INTRODUCTION
What
is the connection between the “powder- keg of Europe” and the reality? What is
it like to live there? Are the peoples there happy? Do they enjoy war? What can they do to improve their life and
country?
It
is true, that even one of the most beautiful, and the most historic parts, and for sure the
fountain of modern Western culture part of Europe, the Southeastern Europe -
known as Balkans for simplifying reasons-, is considered as a differed piece of
another world. And it is. It’s the only
part of Europe that suffered the Ottoman Turk’s yoke for four hundred years
more or less. It’s the only place where the spiritual development went through
centuries of uncivilized reaction, in the time that action was needed. It’s the
most unhappy fact in the region, that when in the rest of Europe the
Renaissance was occurring, Southeastern Europe was coming under the Ottoman yoke. Unfortunately for the
whole humanity, Western Europeans got the message when Mehmet II, was in front
of the gates of Vienna and not some time earlier, when he was in front of the
gates of Constantinople.
My
main concern will be not to formulate the Balkan problems theoretically, but to
exhibit them in their historical development, so they will be obviously understandable.
The
main reason this part of the world looks different, is the different religion.
It’s really Catholicism, against Orthodoxy that distinguishes Southeastern
Europeans (called “Balkanians”) from Europeans.
In
this paper, I’ll try to describe the Southeastern Europe’s geography.
I’ll refer to the history, from the
very beginning to our days. I will try to make an assessment of the geopolitical, economic and social
significance of the region. I will look in the international environment, and the international law that rules it. I will refer to the relationships and the disputes off the region’s states. I’ll
try to see what’s the potential and the dynamics
of the region and the populace. Coming at least in conclusions, I’ll try to
recommend what I see as solution to disputes, to rationale my belief that the
peoples there are ordinary people, that their lives cost the same as everywhere
in this planet, that if someone wants to help them to bypass their current
(mainly economic) problems, it is much better to inform and to educate them, to
arm their brains and feelings, than to arm their hands and armies,
and finally to describe what I think is the
future of this region.
 |
| Map of Europe |
Southeastern Europe,
is limited from the Alps to the northwest, the Carpathian Mts. to the
northeast, Black Sea, Marmara Sea and Aegean Sea to the east, Mediterranean to
the south, and Ionian and Adriatic Seas to the west. The independent states included,
are: Hungary, Romania, Slovenia,
Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) -that is
Serbia and Montenegro-, Albania, Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Bulgaria, Cyprus (indeed part of
Hellenism) and Hellas (Greece),as
shown on the map below. We need to say, that Turkey has retained as Ottoman
heritage, a part of Europe, according to the super-powers’ will, to control the
Straits of Bosporus, the Marmara Sea, and the Straits of Hellespont. Even if
part of Turkey belongs geographically to Europe, Turkey should not referred as
a European country, because it’s not mainly in Europe (Turkish Thrace consists
3% of Turkish territory), and the Turkish culture, people and life is
absolutely “Asian” and not at all
“European”.
 |
| South - Eastern Countries |
From these eleven states, one is NATO and EU member, one has applied for EU membership, nine used to be communist-ruled some years ago and five of them, used to consist the (made by Tito) Yugoslavia (“Land of the South Slavs”).
The
predominant nationalities living in
these countries, are: Slavic in Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia,
and Montenegro. Slavoturranic in Bulgaria and FYROM. Romanian in Romania.
Magyar in Hungary. Hellenic in Hellas and Cyprus.
The
predominant religions in these
countries, are: Roman-Catholic in Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary. Islamic in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania. In the rest
countries (Romania, Bulgaria, FYROM, Serbia-Montenegro, Hellas and
Cyprus), the main religion is the Eastern Orthodox, even under a different name
in each country.
The languages mostly spoken are:
Servocroatic, Hellenic, Bulgarian, Romanian, Magyar and Albanian.
The
geography of the whole region is characterized by the high occupation of
mountainous areas. These mountains, are mostly part and
extension of the main body of the Alps (the predominant European mountain
volume). In the northern Slovenia, the Julian Alps. In Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, the Dinaric
Alps. In Albania, the North Albanian Alps. In Hellas, Pindus Mt. to the
west, Olympus Mt. to the east, and Rhodope Mt. to the east. In Hungary and
Romania, the Transylvanian Mts. In Romania, the Carpathian Mts. In Bulgaria,
the Balkan Mts., and Rhodope Mt.
These
mountains, shape the drainage system
of the region, that consists mainly of
the rivers Danube, Morava, Mures, Drava, Tisza, Sava, Prut, Evros
(Maritsa), Axios, Strymon, Aheloos, and Aliakmon. The main lakes existed, are
Scutari, Ohrid, Doiran, and Prespes.
