Leading to the 1990s.

It may not be true anywhere else on earth except in the Western Balkans that one person could live in four different countries over his lifespan without ever moving. Within just over a century, the Western Balkans has been a part of the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia, and now six countries found on the map today.

This change of control did not come peacefully. Rebecca West summed it up best in her book about Yugoslavia Black Lamb And Grey Falcon, “Were I to go down into the market-place, armed with the power of witchcraft, and take a peasant by the shoulders and whisper to him ‘In your lifetime have you ever known peace?’ wait for his answer, shake his shoulders and transform him into his father, and ask him the same question, and transform him in his turn to his father, I would never hear the word ‘Yes,’ if I carried my questioning of the dead back for a thousand years. I would always hear, ‘No, there was fear, there were our enemies without, our rulers within, there was prison, there was torture, there was violent death.’”

From 1929 until 1991, there was a country called Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was made up of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, what is now North Macedonia, and an autonomous region of Kosovo which lied within Serbia. In 1941, during WWII, Yugoslavia briefly dissolved and reunited in 1945 under President Josip Broz Tito.

The people of Yugoslavia were the same yet different. Although primarily ethnically Slavic, Slovenes and Croats are Catholic, Serbs are Orthodox, and, as a result of past Ottoman rule, many Bosnians are Muslim. Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians all speak the same language, except for differences in dialect. These differences became magnified when they served a political purpose. The people were otherwise generally undistinguishable by ethnic group.

However, the ethnic groups diverged in their ideas about how Yugoslavia should be governed. Serbs represented a majority of the population in Yugoslavia, both inside Serbia proper and in neighboring Croatia and Bosnia. To protect the interests of the large Serb population residing outside the borders of Serbia, Serb politicians advocated for a strong centralized Yugoslav state. 

In contrast, Croatia and Slovenia, apprehensive about the risk of Serb domination over politics in a centralized state based in Belgrade, fought for a looser, decentralized federation in which the individual republics had greater power. Croatia and Slovenia were also the most economically prosperous republics and wanted to retain their economic benefits within their borders. [1] These differences in political ideology and governance were the root causes of the second dissolution of Yugoslavia. 

In the mid-1970s Yugoslavia’s central government began to strain when more power was given to the republics than the central government. [2] After Tito died in 1980, this strain mounted when a rotating presidency of eight members from the republics resulted in repeated deadlocks. In the late 1980s, Croatia focused on liberalizing its political and economic system. [3] At the same time, the prime minister of Yugoslavia called for implementing reforms within Yugoslavia. [4] These changes threatened the existing model and the political parties of the old system, specifically the communist party in Serbia. 

In May 1991, the people of Slovenia and Croatia overwhelmingly voted in support of breaking away from Yugoslavia. At the same time Serbs living in a majority-Serb area of Croatia voted to remain in Yugoslavia. Slovenia and Croatia declared independence on June 25, 1991; Bosnia followed. And war ensued until late 1995. 

Causes of conflict.

The most common explanation for the cause of the conflict is nationalism incited a deep hatred between groups that resulted in an ethnic war. Another theory rebuts this explanation because it does not explain why the ethnic groups, who had lived in harmony for decades and generally had a positive sentiment towards one another in the years before the war, would suddenly turn against their neighbors. 

In 1991, Bosnia was 31.3% Serb, 17.3% Croats, and 43.7% Muslims. [5] In mid-1990, a poll evaluated inter-ethnic relations within Bosnian communities. Ninety percent of respondents said inter-ethnic relations within their communities was “good” or “very good.” [6] In spring of 1990, 74 percent of respondents polled in the three largest cities in Bosnia supported the decision by Bosnian leadership to forbid the formation of “nationally oriented parties.” [7] With generally good feelings between groups in Bosnia and lack of support for dividing the political structure based on ethnic groups, it is difficult to identify how a conflict based on ethnicity broke out a year later. 

The Myth of Ethnic War looks at the causes of the violence in the context of increasing liberalizing reforms that were changing the political structure. The book argues that politicians used conflict as a means to silence and exclude those who were changing the existing power structure to preserve control and shift the conversation from meaningful policy reforms to outside threats and fear. [8] Through this agenda, ethnic identity was the goal and the result of conflict, not the cause of it. [9]

Although many theories may explain how the conflict started, none, however, can explain the level of systemic cruelty of this conflict that turned the Balkans into, in the words of Monsieur Gustav H., a “barbaric slaughterhouse once known as humanity.” [10]

Rebuilding.

The Dayton Accord formally ended the conflict in November 1995 by splitting Bosnia and Herzegovina into two entities: the Republika Srpska controlled by Bosnian Serbs with 49% of the territory and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina controlled by Bosnian Muslims and Croats with 51 percent of the territory.

After a conflict ends, the next question is how can society reconcile and rebuild? The answer is complex, multifaceted, and ultimately may simply require time over many generations. However, one part of this answer necessary for reconciliation after conflict is bringing perpetrators to justice and documenting the truth of what happened.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as well as local war crimes courts in the region investigated and gathered evidence of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; gave victims a voice; and thereby created a path for rebuilding and moving forward. The development of international criminal law through its application to the events in the former Yugoslavia protects future victims of international conflict and works to end impunity.

BalkanEyes relies on the record established by the ICTY to tell this story. To learn more about key locations of the conflict and to start traveling, go to: