived ideological struggle between Islamic fundamentalism and Western civilization.

Neither is it the result of any everlasting and unsolvable animosities between Catholic, Orthodox Bosnians, and Muslim, but, rather, of the political patterns and arrangements of political leaders in the adjacent aggressor states and their local allies who have deliberately manufactured and stimulated antagonism between Bosnians of different ethnic or religious origin”. It is believed that this conflict was mainly aggravated by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic’s nationalist quest to create a “greater Serbia”. This started by reclaiming the Serbs minorities in Croatia but later on spread out to Bosnia.

Fogelquest confirms this by stating that the war in Bosnia was rather a Serbian war of aggression resulting from the break up of Yugoslavia and the quest to create a “greater Serbia” comprising only one ethnic group, the Serbs. Rogel C (2004) also confirms this arguing that the post-second world war political arrangements of Yugoslavia seemed to have oppressed the Serbian nationalists. They, therefore, capitalized on post-Tito policy to create a “Greater Serbia” by reclaiming the territories held by Bosnian Serbs as well as Croatian Serbs. They managed this by spreading nationalistic ideologies to Bosnian Serbs and turning them against the other ethnic communities in Bosnia. This only revived the political animosities that Tito managed to put aside when he created a socialist Yugoslavia state. With such animosities majority of individual states pursued their independence leading to the breakup of Yugoslavia.

With the break up of Yugoslavia, Serbian nationalists then started reclaiming territories occupied by Bosnian Serbs. This resulted in a bloodshed genocide as the Bosniaks also fort to save their country. In simple terms, this conflict was about those who wanted an independent Bosnian state and those who wanted to remain part of Yugoslavia. Art J.R, and Waltz (2003) in their book “the use of force” views the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina as involving competing and conflicting claims to ethnical self-determination expressed as demands for independence on the one part of the three major national groups in the republic, as well as the conflicting territorial ambitions and competing for geostatic interests of two neighboring states engaged in an ongoing war over the definition of their respective borders.

Closely link to territorial conquest was political power motivations. This was mainly pursued by the nationalist political elites who were more interested in concentrating power within them. It was against this backdrop that most states fought for their independence leading to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. It is also believed that Serbs quest to form a “Greater Serbia” was also power-based. Eventually, this power concept spilled over to Bosnia-Hercegovina making the civil war inevitable since each individual ethnic group wanted to concentrate power within them. Steven L. Burg confirms this by stating that the Bosnian war was an ethnic conflict based on the struggle for mobilized groups for greater power-be it equality within their existing state, or the establishment of an independent state and this was a common phenomenon in the collapse of most communist societies of Europe.

Political pluralism which advocated for the existence of multi-parties spread by the nationalists during Slobodan Milošević’s reign was another key issue. Most republics in Yugoslavia held elections in 1990 and the results threatened the federation’s survival. Communist parties were defeated by nationalist parties. This ideology clearly manifested itself during Bosnia-Hercegovina’s first and only election. “Each community had their individual parties and citizens voted according to their national affiliation. This situation was however made worse when victorious nationalist parties in the neighboring states extended beyond their borders. Croatian Democratic Union led by Franjo Tudjman’s opened alliances for Bosnian Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Vojvodina. Likewise, the Bosnian Serbs and Serbs minority in Croatia developed local alliances of the Serbian Democratic Party guided from Belgrade. With these supports, nationalist parties became stronger, main issues of national development were put aside and ethnicity was advocated for more than ever. This definitely revived the long-forgotten ethnic animosities and formed a breeding ground for the civil war” (Burg, S. L, and Shoup, P. S 2000).

Conclusion

The break up of Yugoslavia in 1991 was a politically driven phenomenon marked by ethnic animosities coupled with nationalist ideologies and external forces geared towards territorial conquest and political power motivations. The replacement of Tito’s socialist ideologies with nationalist ideologies was not only dangerous to the survival of Yugoslavia as a federation but also the existence of Bosnia-Hercegovina as a tri-ethnic state. It is clear from this essay that Yugoslavia’s disintegration sealed the unfortunate fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina- one republic whose survival greatly depended upon Yugoslavia’s continued existence as a multinational communist state. Although the Bosnian war would have been a result of many playing factors, this essay has succeeded in justifying the fact that Yugoslavia’s disintegration made this war inevitable. The disintegration of Yugoslavia followed by the quest for a Greater Serbia to a greater extent played a major role in causing ethnic conflicts in some states in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Hercegovina was no exception.

Bibliography

Andjelic, N. (2003) Bosnia-Hercegovina: The end of a legacy, Routledge, New York.

Art, R. J and Waltz, K. N (2003), The use of force: Military power and international politics, 6^th ed. Rowman and Littlefield, New York.

Asch , J. Beth and Courtland, Reichmann (1994), Emigration and Its Effects on the Sending Country, Rand Corporation.

Burg, S. L and Shoup, P. S (2000), The war in Bosnia-Hercegovina: Ethnic conflict and international intervention. M.E Sharpe, New York.

Dragosavljevic, Angelija (1993), Slobodan Milosevic: A Study in Charismatic Leadership and Its Distortions 1987-1992, Australian National University Press, Canberra.

Fogelquist, F. Alan, (1995) The Yugoslav Breakup and the War in Bosnia- Hercegovina: Implications for Kosovo, Eurasia Research Centre.

Graham, James (2000), The break up violent breakup of Yugoslavia. Web.

Mahmutcehajic, Rusmir (1999), The war against Bosnia-Herzegovina, East European Quarterly, vol. 33.

Mazower, M. (1997), Ethnicity and War in the Balkans, a research paper, American National Humanities Centre.

Rogel, Carole (2004), The breakup of Yugoslavia and its aftermath. New left review vol. 9.

Savich, K (2002), The origins and causes of Bosnia civil war 1992-1995: The Case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, ERIC Digest.

Zvonimir, Baletic et al (1994), Croatia between Aggression and peace. AGM,Zagreb. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Break-up of Yugoslavia and the War in Bosnia-Hecergovina

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)