Serbian Election
Toma Nikolic's victory in the Serbian presidential election has panicked the boys of the press. The Washington Post has particularly hysterical account, typical of the Post's purely ideological coverage of foreign affairs. Both the headline and the lead sentence get in the key-word "ultra-nationalist," while Nikolic's moderate strategy is described as "claims to have transformed himself into a pro-EU populist." Don't ask me what the writers thought this means, though it does indicate that for the Post, anyone who loves his country has to hate the EU.
Look at how much propaganda can be packed into one sentence: "During the 1990s Balkan wars, Nikolic was the deputy leader of the extremist Serbian Radical Party, which was even more hardline than late strongman Slobodan Milosevic — who plunged the region into its ethnic conflagration." Note the words extremist, even more hardline, strongman (Slobo was, after all, elected!), and the allegation that Milosevic, coming to power in the middle of a civil war, alone is responsible for the "ethnic conflagration"--whatever that means. I wonder if these guys own a dictionary.
You the piece yourselves, but pay attention to this little beauty:
"He supported Serbia’s warmongering in the former Yugoslavia, and even fought briefly in Serbia’s notorious volunteer units during the war in Croatia."
See, it is warmongering if a federal government tries to prevent the violent secession of the members and a war-crime to defend the lives and homes of Serbs who were being slaughtered by the Neo-Nazi regime in Croatia. (No, I don' hate Croats, quite the contrary, but Tudjman was vile and so were his supporters.)
"People say believe half of what you see,
Son, and none of what you hear."
Sing it Marvin--or rather Barret Strong, who co-wrote the song, but with this addition--"and even less of what you read."
Maybe we can hear about the election from friend George who is over there!
Entries(RSS)
Any political development that sends the Washington Post into a panic and annoys the EU is certainly to be welcome news!
The repeated use of such terms as "ethnic conflagration, "strongman" and "extremist" reveal not simply a lack of a dictionary or thesaurus but an even deeper ignorance, less easily remedied; this is the ignorance - I would even say willful ignorance - of history, language and culture matched with a political agenda.
It will be interesting to follow developments here. Coupled with sentiments in Greece, Scotland and others it seems the once beloved and invulnerable EU might finally be losing some of its appeal.
Propaganda?!
Have you ever listen to mr.Nikolic speeches,or following his actions in the past?
Understatements of the century by Post,but then again you truly did explain yourself about Croatia and your knowledge about conflict there-have you ever spend any reading,or visiting these places?!?
Not defending Croatia,me the least of all,having reasons of my own,but lets be honest,or not ignorant-we live in the world of media and Balkans conflict was not long ago-We know what happend,rest they should educate themselves and admit that Serbia could and should do better for themselves.
Even now you can and should talk to refugees (Serbian refugees form Croatia) all over the States and rest of the world-then learn how used they were by ideology that costs so many..and after all mr.Nikolic speech two weeks before assassination of Serbian Prime minister Zoran Djindjic,and his actions during the war in Baranja-Croatia,speaks louder than anything what foreign press might write.
If you think that this man presents future,than sir.i will add nothing more.
Layla's comment is a good example of what discourages me from posting anything on the internet. She makes two complaints. The first is that I have no idea of what I am talking about and the second is that Nikolic, in contrast with such fine upstanding democrats as Zoran Djinjic, is a monster.
For the sake of new readers, I would point out that I have studied a fair amount of Balkan history--started by way of the Byzantine Empire, by the way. Although not at all fluent in the language, I can read it, with effort, and have delivered speeches and lectures, though now I prefer to lecture in English. I have been visiting parts of the former Yugoslavia since the wars and have spent time in Belgrade, Zagreb, Kosovo, Montenegro, and B-H. I even wrote an admittedly not very good book on Montenegro--it was a rush job. I was most recently over there giving academic lectures about six months ago. I don't know Mr. Nikolic, because he was out of the country when I went to do an interview but I have met the Radical Party's other leaders and have a fair idea of their strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncracies. The worst I met with was some naive anti-Catholicism which never bothers me.
If we judge Nikolic by some of us rants, we would be justly suspicious, just as if we were to judge Layla by her hysterics, we might get a court order for an extended period of bed rest in some nice quiet place. I assume she is some kind of liberal, since liberals cannot admit that anyone can disagree with them on any subject unless they are misinformed
The idea that anyone can be contrasted unfavorably with a corrupt hack like Djinjic who sold out his people for money is ludicrous. I used to know slightly a Belgrade businessman who naturally paid off Milosevic and when Djinjic came to power, he was happy to continue flow of money until Zoran asked for double the money. The businessman thought he could bluff him, but that was mistake and he ended up fleeing the country and going into hiding.
