Essay Networks

Until late nineteenth century, the Balkans had mostly been under powerful empires, living a somewhat symbiotic life. With the newly emerging ideas of nationalism brought about by the French Revolution, however, a wave of independence movements took place in Eastern Europe, eventually leading to the Balkan Wars of 1911-13, during which the newly formed Balkan countries turned against each other in an attempt to get a bigger share of Ottoman land. With the atrocities of the Balkan Wars and the clashes of different ethnic and religious groups in a tightly knit area, the seeds of ethnic cleansing and civil war had been sown. Given the history and current population distribution of the area, it is likely that the Balkans will want to disintegrate and form separate ethnic nations.                  
The collapse of the social security state leads to micro-nationalities that give oppressed minorities the political breach to demand their own states in a need for cultural and historical revivalism.The friction caused by the heterogenity of the area will lead to a series of conflicts inside currently existing boundaries, consequently leading to larger entities encouraging the development of smaller, autonomous regions. The fall of the Soviet Union and former Russia leaves Eastern Europe with a number of weak multinational states that feel the changing definitions of citizenship and nationalism. According to Ayse Kadioglu, ‘there are different definitions to the concept of nationality and citizenship. In the post-modern era, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. are becoming the new parameters of politics.’(personal commumication) Most Balkan countries gained their independence quite late in history, having been under the rule of the Otoman Empire and the Soviet Union. Betul Celik, in her lecture ‘The Collapse of State Socialism’ discusses that in the process of this nation making, most of the Eastern European countries flounder politically, at the same time having to make the transition from centrally-planned to market-based economic systems (2003). This transition leads to greater levels of unemployment and inflation. Unequal economic opportunities will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction with the government. With unequal distribution of wages, unemployment and inflation, Hasan Bulent Kahraman, claims that groups within a country will want to form ethnic or religious communities in a need to ‘create a future for themselves’ along with the lines of changing ideas of citizenship.(2003) This community building and the creation of an internal support system was apparent in Turkey during the second half of the 1980s, as there emerged an idea of a religious community. A similar incline is also possible in the Balkans. The movie ‘Welcome to Sarajevo’ shows an example of discrimination against Muslims in Bosnia, where the Muslims were told not to come to work the next day.( ) As there are different ethnic and religious groups in the Balkans, in an environment of poor economics and ethnic and religious discrimination, it is probable that those different groups may want to form their own states and will try to justify this by claiming to revive their past and create a future. Catholic Encyclopedia claims: ‘It is no wonder that the old dreams of Mazeppa, Chmielnicki, and Shevchenko of Little Russia, independent both of Russia and Poland, have found a lodgment in the hearts of the Southern Russians; the same feeling has gained ground among the Ruthenians of Galicia and Hungary, surrounded as they are by the German, Polish, and Hungarian peoples.’(20/04/2003) Ayhan Akman describes this picking up parts of glorious history and creating a community as the ‘Frankenstein model’ of nation building. ( ) It seems possible that as poor economic conditions and political instability lead to the discrimination and oppression of ethnic groups, these groups will want to relive their victorious past and try to create such a community to form a future their government was unable to provide.

A lot of ethnic groups such as Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, Ukranians, Greeks, Macadonians, and Romanians occupy the Balkan area. Although this heterogenity adds to the cultural context, it has its own problems which lead to many conflicts. The next “Balkan War” is likely to take place within different groups of people in a particular country. Because nationalism will not be enough to hold people together, the least ‘vicious’ option would be to form homogeneous ethnic regions so as to avoid conflict within a state. Michael Lind, in his essay ‘In Defense of Liberal Nationalism’ says: ‘it is possible that there would be less interstate conflict in a world of relatively homogeneous nation states than there is intrastate conflict between ethnic groups in multinational states.’(Lind.M.) In line with von Treitschke’s argument that ethnicity is a key factor in nationalism, it is possible that different ethnicities and religious groups in their current countries may want to form their own states. The majority of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s population consists of Bosniaks, followned by a still large percentage of Serbs and Croats. With a 62.6% Serbian population in Serbia and Montenegro, it is probable that Serbs will want to form their own nation states.(CIA Factbook,2003) As Lind further suggests, ‘the wave of disintegrative nationalism that ripped apart the former Soviet Union and the Yugoslav federation will not be the last. In all likelihood,the next few decades will see increasingly determined secessionist movements in the multiethnic successor states of the European empires.’(99) As a consequence of secessionist movements, smaller states will be formed. The larger and more diverse states become, the more they will be drawn into the current of an imperial paradox. Governing the larger state from one capital and trying to tend to each groups’ interests would be harder, which would eventually lead to dissatisfaction with the government. In that case, it would be more convenient to form smaller, more homogeneous states which would lead to greater stability since they are easier to govern. Besides that, smaller states have the advantage of being a ‘free rider’ and using larger, stronger neighbours’ military powers, as Lind further suggests. The United States has become a crude marker for modernity and civilisation for many people. In this sense, if we compare Switzerland, a much smaller state, to the US, we find that Switzerland is just as developed as the US. Lind goes on to say that ‘as long as states are willing to cooperate in security alliances and engage in mutually beneficial trade, there is no reason why a small state like Portugal or Croatia should not be as viable as a great power like the United States.’ (92)
While it seems inevitable that the Balkans will disintegrate into smaller groups, such a division will most likely be discouraged. This claim that the division of the Balkans should be curbed, however, is based on a fallacy. Not only do individuals and groups have the right to oppose their current government they feel is not meeting their needs or is meddling with their right of nature, but also as Lind puts it the ‘prejudice against nationalism–even liberal,democratic,constitutional nationalism–is a mistake’. That is not to say revolutions are necessary or inevitable in forming a nation, but any group which claims the disintegration of the Balkans is ‘anachronistic or dangerous’(88) would not be able to support their claims in any other way than their own purposes stifled under a sense of legitimacy of ‘doing good’ for those countries. Not to mention the fact that the groups that are currently involved in conflict are more interested in gaining a few small rights, like peace in their families or equal treatment to care about the ‘more important’ aspects the UN, NATO or EU can offer them. Still some have the idea that the Balkans will not separate any further. Because different ethnic groups are divided in different countries, a further disintegration or a merging of common ethnic groups will lead to the problem of land mass. That is to say, it is not clear who has the right to decide where the new ‘state’ would be formed and if anyone would be willing to give up his life-long home to be taken away by a group they already had problems with. In this case, however, while it is probable that this partitioning of land may lead to problems, it is important to keep in mind that there already are problems and conflicts in the area, like the massacres in Kosovo and many other conflicts between different religious and ethnic groups. These problems will not be solved without some kind of intervention. Quite the contrary, while it is true that there will be problems in dealing with living space, these will not be lasting and the discomfort of some will lead to the better outcome of many others for the years to come. Another reason why people suggest the Balkans will not continue to separate is because these groups are living in a fear of war, having been in war for a good part of the twentieth century. However, war or at least armed conflicts will be inevitable unless problems of ethnicity are solved. A solution to these problems of ethnic conflicts will be in the disintegration of the Balkans. As poor economics and oppression, along with discrimination, urge different groups to form smaller communities, the Balkan area will spontaneously disintegrate accordingly. The conflicts caused by the heterogenity of the area will lead to problems within particular countries’ boundaries. Yet these problems will be relatively eased with a future separation of the different ethnic and religious groups, leading to smaller, autonomous states. The separationist movements in the Balkans were not the first and will not be the last as groups strive for cultural identity.