Agrotesque war is taking place in the middle of the European continent. It is an attack on lives, livelihoods, homes, villages, historic and religious buildings, and also on fundamental human values. A year ago, few people had heard of ‘ethnic cleansing’.footnote1 Now it is clear that we are witnessing a new phenomenon different from, but scarcely less horrific than, Nazism. The international establishment—foreign governments or international institutions like the European Community, the United Nations, or the csce—have stood helplessly by, veering from one mistaken position to another. On the one hand, there are those who explain the war only in terms of Serbian aggression. Serbia is viewed as representing the vestiges of the former Yugoslav totalitarian state, while the new nation-states are regarded as democratic or at least potentially democratic. Supporters of this view favoured early recognition of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina and now they favour various forms of pressure on Serbia, including strengthening sanctions, establishing a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina, bombing Serbian airfields, and lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnians. On the other hand, there are those who interpret the war in terms of competing national interests. They tend to oppose military involvement by the West and seek a political solution based on ingenious compromises between the warring parties. They consider that early recognition of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, before compromises could be reached, was a great mistake and they fear that increased pressure on Serbia could reduce the chances of a negotiated agreement.
Both these positions are statist approaches. They are based on ‘realist’ assumptions, to use the International Relations jargon, that is to say they assume that political and military leaders are the only relevant actors and that the conflict can be defined in terms of political and military goals. There is a third position which interprets the war both in terms of competing nationalisms, and in terms of the legacy of totalitarianism, these being understood in societal as well as political terms. According to this view, the current wave of ethnic nationalism
The three books under review roughly reflect these three positions.footnote* Mark Thompson’s book sees the main problem as Serbian aggression although he is critical of Croatia. John Zametica argues that the cause of the war is incompatible ‘national aspirations’. Misha Glenny defines the war in Croatia as ‘in part a nationalist war and in part a war of territorial expansion sponsored by Serbia and the jna (the Yugoslav Peoples Army)’ (p. 180) and he vividly describes the explosive combination of a disintegrating state apparatus, historic fears, deteriorating rural and urban conditions, roving protection rackets. Both Mark Thompson’s and Misha Glenny’s books are impressionistic. In Mark Thompson’s book, a well-known theatre director from Subotica in Vojvodina explains to a sceptical Thompson what he means by Yugoslavism: ‘To be Yugoslav is not to claim a nationality, it’s a statement about one’s position in the world and in history. It’s not like being a Serb or Slovene or English. To be Yugoslav means “I want to be at home in Slovenia and in Serbia. I like Macedonian rhythms, I like Slovenian melancholy, I belong to the Mediterranean”; that’s what Yugoslavia means, a cultural feeling that one belongs to a civilization of some kind. Of course, there are a lot of people around who prefer the sweet sensation of belonging to very narrow communities, whether regional or national, but I feel like many other people in this country’ (p. 249). In this sense, both books have a Yugoslav flavour. They meander vividly from region to region, offering the reader illuminating glimpses of Yugoslav complexities. Mark Thompson’s book is more literary and historical—an engaging mixture of epic stories, travelogue, poems, encounters with boisterous poets, amusing journalists, and sensitive film directors. Misha Glenny’s book is reportage, including some extraordinary eye-witness accounts of the war-torn areas and of the main villains of the story. John Zametica, in somewhat welcome contrast, provides a very clear and straightforward analysis of the origins and evolution of the conflict as he understands it.
In what follows, I will focus on the different interpretations of the
There are, of course, many different positions on the nature of this complicated war. The three positions outlined are not always coherent or consistent nor do the three books always faithfully reflect them. They can be gleaned from a series of disagreements about the key events and concepts of the war.