So please, Layla, peddle your nonsense somewhere else. You obviously do not even read English, since the point of my piece was not to praise Nikolic--though, frankly, anyone should be an improvement over Tadic--but to give an illustration of the double standard in the press. I remember, a long time ago, when Dodik was number two in the Bosnian Serb Republic. I met him once or twice very briefly but did not trust him, simply because he was being petted by the US government that had turned against Mrs. Plavsic, who had previously been our favorite Serb. As soon as Dodik got in power, he demonstrated his independence and became a monster. This sort of childish lying characterizes everything in the newspapers and, alas, in the poor suckers who believe what they read.
The narration of Yugoslav conflict is "Rashomonic". There are multiple layers, versions of the "truth", sometimes by the same side. Layla's is just one of the many possible variations. The stories are subjective, all of them betraying personal prejudices and presenting limited information. With them, you can assign the blame according to your disposition.
From my point of view, the most important aspect of the conflict is that the fragile Yugoslav civil society was destroyed in the 90s for the third time in the 20th century, while opportunists, nonentities and illiterate rubes rose in their stead. The current elite, made up of former communists, tycoon exponents and leftists, newly remade as nationalists, are a sad bunch. Whether Nikolic, Tadic, Jansa, Josipovic, Djindjic, Djukanovic, the game of three card monte is played by all. Today it's one, tomorrow another, so that nobody has to accept the full blame for being unable to do anything. In those parts, it's back to feudalism of sorts. Without your own clan, life is impossible. With leftists in charge, these lands are unreformable, no matter what EU or Russia do. In the meantime, the real right, the only force capable of instituting change, the right based on the foundations of the demised Yugoslav kingdom and its military, continues to be as disfranchised and as powerless as it has been for the last seventy years.
While I did not exclude Djindjic from the list of the failed elite, I would point out that all the politicians in that country depend on graft and dubious sources of financing, so it' not like he was dishonest while everyone else was clean. Furthermore,I would argue, even though he was not a personal favorite, that had he lived, he might have been able to prove himself quite capable.
On the other hand, Nikolic, in short, is a man seriously out of his depth, in a way that Kostunica and Tadic were not. Just by being in charge, he is in deep trouble. But this is nothing new, as just about everyone after Tito fell short. With Nikolic, Serbia won't resolve a thing and will continue to be at mercy of unpredictable external forces. Dubious continuity of impotence, indeed.
Jack Bailey makes a valuable point but I think he may be claiming either too much or too little, too much if he is implying that it is impossible to make objective judgments about the Balkans (hence Rashomon), too little if he is implying that it is not much the same story everywhere. It is true that one can most successfully understand these peoples, as Rebecca West did, by listening to their separate versions of reality, as I have tried to do, but it is also true that fair-minded and honest--I would not say objective--people can triangulate their way to something closer to reality. The Ustasa genocide is an historical reality, whether or not we accept the more extreme accounts of, for example, Curzio Malaparte. The kindness of the Serbs to American pilots is also reality. The attempted genocide against Krajina Serbs in the recent conflict is also fact, while the marketplace bombing in Sarajevo appears to be fiction--as was the destruction of Dubrovnik. Serbs committed atrocities, e.g. the horrible things done by Arkan's Tigers, but I have found far more Serbs willing to condemn Arkan than Croats who would admit the truth about Ante Pavelic.
As for the various Serbian politicos, I don't know what direct knowledge Mr. Bailey has of them that would justify any hope that Djinjic was going to mature. He was not just a crook of the usual stripe, but a crook willing to sell out his own people to their enemy. Compared to him, Milo Djukanovic is another George Washington. Politics is a game. The Radicals have played it in various ways--allying with Milosevic and then backing off--and they have played to win, largely because Tadic, like Djinjic, promoted a leftist multi-culturalist homosexualist agenda in order to gain respectability in the West. How is Nikolic going to be worse? I don't know Nikolic and never met Seselj, but their errors are at least patriotic excesses for the most part.
It does not need the political acumen of a De Gaulle to run a country of a few million people. Serbs need something more like the first Mayor Daley, admittedly a crook but more interested in taking care of his people than in sucking up to the "international community" or ripping off for himself. Surely, we can afford to see how he acts in power before rushing to condemn him on the evidence of his speeches.
