Here’s a grim article by one Phil Butler blaming everyone but the Yugoslavs for the collapse of Yugoslavia:
It is a fact, that after World War II, socialist Yugoslavia became something of a European success story. Between 1960 and 1980 the country had one of the most vigorous growth rates in the world: a decent standard of living, free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years. To my knowledge, not one of the Balkans states that were created can claim half this prosperity. It was this prosperity which caused western interests to want to destroy Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia’s multi-ethnic citizenry also had affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities. The not-for-profit economy was mostly publicly owned, not exactly the poster child for western democratic love obviously. The county could not be allowed to compete with Germany, France, and especially Britain, and the London and Luxembourg bankers could not extract their billions in a socialistic system. Yugoslavia had to die, and the Reagans, Bushs, and Clintons helped make it happen …
But what if Yugoslavia had survived? What if the great ethnic-socialist experiment had worked? It’s safe to say our world would be totally different today. For one thing, the EU with the Non-Aligned Movement of nation states (NAM) operating within its current boarders (sic) would be less potent, far less influential geo-politically. All of Europe might have led to Belgrade, and from there into the six republics now fighting for crumbs from Brussels.
To galvanize how my fantasy Yugoslavian nation might look, I’ll leave you with the relative economic situations of current Balkans states, and the Yugoslavia GDP in 1991, positioned at 24th among world nations. As former President Ronald Reagan used to say; “Are you better off?”
Just awful. Here’s my comment awaiting moderation haha.
“Clinton was in fact, continuing the policies of his predecessor, George Bush the senior, to destabilize the Yugoslavian socialist success.”
Success? Really? I was there from 1981-84. To fund its comparative prosperity Yugoslavia had borrowed from the capitalist West to the hilt and then frittered the money away on shopping and vanity communist disaster projects. It collapsed because it had bankrupted itself economically and politically. By 1984 Yugoslavs were crossing into Warsaw Pact Hungary where the shopping was better.
Yugoslav pun: What’s the result of the Narodno Oslobodilačka Borba (NOB – national liberation struggle)? BON – ration coupon.
I was UK Olympic Attache in Sarajevo in 1984. It was striking how the Belgrade communist elite did their best to ignore the Sarajevo games – no-one outside Sarajevo wanted Bosnia to enjoy a success.
“For one thing, the EU with the Non-Aligned Movement of nation states (NAM) operating within its current boarders would be less potent, far less influential geo-politically“
Boarders? Hoarders? Utter nonsense. The NAM naturally faded away of its own accord when the Cold War ended. Had Yugoslavia joined the EU it would have dumped NAM-ism anyway.
The key failure in this piece is to ignore the stark reality – that Yugoslavia’s ‘socialism’ was stupid and corrupt. But it had one big bad consequence – when it collapsed there was no real national popular impetus towards market democracy as in eg Poland. Hence the dismal performance of all the post-Yugo smaller states for over 20 years now.
If readers here want to have some proper first-hand analysis of Yugoslavia and its fate, there’s plenty here: https://charlescrawford.biz/?s=…
Indeed there is.
+++ Update +++
A bravely anonymous reader opines on my Serbia Story piece:
And you call yourself a diplomat and an expert on diplomatic techniques? Seriously? Cruising the net to sneak your links under other people’s articles, pretending to be about diplomacy but actually sputtering vitriol? What diplomatic techniques can I learn from you? Petty and vitriolic hate ?
All of the above and more!
Interested in the fall of Yugoslavia? Read this fine piece analysing the Yugoslav economic ‘miracle’ (namely the wond’rous fact that we kept lending them money when they had only moderate intention to repay it):
In 1991, Yugoslavia had about $20 billion of external debt. Previous to that, the International Monetary Fund reduced Yugoslavia’s total debt by $1.8 billion because the country simply did not have the means to repay the interest, let alone the principal. What preceded this outcome? This outcome was preceded by several decades of building an economy whose structure was such that its survival depended on a constant increase in foreign debt — an addict economy …
These data suggest that the story we often hear about how the former Yugoslavia “heroically rose from the ashes” after World War II is not complete. First, it is not clear how heroic this rise was, especially if it was due to unsustainable borrowing. Second, it is difficult to give an assessment of this story if we don’t know how the other countries have “risen from the ashes” …
… the Yugoslav economy was in a terrible condition in the late 1970s, but this was masked by the increase in foreign loans of epic proportions, combined with a dramatic increase in economic emigration … What happened in the 1980s and 1990s, was only the revelation of the actual state of the Yugoslav economy. Just like a chronic alcoholic must face the reality of his addiction, so did we, sooner or later, have to face the reality of the powerlessness of the Yugoslav economy to function without external doping.
Spot on. It’s our old friend – the Green Parrot.