The
seas in contact with the
southeastern Europe’s countries, are: Ionian Sea, where the Otrado Straits are
shaped between Italy and Hellas. Adriatic Sea, where the Kerkyra (Corfu)
Straits are shaped, between Italy and Hellas. Libyan Sea, between Crete Island
(Hellas) and Libya. The Southeastern Mediterranean Basin, shaped between
Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt, where Cyprus is located. Aegean Sea,
between Hellas and Turkey. Aegean Sea, connects the vast majority of the
Hellenic islands, that shape successive lines of defense against northward,
southward, eastward, or westward axes of
approach. Marmara Sea, where Hellespont to the south and Bosporus Straits to
the north are shaped, under Turkish domination.
 |
| Herodotus |
The
history of the region, is mostly the history of Hellas, and it is mainly connected
to the Aegean Sea, this vital -for Hellenism- sea, since whenever Hellenism lost control of this area, it also lost it’s own
independence.
Aegean Civilization,
is a term used to denote the Bronze Age civilization that developed (circa
3000-1200 BC) in the basin of the Aegean Sea, mainly on Crete, the Cyclades
Islands, and the mainland of Greece. It had two major cultures: the Minoan,
which flourished in Crete and reached its height in the Middle Bronze period,
and the Mycenaean, which developed in the Late Bronze period on the mainland.
According to Greek mythology, there once was a time when
great events had occurred and the gods had involved themselves in human
affairs. The story of King Minos and Theseus, may be the mythic rendering of
the battle for hegemony in the Aegean in which Mycenae took over Knossos.
Homer's epic the Iliad describes
events of the Trojan War, which is believed to have brought about the fall of
Troy at the hands of the Achaeans. The poet also mentions well-known places
believed to be the centers of the Mycenaean period, such as “golden Mycenae,”
Pylos, Thessaly, and many other places.
 |
| The Byzantine Empire |
About 2200-1800 BC another wave of newcomers arrived in the
Cyclades and on the mainland. They caused considerable destruction, and for
about two centuries civilization was disrupted, especially on the mainland. The
invaders were of the Indo-European language family, to which Greek belong. The
destruction of the Cretan palaces, was followed by the decline of the Minoans
and the subsequent rise of the Mycenaeans. Shortly after 1200 BC the Aegean
civilization collapsed, most likely due to the invasion of the Dorians, one of the three principal peoples of
ancient Greece. Dorians invaded and occupied Aegean islands, and Pelopónnisos.
From there, they colonized the southwestern corner of Asia Minor and the
neighboring islands and planted settlements in Sicily and southern Italy.
All the Hellens (Greeks), independently but simultaneously
and always having in mind their common origin and nationality, developed the
very well known political system of city-state and later they established democracy. Famous city-states were Athens,
Sparta, Thoebai, and many others, and their colonies as well, all over the
Mediterranean coast.
A short history of democracy, is mirrored in the history of Athens, whose Acropolis has been
inhabited since Neolithic times. When the monarchy
was replaced by an aristocracy of
nobles, the common people had few rights. The city was controlled by the Areios
Pagos (Council of Elders), who appointed the archons. Discontent with this system led to a tyranny (dictatorship). When Solon was elected as archon in 594 BC,
established a council, a popular assembly and law courts. In 560 BC the tyrant
Pisistratus, supported by the aristocracy, gained control of Athens. In 509 BC
Cleisthenes led a democratic revolution, reorganizing the city's tribal
structure so that the base of his support was in the more democratic urban
center and in Piraeus. The powerful popular
assembly met on the Pnyx hill below the Acropolis. In 480 BC Athens was
sacked and nearly destroyed by the Persians. The Athenian leader Themistocles,
having defeated the Persian invaders at Salamis, along with the rest of Greeks, began the
restoration of the city, building walls around both Athens and Piraeus and also
connecting Athens with the port. His work was continued by Pericles in the 450s
BC. Pericles, more than any other democratic leader, made Athens a great city.
Public funds were used to build the Parthenon, and other great monuments. As
head of the Delian League of Greek city-states (first attempt to unite the
Greek city-states), Athens was now an imperial power; its courts tried cases
from all over the Aegean. The city, with its democratic constitution and brilliant
way of life, became the “school of Hellas.”
