Download OGetting_I...nneth

“Getting It RIGHT—Sort Of (1990–2001)”
by Daniel L Byman and Pollack Kenneth
Markéta Šonková (383345)
April 18, 2016
Source & Outline
Byman, Daniel L and Pollack Kenneth, “Getting It
RIGHT—Sort Of (1990–2001),” chapter 8 in Byman,
Daniel L and Pollack Kenneth, Containing the Spillover
from an Iraqi Civil War. Things Fall Apart, (Washington,
D.C.: The Brooking Institutions, 2007): 177-202.
1. Introduction: What it is about?
2. Outbreak
3.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
1.
Spillover
Refugees
Terrorism
Economic costs
Radicalization of neighboring population
Secession breeds secessionism
Political tensions
Costly interventions
Resolution
2. Conclusion
INTRODUCTION: What it is about?
Single civil war in the former Yugoslavia (1990s) → series of interlocking civil wars →
SPILLOVER
International community at that time: closest to “managing” a civil war → recognized
potential for spillover → workable solution & spillover minimization
BUT (bittersweet success) - West slow to move & act; failed to prevent humanitarian
tragedies
SPILLOVER PREVENTION - outside not within!
LESSON LEARNT - massive military intervention as a solution
OUTBREAK
CRITICAL FACTOR: breakdown of the Yugoslav state and the fear and loneliness it
created; spark = Tito’s death (1980) → the autocracy starts falling apart
→ Fragmentation X creation of new institutions → incapable → fear
→ ancient hatreds = “insoluble problem” → slow intervention
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR: Role of local media (no objectivity, not independent)
1970s & 1980s: economic conditions worsen → blaming “the others” (ethnicity!) → rise of
ethno-chauvinists (other ethnic groups attack threats → ownership & resources access)
Radicalization: rise of ethnic militias → to substitute for incapable states → played on
violence used against their group → drive out of people & territory + resources seize /
preemption → ethnic cleansing
SPILLOVER
The Yugoslav civil wars: similar range of spillover effects as any other recent ethnically or
religiously-based internal conflicts
Difference: tremendous impact on states within Yugoslavia X countries outside borders
mostly intact (West successful in intervening)
Two-factor success:
1. The West made a greater effort to prevent external spillover than internal spillover
2. Intervened massively to end several of the Yugoslav civil wars before they could
generate dangerous levels of spillover
Refugees
Grave problem → dispossessing people as a key goal of many militia operations →
ethnic cleansing designed to drive out people of different ethnicity or creed + securing land
Massive population flow - caused a havoc with the various state of the region → Serbia &
Croatia ultimately acceding to the 1995 Dayton accords partially due to their inability to
handle the refugees weakening the already weak economies
Problematic areas: economic and social infrastructure, budget problems;
: spread of fighting → they brought horror stories of ethnic cleansing →
these helped to mobilize additional populations out of fear of revenge →
→ Perpetuating the cycle of violence → angry refugees creating more angry refugees
Terrorism
Not the worst effect of the Yugoslav civil wars, but hardly negligible
Bosnian Muslims: weak when declared independence → militias formed (3/1992) to defend
territory → quietly invited significant numbers of mujahidin from the Islamic world (both
Sunni salafis as well as Shi’i extremists from Iran and Lebanon)
→ also Iranian Revolutionary Guards and al-Qa’ida members (later source for networking)
Balkans struggle & importance for the jihadists: propaganda (Serbs killing Muslims)
: juxtaposition of these horrors with
Western inaction (“US & others wanted
the innocent Muslims to be slaughtered”)
Economic costs
Wars devastating to the economies of all of the former Yugoslav republics ( X Slovenia)
NATO intervention: one of the most important ways in which it was successful →
mitigating the economic costs inflicted on states neighboring the former Yugoslavia (some
damage still suffered)
Affected states: Bulgaria, Romania, and Macedonia; but also Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece,
Ukraine, and Moldova
Areas: exports reduction, tourism, foreign direct investments, augmentation of transportation
costs, loss of trade, influx of refugees
Radicalization of neighboring population
A key problem in the spread of conflict among the former Yugoslav states → radicalization
of neighboring populations
→ One of key reasons for outbreak of 4 civil wars in the area (5 if Macedonia included)
Neighboring non-Yugoslav states: also radicalized but not to such an extent + well-timed