Having been a Canadian diplomat at Sarajevo in 1984 I had actually not noticed the Belgrade/Sarajevo divide until pointed out here. But then we had Alberta so it may have seemed part for the course.
I know you’re busy and on other platforms, but I do miss your posts.
Me too! As you are only person on Earth who misses my posts, maybe I should just send you a regular letter!
A letter would be very nice, but I would still miss your posts. They open a window to a world of which I knew very little and I enjoy every one. I don't know about the rest of the world except they're missing a lot if they don't read your posts.
Charles Crawford, it depends what you view as a “success”. As compared with the circumstances in many western “developed” countries back then, Yugoslavians had free travel – success; free medical care – success; very high employment rate – success; good salaries – success; enough family incomes to provide for essentials (food, clothes, bills) and even for luxuries, i.e. holiday trips (which is the luxury of only few in the today’s fragmented Balkans and a dream for the rest); the state firms provided apartment for their employees, so nobody had to worry about the roof over their heads – a success; unity – a success; veeeery low crime rate – success. I could go on and on with this.
Maybe you visited Yugoslavia, but I lived and still live here. Your claim in one of the forums about the Olymic Games here is simply untrue. The entire country supported the Olympics and poured money in Sarajevo for that purpose.
All in all, you are a very angry and cynical man who had too much communication with nationalist minds in this area.
In Yugoslavia we could buy in the supermarkets mostly products made in Yugoslavia. Today we can buy mostly imported goods. Certainly for the producers of those foreign products it is good for their economy, as they have larger market now (24 millions more customers!), than before. So, it is not a conspiracy theory that for Western Europe it was better to help the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Of course, the Balkans nationalist leaders played the major part, but it would be ignorant to say that the western countries did not make their hands dirty in this area. Medeline Albright had major interest in Kosovo, under the pretence of protecting Kosovo Albanians. Albright Capital Management, founded by Ms. Albright, has been shortlisted in the bidding for a 75 % share in the Post and Telecommunications in Kosovo. CIA agents who were deployed in the Balkans in early 90’s (now retired) speak openly about the US plans in the Balkans.
Clinton was regularly on the phone with Izetbegovic (Bosnian Muslim’s leader) giving him special advises. Many witnesses in ICTY trials claimed how Izetbegovic broke many deals (changed his mind overnight) that could have ended or at least suspended the conflict after he had a phone conversation with Clinton. I am not saying that they are the main to blame, and I don’t think it was Mr. Butler’s intention in his article. Instead, he was rightly focusing on the international scheme that turned into a pattern applied in other parts of the world.
Talking about the external debt as the only or at least main reason for the dissolution of Yugoslavia, you are wrong again. It did affect the state of play, but had our leaders been smarter we could have taken a different path.
Many European countries today have almost equivalent debt as Yugoslavia back then. Former Yugoslav Prime Minister, Ante Markovic, introduced the reform agenda in late 80’s. He stopped hiperinflation, external debt started reducing, Of’ course there were some shortterm “adverse effects”, but on a longterm basis his reform agenda could have saved the country had he not faced obstacles both from the inside and from the outside (Europe did not like his idea to increase taxes on import. of’course they didn’t, as they would not benefit from it.
Most of the real enough apparent benefits Yugoslavia enjoyed came from its absurd indebtedness (money borrowed from the West) and inward remittances (money sent back by Yugoslavs working in the West).
Most socialist police states have a low crime rate. The state beats people up until someone confesses!
Yugoslavia was like an impressive-looking house whose foundations are being eaten by termites. It's a 'successful' and even impressive house – until it suddenly collapses.
Once and for all. There was NOTHING to be gained for Western business from Yugoslavia collapsing. The market growth of a single Yugoslavia moving to a market economy and thereby getting richer would have been far better. See eg Poland
Wrong again. The low crime rate was, in the most part, a result of high employment rate, acess to free medical care for all, free education for all and a few other factors that contributed to general satisfaction of yugoslavia residents. Other Communist countrires ridiculed us saying that our regime was not reflecting Communist ideas. I dont fully agree with such assessment because we had political prisoners, those who oposed the sistem. That was the only element of the policing that shoud have been abandoned. The rest brought only benefits for its citizens. Today, many talk about the perfect swedish system, NOT knowing that back then Yugoslavia we had most of the today's swedish benefits. I am just having a coffee in a Cafe in Sarajevo called 'Tito'. For those who dont know, Tito was the Yugoslavia lader. Most Bosnian citizens now regret for voting for nationalists, saying that we shoud have just abandoned the political persecutions and kept the rest of the system.
Charles,
I know we disagreed on Brexit but here is my pre-Brexit piece on the Western Balkans
https://www.veruscript.com/journals/journal-of-in…