At the same time, Illyrians, Paeonians and Thracians had
settled the region south of Danube, and north of Greece, as Phrygians, Mysians,
Lydians and Kares did in Asia Minor.
 |
| The Campaigns of Alexander the Great |
The region named today as Hungary and former Yugoslavia, was
dominated by Germanic tribes, and what was later known as Austrohungary, by
this time (aprox. 4th and 5th
centuries AD) was the Ostrogothic Kingdom. That was the situation (a very “fluid” one) in Southeastern
Europe, with differed ideas and aspects and people coming and going, when
Seljuk Turks, crushed an imperial (Byzantine) army at the Battle of Manzikert
(1071) and overran most of Byzantine Asia Minor. Meanwhile, the Byzantines lost
their last foothold in Italy and were alienated from the Christian West by a
schism (1054) between the Orthodox church and the papacy. When Byzantines
appealed to the pope for aid against the Turks, Western Europe responded with
the First Crusade (1096-99).
Although Byzantium initially benefited from the Crusades, in
the long run they hastened the empire's decline. Italian merchant cities won
special trading privileges in Byzantine territory and gained control of much of
the empire's commerce and wealth. The Byzantines experienced a superficial
prosperity in the 12th century, but their political and military power waned.
Crusaders allied
with Venice, then took advantage of internal Byzantine strife to seize and plunder Constantinople in 1204. Emperor
Michael VIII Palaeologus recaptured Constantinople from the Latins in 1261 and
founded the Palaeologan dynasty, which ruled the empire until 1453.
The emergent Ottoman Turks conquered the remnants of
Byzantine Asia Minor early in the 14th century. After 1354 they overran the
Balkans and finally took Constantinople, bringing the empire to an end in 1453.
The conception of Byzantine imperial authority, together with
the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet for the Slavs by Byzantine missionaries,
and the preservation of ancient Greek manuscripts and culture by Byzantine
scholars, were the most important contributions of Byzantium to posterity.
The
Byzantine intellectual tradition did not die in 1453: Byzantine scholars who visited Italy as individuals or imperial envoys
in the 14th and 15th centuries exerted a strong influence on the Italian
Renaissance.
The Palaeologan revival of elements of Greek classicism,
especially in encyclopedism, history, literature, philosophy, mathematics, and
astronomy, was transmitted to a rarefied audience of Italian scholars and Greek
residents of Italy, and in this fashion Byzantine
scholarship long survived the disappearance of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine
traditions and procedures also survived among the Greek and Slavic peoples.
 |
| Inside Hagia Sophia temple |
Meanwhile, the former territories of Byzantine Empire, were
dominated by: Serbs, making the Great Serbia of Stephen Dushan (1330-1355), and
Great Bulgaria (1186-1242). These states became parts of Ottoman Empire, by the
late 13th century.
Since the whole region consisted the northwestern part of the
Ottoman Empire, any development aspect
was gone. At the same time the Europeans were diving again in the ancient
Hellenic spirit, discovering again philosophy, geometry, mathematics and all
scientific aspects, the Eastern Europeans, were trying to keep their religion,
their nationality and their belief that each one of them, was different from
the conquerors, the Turks.
Some people
(Albanians, some Bulgarians, Bosnians and Pomacs), became Muslims to have an
easy life (equal opportunity in the -then- status quo), denying their
nationality and religion. The Turks of course settled the fertile or of
well-being territories, pushing the owners to mountainous or poor areas. They
did it then, and everybody pays the price today with all these confrontations
between religious groups of the same nation, in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kossovo, Albania, Bulgaria, everywhere.
 |
| The Ottoman Empire |
The
Ottoman rule was long and painful for all
the peoples under yoke. The whole
building of the region’s civilization was disappeared and only religion
remained to people, to remind them who they were. No schools were allowed or
built. No education was available. In Greece, priests were eventually
conducting “late night schools” in churches and monasteries, when and where the
conquerors could not discover them. All that, had their share to the unrest of
the region. In Hellas only, more than one hundred, of smaller or larger scale
revolutions happened, during the Turkish yoke. At last starting early 1821,
Hellas was the first country to kick away the conquerors. Some decades later,
the rest of Southeastern European countries won independence, between years
from 1871 and 1908 that are characterized as the Age of National States for southeastern
Europe, since national consensus was strongly developed and drove to the
liberation of the region’s countries from the Turkish yoke, and (to the Balkan
Wars as well). The geopolitical value of the region, had for long attracted the
Great Powers there, and everyone was trying to take advantage of the conflicts
and the disadvantages of the other. A large number of so called “nations” was
developed just before, during and after the World Wars.
I can summarize the
history of Southeastern Europe, in five periods: The Hellenic (from
pre-historic times to 1st BC century) , the Roman (1st
century BC to 320 AD) , the Byzantine (320 to 14th century), the
Ottoman (late 14th to early 19th century) and the
Liberation (19th century to our days, since the region is still in
unrest). In the next chapters, we will analyze all the recent and important
facts, all the international implications and interests that formed this mess
we know as “Balkans”.
