|
SOME LESSONS OF YUGOSLAVIAN CRISIS Edward Ryzhkin (Moscow State
University)
In my report I would like to introduce my vision of some lessons of
Yugoslavian crisis.
In my opinion, the most important of them is that it has proven
groundlessness of the idea that after the failure of communism the world enters
the conflict - free period of development that is triumph of liberal democracy.
Events in Yugoslavia have convincingly shown large potential of the trends to
the conflict and power of destructive nationalism practically in the center of
Europe. The probability of the appearance of the conflict has grown up in many
other regions of the world as well, in many respects this is connected with the
transitional period in international relations - when after the collapse of the
bipolar system a new one with its own mechanisms of the prevention and
liquidation of the conflicts has not been created yet. The only today’s
superpower - USA - does not manage that. But UN can do that even worse, what he
have seen in Yugoslavia.
In this connection the problem of reforming UN is actual, as well as that
of creation of effective regional systems of collective security (in Europe, on
the Near and Far East). Necessity of that becomes much more urgent because of
already occurred invasion of “arc of non-stability” in Europe - terrorist
acts in France, Bosnia, Turkey, Crimea, Northern Caucuses - the most important
hearths of reflection of activity of the Islam factor in European policy.
And now, Muslim countries, Islam Conference Organization will actively
invest money in Bosnia, turning it into their European springboard.
It’s important to note, that even if now peace process in Bosnia will
go on - that will be just temporal solution of the problem, because for real one
desire of the sides to come to agreement without inside compulsive force is
needed. In case of change of inner or outer balance of forces (say, if
isolationists will win in the USA or USA will abandon the policy of advances
with the Muslims) a new aggravation of the conflict is unavoidable.
Yugoslavian crisis has sharply posed a problem of responsibility. That of
responsibility of as Yugoslavian as foreign mass media, intellectuals
(especially, humanitarian), politicians and peoples properly. But mostly
responsibility of those, who form public opinion and take political decisions.
During the crisis there were produced quite many myths - for consolidation of
the new states and mobilization of their population on the struggle with outer
enemy. As to the West, that needs to have a common enemy for the strengthening
of its alliance after the collapse of communism, it initially made it Iraq, then
- “Serb national - communists and aggressors”, though reality in Yugoslavia
is multidimensional.
This aspiration to the simple solutions, absolutization of the ideas
(say, national independence) were too expensive for the peoples of Yugoslavia.
Was it worthy of waging a war for four years to realize that SFRY was, possibly,
not so bad? In any case, even Slovenia and Macedonia, that are not involved in
the combat operations, have problems with the defense of sovereignty and
territorial entity, being under the pressure of threats of the mighty neighbors
- in contrast to SFRY.
Yugoslavian crisis has made precedents for other regional conflicts.
After the restoration of the Croatian power in Eastern Slavonia without
guarantees needed for the right of minority one may expect intensification of
the activity of Georgia in Abkhazia, Moldova in Pridnestrovye. Transmission of
entire Sarayevo to just one side makes a pattern for the definition of the
future of Jerusalem. But the Arabs (in contrast to the Serbs) have oil.
Yugoslavian crisis has confirmed difficulty of the process of the
transformation of multinational socialist state on - conditionally - Western
model of development. In case of the weakening of the central power, large
experience of the mutual conflict relations between state - establishing
peoples, appearance of the conflict becomes possible (as it was in Yugoslavia,
in some of the republics of the former Soviet Union). In the future China may
also meet this problem.
At least, I would like to note, that Russia, though could be more active
in defending more balanced position in course of the conflict, fortunately has
not entered full scale confrontation with the West, danger of which existed.
I think that Russia must try to work out all-nation consensus on the most
important problems of its foreign policy (including Yugoslavian crisis) for more
balanced actions of the different branches of power in foreign political
questions and adequate reflection of public feelings and realization of national
interests by Russian diplomacy.
Back
to Moscow Conference
Back to Home Page
|