NATO intervention
Especially important: Kosovo → sympathies of Albanians (with Kosovar Albanians) &
Turks (ties to the Ottoman Empire - shared history)
Secession breeds secessionism
Secessionist movements in one republic encouraged secessionist movements in others
Major impetus: Germany’s recognizing Slovenia and Croatia → raising prospects in the
minds of Bosnian Muslims, Kosovars, and Macedonian Albanians
→ impossible for moderates to prevail over extremism in debates whether to push for
independence
Fear of secessionism also as a powerful motive for other countries (Macedonia X Greece)
Outcome of Dayton Accords: Inspired Kosovars seeking independence to use violence
(expected international intervention)
Political tensions
Yugoslav civil wars = political nightmare for many European countries, US, and
Russia
→ EU governments petrified by the spillover potential (outside the area) → intervention
NATO intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia: US agreed to lead →
Washington convinced that arguments over what to do could tear NATO apart (big
internal crisis)
→ US had plans on expansion Eastwards + were afraid of reviving Cold War animosity
with Russia (seems absurd and exaggerated now)
Costly interventions
Success stories: there were no costly interventions by any of the small neighbors of
the former Yugoslavia (there were plans to do so) → prevented only by UN, EU, and
NATO respectively
X Considerable involvement by other governments in supporting various groups
inside Yugoslavia (Hungary, Greece, Albania, Turkey)
Involvement never escalated to proxy wars or outright military intervention
RESOLUTION - Motivation
ECC involved from the very beginning in order to end the civil wars
Motivation: fear of spillover (mostly) & humanitarian suffering (through public opinion)
: (in)ability to absorb large number of refugees
: potential for secessionist movements and ethnic animosities to spread
throughout the ethnic patchwork of the post-Soviet Balkans
USA initially did not see any need to get involved in the Balkan affairs + many believed in the
“ancient hatreds” argument → change with the Clinton administration
Motivation: NATO expansion plans → internal crisis within NATO & ECC as a threat
RESOLUTION - Process
European states appointed a negotiator (Lord Carrington) → accomplished nothing
European states turn to the United Nations → appoint a negotiator (Cyrus Vance) → creation of UN
“Protected Areas” + deployment of UNPROFOR → proved powerless → UNPROFOR II
UN in Yugoslavia = disaster → Boutros Boutros Ghali determined to avoid using force, ended up doing nothing
→ various other sides thus could massively use force against civilians
UN sanctions = success (not immediately) → arms embargo on everyone, economic embargo against Serbia,
freezing Serbian assets and forbidding transshipment of goods through the country → gutting Serbia’s economy
US seeing EU’s and UN’s inability to solve the issue → partial lifting of UN arms embargos (West to arm
Bosnian Muslim forces) + forcing NATO to mount air strikes against Serb positions → Operation Deliberate
Force
RESOLUTION - Result
Economic sanctions crippling Serbia’s economy
NATO air strikes pounding Serb forces in Bosnia
Croat ground offensive
1995 Dayton Accords only as a political framework but could not resolve the
conflict
THOUGH: all that still not sufficient → massive Western military intervention and
a 10-year occupation of Bosnia
Conclusion
The Yugoslav civil wars point to: difficulty managing spillover + only feasible solution being massive
intervention
The wars fit the pattern of other wars in terms of impact on neighboring states: produced a vast
amount of refugees, radicalized neighboring populations, created a secessionist domino-effect, introduced
new elements of terrorism in the region, severely taxed the political and economic systems of their
neighbors, and prompted repeated interventions by foreign powers
Unique features: external fear of spillover ignited external action (if not EU, UN, or NATO, other countries
would do so instead)
Result: only partial success (internal spillover); showed civil wars can be successfully “managed” by
external powers by employing massive force
Critical reflection
Further research? → to see how the situations evolved since then (from 2007
onwards)
Good points: counter-arguments proposed, canards rebutted
Weaker side(s): overwhelming amount of data, yet expected knowledge of
development of the situation → weaker contextualization at places;
: no real hypothesis to be tested → the paper is rather descriptive than
prescriptive
Thank you! Questions?