GEOPOLITICS
“ Balkania is split into so many geographic
divisions separated from one another by natural barriers, that the different
peoples settled on the soil have been greatly aided in an instinctive desire to
maintain their separate individualities, and down to this day have successfully
resisted all efforts made to bring about their political unification”.
This paragraph from the book “A history of the Balkans” by Ferdinand
Schevill, gives a simplified but satisfactory icon of Southeastern Europe. As
described in the chapter about geography
of this paper, mountains and valleys and rivers, are the main geographical
characteristics of the region.
The main ranges
are: HAEMUS (in Greek), or Rila Planina (in Slavic), or Balkans (in Turkish) in
Bulgaria, the Rhodope range between Hellas and Bulgaria, and the coastal ranges
of Adriatic and Ionian Seas.
The mountains form highlands
like: The Serb and Kossovo in Serbia, the Pelagonia-Kozani between Hellas and FYROM, and the Sofian in
Bulgaria.
The existing rivers are
the natural lines of penetration. The Ionian and Adriatic rivers, are
unimportant. The Aegean rivers are of high importance for the communication of
Southeastern Europe to the North, and the Black Sea rivers as well, mainly the
Danube river that’s the only navigable river of the region.
The main railroads,
go parallel to the roads.
The leading harbors,
are Piraeus, Thessaloniki, Constantinople, while of low importance are some
Black sea harbors and on Danube as well. For NATO, the most important facility
in the eastern Mediterranean, is the Souda-bay
complex in Crete, the largest deep-water port of the region, that can
accommodate the whole US 6th
fleet.
With respect to plains,
only the Romanian is of some importance (it’s one of the most fertile on
the earth).
But overall, there is one word that best describes everything
about the geopolitics of the region: STRAITS. This is the word that is all about there.
Mountain straits, highland straits, river straits, sea straits, and sometimes
mind straits. Everything that happens there, is about the domination of
straits, and especially the sea straits that give the controller a broader view
and potential. The main straits, are the valleys and mountain passes
(Kustendil, Rupel, Shipka, Predeal, …) in mainland, and the sea-straits, like:
Bosporus, Hellespont, Kafireos, Mikonou, Karpathou, Otrado, Corfu, etc. The
Aegean Archipelago, could be characterized as a series of successive straits between
islands.
The islands of
special strategic importance for the whole region, are: Cyprus, Crete, and
Limnos.
Above anything else, the Haemus peninsula, is the bridge and the border between
Europe and Asia, between Mediterranean and Black Sea.
INTERVENING
FACTORS
(Thucydides, 2500 years ago).
Looking
back in the past, we can see that during any historic epoch, each time’s superpower(s),
great power(s), and even regional power(s), were and still are concerned about
the happenings in Haemus peninsula, about their influence there.
The “Yalta”
agreement, named the “players” and their
role percentage in each one of the Southeastern Europe’s countries: USA, UK,
USSR.
Let’s start with Russia that always needed access to “warm waters”. So, the ports of
Thessaloniki and Kavala were the targets of all the Slavic raids to the south,
and from time to time they gained control over those. Of course, the long-term
cure for the problems, was the domination over the Greek peninsula. In order to gain it, Russia discovered Pan-Slavism, trying to
convince Greeks that they are Slavs and not Greeks any more (Falmereyer
theory), when its attempt to create the Great Bulgaria (via San Stefano Treaty)
failed. When the Pan-Slavism theory failed, the Slavs discovered the
“Macedonian” nation, and its not for nothing that before the revision of San
Stefano Treaty, nobody had even heard anything about such a “nation”.
United Kingdom is involved there -since
the imperial times-, when it used to dominate the whole Mediterranean, having
bases in several countries, islands and strategic points. During both World
Wars, it had the predominant role, between the Allies. There still exist
British bases in Dekeleia and Akrotiri, Cyprus. UK used to influence Greece (and Turkey) until
1947, when it gave space to United States of America.
United States of America, replaced
United Kingdom in influencing Greece
since 1947, even before the NATO constitution. As the leading NATO
power, US never stopped to be interested in the making of the facts there, and
as (US) Ambassador Monteagle Stearns says in his book “Entangled Allies”: “if the
central front of NATO in Germany represented
the military heart of the Alliance, it’s Achilles heel was assuredly located
where Homer placed his wounded hero, in the Aegean waters of the southeastern
sector”. US play their role in the
region, supporting their vital (?) national interests, as they are expressed in
their National Security Strategy. So far, what we can see as the main point of
the American policy in the region, can be characterized with one word:
CONTAINMENT. Containment of wars, containment of conflicts, containment of
disputes, containment of ideas. It’s probably the taste of success from the
Cold War outcome still in the mouth of American diplomacy, that calls for
containment.
Other actors, are countries that are close to
the region, or they declare they have interests there, or they have interests
but they don’t say a word about it, or are related to the region through
alliances, treaties, economic agreements, or any other kind of international
relations. Such countries, are: Austria (since the times of Metternich), Italy
(that sometime annexed Albania), Turkey -“a deceiving friend, a dangerous
neighbor” according to history- (that wants to establish an Islamic arch around
Greece), Iran and other Arabic countries (that sent money and warriors in
Bosnia), Germany (traditionally is strongly involved with Turkey, it was a
Bulgarian and a Romanian ally during WW II) , France, all NATO countries, all
EU members, WEU members, UN and so many other factors, that are almost uncountable.
At last but
not least, I would like to refer to a special category of intervening factors,
that I call “mapmakers”. They are
mainly persons (not only), coming from the intervening countries -especially
the more powerful- but also from the region’s countries. They are the people
and services and countries, that meet and decide the trace of borders between
countries, or even the making of new countries. They look to be the least aware
of the reality. Think about that: “Albania
was formed at late WWI, to prevent
Serbia from absorbing the former Ottoman territory”.- According to P. Shoup
and G. Hoffman “Problems of Balkan security”.
RELATIONS
BETWEEN STATES
The
relations between the states, are guided
by the points that diverge them and the points that bring them together. In
Southeastern Europe, the diverging points look to be more in number and more
powerful than the common points.
The diverging
points, are: Disputed territories, different religions, different ethnic groups and languages, shared
history.
The common
points, are mainly: The share of common economic faith caused by the geography.
The sense of the existence of common enemies. Common religion. Common ethnic
group. Common interests.
All these series of differences, interests and
particularities, make the very complex net of the relationships between the
Haemus’ peninsula countries, even within each country. The overall result is a
high explosive mixture. This one, that characterizes Southeastern part of
Europe, as the “powder keg” of it.
As with any powder keg, the Balkan case should impose
certain very strict safety regulations that need to be respected by all parties
involved, in order to minimize the possibility of an explosion. Of course,
these regulations apply also to those who rush into the area of the powder keg,
no matter how good their intentions. This is the case today with the United
States whose presence in the Balkans is indeed catalytic and decisive.
The first
rule that must apply is that national
borders are and should remain, inviolable. This is an axiom that was applied
even for the states within Former Yugoslavia, despite the fact that those were
internal borders of a multi-ethnic state, map-drafted arbitrarily by a
totalitarian regime. The same rule constitutes the basis for the smooth
co-existence between the Balkan nations.
The second
rule involves the rights and obligations
of minorities. The Balkans are pre-eminently a region of the world where
the presence of ethnic and religious minorities is very strong. This is due,
historically, to the presence in the region, for 2,000 years, of three
multi-ethnic empires: the pure Roman, the Byzantine and the Ottoman. During the
last 150 years, the Balkan states have gradually acquired their separate
national identities through forced large-scale population displacement.
This process, intertwined with
military operations and the blatant violation of human rights - the ethnic
cleansing that occurred in Constantinople, Imvros, Tenedos, and more recently
in Yugoslavia, is a perfect recipe for an explosion of the powder keg.
 |
| SE Europe |
In the greater area of the Balkans
there are still many minorities. Albanians in Kossovo and FYROM, Greeks in
Albania, Hungarians in Romania, Turks and Pomaks in Bulgaria, Kurds in Turkey,
Serbs in Croatia, Greeks in Turkey, Turks and other Muslims in Greece, and others. If we wish to
limit the danger of an explosion, then there should be sacred respect for the
rights of minorities and treatment of equity and equality towards them by the
international community. When this does not occur and, we tolerate for any
reason, a widespread violation of human rights, then we only cultivate a breeding
ground for tension and we intensify the danger of local conflicts.
The third
condition is that the international
community must act preventively, before a crisis is developed , and not to
rush in after it has been unleashed. There is of course a prerequisite: Well
rounded and in depth understanding of the complex local and regional conditions
and careful evaluation of all nuances of the historical particularities of the
whole region.
For the
sake of the region, the United States and the European Union should develop and
adopt policies that are only to be based on
international law and existing
treaties. Keeping as much as possible away from calculated
"military" interests.
 |
| European Union |
The
question that comes in mind now, is: OK Balkans is a mess. Who is the one that should dive deep into the problem and solve it?
The answer is: The one that can do
it. Next question: Who can solve it? Final answer: US in cooperation with EU, using countries like Hellas, because
it has a very good reputation in the region (never invaded another country,
never declared war against any of its neighbors, never conducted atrocities in
a war), its strategic interests do not come in conflict with the strategic
interests of US, always (WWI, Ukraine, WWII, Korea) fought along with its western
allies, it is member of EU, WEU and
NATO, it is the most developed country in the region, it is the only country
with long democratic tradition, it is the most “experienced” country in the
region, since it has gone through a civil war, a dictatorship and after that
conducted a transition to modern democratic forms, in a very successful way.
Therefore, Hellas is obviously the only
vehicle for stability and peace in the region. If Hellas is to get such a role,
then no implications are likely to happen, since the region will have avoided
the making of an unforeseen and uncontrollable regional power, (as the one
that’s now under creation -unfortunately for the peace and stability of the region),
and no new problems would have risen.
One could
argue that during the past few years Greece has given the impression that it
created, rather than solved, problems in the region. However, before criticizing,
lets take into account the particular conditions of the world and the time. If
the Hellenic positions were taken seriously in mind before the dissolution of Yugoslavia, or even forty
years ago, when Hellas reacted to Tito’s making of a new “Macedonia”, to his
discover of a new “nation”, to his making of a new language and grammar. If
instead of the euphoria of EU and US for the fall of the Communism, the global
community was more concerned about the next day. Then no problems would have been arisen in
the region. Those problems were made obvious -not created by Greece. A timeline
should have been made and followed. A scheduled transition would be in progress
right now, and the problems would be anticipated instead of confronted. Then
Greece would not have given the impression that it created, rather than solved,
problems in the region.
The next point is that
the international community, been sensitive in the needs of the peoples for
humanitarian assistance, development and
stability, has to consider that Southeastern Europe, is an undeveloped region
(the most developed country there is Greece, one of the least developed
countries of EU).
It is obvious that the more a country gets developed and the
more the peoples get educated and informed, the less the nationalist or chauvinist-type
leaders have a change to get the power, and so one of the conflict reasons can
be diminished. That means, that if instead of the easiest technology to
transfer (military), the technology to be transferred was educational, then the
likelihood of war would be farther away.
The above
is true, as it is true that the information
means, played the most important role in the termination of Cold War. It was
impossible for the communist regimes to keep control over their slaves, when
the people was informed about the goodies it could not purchase, about the
shows it could not see. They had their substance, but they could not enjoy
that. So, the ancient Roman saying “bread and show” was not fulfilled, so
communism collapsed.
Some other
causes of conflict, come straight from the communist past: In most of the
countries, the communists renamed themselves to democrats and they still are in
power, with all their disabilities. The clerks and mid-level factors of the
communist regimes, are now the top-leaders of democracy. Same names, same
persons, same minds, different titles, different costumes, golden bracelets.
The changes in the ex-communist Balkan countries came from above rather than
from down. No Polish-style revolution happened there. The transition, just
happened. It was that simple. One morning, the people woke up and the communist
regime was not there. The communists signed papers that they wouldn’t be
communists any more and they kept on living the known way. But the
transition proved harder than that. If nobody cares about ruling you, nobody cares about your survive, too. That
was very hard for some people. Riots and wars started and everybody wanted his
share of the old glory, that unfortunately was not there. Refugees started
fleeing from different countries to Germany, France, Greece, Italy, UK. What
needed a lot of time and wars and treaties and population exchange and people’s
tears, seems to has been lost again. The immigrations of peoples was the big
problem for Byzantium. This time 500,000 Albanian illegal immigrants have fled
Greece. What’s the next stage? This month the Greek Justice minister asked and
his Albanian counterpart accepted, to return the Albanian prisoners from Greek
jails, because of their excessive number and the troubles they cause in the
prisons.
Another
trouble-maker in the region, is the cheep strategy of some leaders, (i.e.
Tchiller) to “export” their problems.
When they confront a problem in their country that they cannot solve, they just
try to turn their country’s public opinion against their “traditional enemy, that is
responsible for all these bad things that happen to us”, blaming the others
for their inability.
In my
personal opinion, the policy that international community applies right now,
will heal the problems temporarily only. I do not see long-range solution given
so far. OK . Politics is complicated. But the more clear it is, the more
problems it can solve, and the less problems it will create. In order to be
respected and accepted, politics and diplomacy should be open (just as
Kissinger said, even he didn’t practice).
The
international community should be very careful when making “buffer” zones and
states, since a buffer state is supposed to solve and not to create problems.
When Albania was founded, it was supposed to prevent the over-expansion of
Serbia. Now, Albania is a possible trouble-maker regarding to Kossovo and
Tetovo. When FYROM declared its independence, US troops installed at its north
borders, to contain the Yugoslav war. Right after that, these Slavs, declared
their “alytrotism” against Greece, they used Greek symbols in their flag, they
used a Greek name, they started their propaganda against Greece, they became a
destabilizing factor in the region. The international diplomacy was not on its
best planning mood.
Another
very important factor, is that US, through the American-German and the
American-British partnerships, will react decisively to a political and
military independence of EU or WEU, if it is accompanied with a weakening of NATO
forms.
Under the
best of conditions, diversity alone poses significant challenges to finding
tolerable solutions. But the history of the Balkans, particularly the recent
history, complicates the ability of leaders to devise acceptable ones. George
Schultz pointed out, that the basic problem to overcome in the Balkans
"... is learning how to govern over
diversity: Ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic diversity."
The peoples
of Southeastern Europe hold their history close to their hearts. They believe
that peoples that forget their history, they just don’t have future. A very realistic approach to the
region’s problems, is found in William Johnson’s monograph: “Deciphering the
Balkan Enigma: Using History to Inform Policy” : “If long-term solutions are to succeed, a
thorough reform of political systems and institutions must occur. Long-term
progress will be possible only if governments can instill sufficient confidence
in their populations to overcome the profound mistrust and deep animosity that
have developed over the centuries, and have been violently reinforced over the
past 4 years. Ethnic and religious minorities will have to be convinced that
governments will safeguard their interests. Nationalist and irredentism
demands, particularly an expansionist Croatia or the long drive for a
"Greater Serbia," will have to be contained. At the same time, the
oftentimes legitimate fears of ethnic Serbs in Bosnia, Kossovo, FYROM, and
Croatia of living under the political control of another ethnic group will have
to be acknowledged and addressed. All of these matters are much easier said
than done.
To
effect a break from the past, the United States and Europe will have to invest
considerable long-term economic, political, intellectual, and military capital
to support the development of democratic institutions within the region. The European Union (EU) represents
an important mechanism in this regard. The prospect of substantial EU
reconstruction funds offers a powerful incentive for belligerents to reach an
agreement. Similarly, membership in the EU–and the future economic development
it entails–will not be offered until the parties conform to EU standards of conduct.
In other words, those nations seeking EU membership will have to learn to
settle their differences through negotiation–not through violence. Finally,
should states within the former Yugoslavia become EU members, the penalties for
operating outside the norms of the European community can be significant,
thereby exercising a dampening factor on any future conflicts. All of this
presumes, of course, that the EU and its members are willing to devote the
time, money, and effort that will be required to see these initiatives through
to fruition.
Given the past history of the Balkans and the
current ethnic, religious, and cultural divisions, this course will prove
daunting. The level of political, economic, and intellectual commitment needed,
however, cannot be forecast with any accuracy–but it will be considerable.
Governments must begin now to lay the groundwork with publics and parliaments
for the level and duration of commitment that may be required. Events
in the Balkan crisis have demonstrated that U.S. leadership in Europe is
essential to secure U.S. national interests in the region and Europe. This
will require a level of engagement in Europe and in European security
organizations larger than U.S. political leaders have previously anticipated.
Such a degree of involvement will also require U.S. political leaders to
explain to the American public the interests involved, and why such a
commitment of U.S. capital–time, prestige, fiscal resources–is necessary to
sustain those interests.
Diplomatic
actions, alone, are not likely to bring about a settlement, and military power
will be required to establish conditions suitable to build a lasting peace
settlement.
Diplomatic initiatives, political pressure, and economic embargoes and sanctions
have not yet yielded success. Granted, such options take time and economic
sanctions appear to be having an effect on Serbia and Montenegro, but these efforts
alone have not brought an end to the conflict and forced a political settlement
in the former Yugoslavia. Conversely, Croatian and Bosnian military successes
of recent months, coupled with a firm display of NATO political will and
military air-power, have redressed the strategic balance in the region and
brought the parties to the negotiating table in earnest. To be sure, diplomatic
and economic initiatives laid the groundwork and set the stage for successful
application of military power, but military power is the decisive catalyst that
brought all parties to a potential solution.
 |
| NATO nations |
Should
U.S. political leaders decide to commit ground troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
they will have to convince the American public and Congress that it is in U.S.
national interests to make the size of investments–intellectual, political,
economic, and military–required to achieve an acceptable solution in the
Balkans. This
effort will prove to be no easy task if the United States becomes increasingly
preoccupied with its own domestic difficulties. But, without such a level and
duration of commitment, acceptable solutions may not be found.
Substantial
time–perhaps decades or generations–will be necessary to build and sustain the
political ethos, organizations, and governmental structures needed for a
lasting solution in the Balkans. Problems that developed over centuries cannot be
transformed overnight. This is not to argue that long-term solutions are not
possible, but only to point out the difficulties involved. The post-World War
II Franco-German model offers hope, but even that case indicates the time,
effort, and leadership dedicated to good
will on all sides that are necessary. Such examples are absent from the
historical political landscape of the former Yugoslavia. And, the events of the
last 4 years are unlikely to generate favorable conditions or leaders capable
of dramatic policy reversals.
These insights are not intended to
provide an overly pessimistic portrait of the difficulties inherent in
resolving the crisis in the Balkans. They do, however, illuminate the root
causes of the ongoing conflict, reflect the perceptions of Balkan leaders, and
provide a fuller context for policy-makers as they deliberate U.S. policy.
Leaders, however, not only must recognize these insights, they must assimilate
and factor them into their decision-making calculus as they assess policy
options for the Balkans. It is to this issue that the discussion next turns”.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSIONS /
PROPOSALS
This not
good economic situation of all the region’s countries, their bad heritage from
history -remote and recent-, the Ottoman and communist past, are not the best
materials to build viable, developed economies, educated peoples and reliable
neighbors.
The main
actors must use all the means they have in their disposition. Diplomatic,
informational, military, and economic. But in the RIGHT MIXTURE and for the
RIGHT PURPOSE every time. Peace
mediation is like doctor’s medication. If
you don’t use the right dosage, the patient will be dead instead of cured.
Reviewing
the recent facts, I see that it is not by lack that even the major players of
the Balkan stage agree with the Greek position, that everything happened very
fast and we shouldn’t let it be done this way: Lord David Owen, in his book
“Balkan Odyssey” (published in 1995), writes: “The December 1991 recognition decision by the EC is a sombre warning
of how a dangerous decision, with predicted consequences, can be made in an
atmosphere where maintaining unity among the member states becomes an end in
itself.” Thucydides,
wrote: “People go to war out of honor, fear, and interest. Wars are but
rarely fought solely between the forces of good and evil where there are only
villains and victims”. That is very
true. In civil wars, the things go worse. You have to try hard to see who is
the good and who is the bad guy (if there is any). So, the matter of war
criminals of the Bosnian civil war, could be another cause of conflict, instead of justice, if it is not fair for
everyone.
The French
have a saying that for all the ‘ifs’ in the world, you can put Paris in a
bottle, but if Maastriht had happened earlier, if EC was EU, if Europeans
reacted early and properly, then the results could be different. Any way.
The main point is that the regional peace was disturbed so far, but not the
global, and so, humanity has the resources to react and settle the situation
properly. The solution that will be given, should refer to all the Southeastern
Europe’s countries, and should anticipate the next conditions, should set the
stage for the future. Does the Dayton agreement do that? Does the Hollbrook
mediation between Greece and Turkey do that? I personally doubt. I think that
the long-term solution, should be a political one, whose main parts would be
the real and deep and not in name democratization
of the former-communist countries. The democracy they have now, is given and
not produced, therefore it is fragile, and this is a destabilizing factor.
These countries need desperately, an economic reformation, and their
economies’ incorporation in the
market-economy. Economic reformation does not only mean money to go in
these countries, and investments to be done. It mainly means that these
countries, need people to know what to do with the money, and how to
incorporate their economy in the international market. That is, these countries
need first of all, educational
reformation, so they will be able to produce people that will handle the
money.
In the
whole region, all intervening factors, should behave on specific codes of conduct , -what the military
would call Roules of Engagement-. These codes should be made overt, and common
to all countries. Impartiality in its real sense, is a must in Balkans, if you
want to produce a viable solution. But real impartiality. Not to be impartial
and not acting when there is a unilateral violation of the international law
and after that, to treat both sides the same way.
I also have
to say that respect to borders, to
international law and treaties, whatever they are, is a necessary
condition. This way, the new map-maker will prove that his predecessor was a
good guy, that knew his job, that acted right, and so will do the new one.
At last and
overall, there is a magic phrase that should be translated in the proper way,
not the Russian way, not the American way, not even the western European way.
It should be translated, and applied the Southeastern European way. That is, respect to human rights, with special
care to protecting the minorities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Alifantis, Stelios. “New situation
in the Balkans” Notes from his lectures.
2.
Microsoft Corporation. “Encarta 96
Encyclopedia”.
3.
Jane’s SENTINEL. “The Balkans 1995
Regional Assessment”.
4.
Johnson, William. “Deciphering the
Balkan Enigma: Using history to inform policy”.
5.
Owen, David, (Lord). “Balkan
Odyssey”.
6.
Schevill, Ferdinand. “A history of
the Balkans”.
7.
Shoup, Paul. “Problems of Balkan
security”.
8.
Stearns, Monteagle. “Entangled
Allies”.
9.
Woodward, Suzan. “Balkan tragedy”.
Major, GRC Army
Kostas B. Konstantaras
CGCS class 1996, staff group A2D
Fort Leavenworth, KS, USA
Blochberger Terrace 33
February 1996