My dear sir -i congratulate you on your interest in this part of the world,really i do,not many people did that,some others usually for all the wrong reasons.I do not want to upset anyone,truly as Bosnian why do i even care-there is enough Serbians in Serbia unhappy with their current situation and choice of their president,and i understand them well,and i hope all goes better,it does affects all of us,and as Bosnian like i could be really be hurt by different opinion,at this point what could be said or done to us that could justify how media portrayed the conflict back at the time,irresponsible politicians,peace agreements,socialists,komunists,east and west..oh observers..i am still looking for my own,in that respect if i am uneasy by political turmoils in this area it should be understandable.EU and world at large did us here many wrongs,so why bother,-I am no liberal,at all or anything,where do people get that,i do not even play those games-yuck..I am everything what old Yugoslavia was,born and raised,all of nations combined i am refugee twice over,in the fam.of diplomats belonging to the "old times"-living trough systems here,i do not read newspapers to base my opinions about the world that i am already in,i was a target,exchanged,losing property,'cleansed"friends,fam..-When i think about it i do not even have any prejudice,anger how much others feel they are entitled to,after you lose so much,few times over-you do spend time thinking and researching how and what went so wrong?
That is why i am sorry if i upset you,on your part you are right and you should never stop writing because of me or people like myself,that is beauty of it-we are not alike nor think the same-How could we?do not lose your nerves over Balkans.
I was Tito's pioneer,i live trough all of the versions of systems since then, and if anything i am a person of this soil,i have observed and read our people-my life depended on it-Still does..
There are no versions of truth,layers-limited informations,this is not science -fiction,we are just humans,truth is one-about every single step and part trough our past by those in charge or those involved in any way so whether some reject it is their choice,but doesn't make it a layer or version,it's denial-everything is all over the place,people involved talk about it to everyone still willing to listen,nothing can or stay hidden,we had years to put things and pieces in place so i will stay and be misguided in my own right.It's ok.
Kind of worked for me-I am alive.
If i became a person basing my opinions and beliefs on prejudice,fear,hate i would be underestimating my own intelligence and my own voice of reason,so what was the point of trying to survive and fight for my rights-and the dark side would win.
Live long and prosper.
Good article, Dr Fleming. The federal government indeed tried to prevent the violent secession of the members. Simple as that. However that elemental truth will never be recognised by the West. Instead, the well known good-boys-bad-boys story will be reiterated over and over as Dr Goebels once preached. It is not ignorance, it is propaganda. And how many people have your knowledge to be able to resist? As for Nikolic, he as almost the same puppet as Tadic. Alas, that "almost" word is sufficient to make him a bogeyman for the West.
Dr. Fleming, of the two, indeed my error would be implying too much by proposing that one cannot be objective when assessing the Yugoslav history. However, I have yet to see someone's complete and convincing narrative of Yugoslav history from its inception till the demise. I fully agree with your assessments of Ustasas, kindness of Serbs to American pilots, genocide of Krajina Serbs etc. yet there is so much more that needs to be put in the correct perspective. The untouched big issue would be Tito's destruction and mass murder of Serbs and their civil society from 1945- 1951. I have yet to see someone give it a proper and full treatment. But this genocide trumps just about anything else perhaps even the Ustasa pogroms, as it is the root of all the later disasters. A country without its best and the brightest is bound for doom as we are seeing it now.
Other big contentious issues are the role of Prince Paul, whether Tito's partisan movement was of any value at all. There are many minor ones like the role of General Draza, Tito's purges of the Stalinists. I would love to read someone's work some day feeling that objectivity was finally achieved.
My personal knowledge of dr. Djindjic is not first hand, however it is personal in the sense that it was recounted from direct everyday contacts of a close relative who was his personal advisor. Djindjic and Kostunica greatest achievment is that they ended the koshmar that was Yugoslavia under Milosevic, finally freeing the country from 60 years of communism. However,it is highly problematic to qualify either as crooks willing to sell the country to the enemy within the given context of the times. That Djinjic was a quisling was a favorite mantra of Milosevic, Seselj and indeed Nikolic at the time. But how can anything crooked that Djindjic or for that matter Kostunica have done compare to the shameless, unprecedent and cynical multi-billion thievery on a grand scale of the whole economy commited by Milosevic, his demented wife and brainless son.
Indeed Djindjic may be guilty of making a Hobson's choice but it was in many ways the only choice. Too call him a traitor for it, I just don't know. Granted, Djindjic may not have grown in office, although there are indications that he was commited to confronting the West over Kosovo at the time of his assasination. In addition, he was a leftist whose policies would eventually become unbearable. but the fact that he was the one that finally took down a bad communist regime still stands.
Nikolic is probably not going to be any worse than his predecessors. As an intellectual, he may be able to hold his own vis-a-vis Sarah Palin, but it is higly doubtful that he is streetwise smart in the way of the first Mayor Daley. Nikolic is obsequious, a product of negative selection, in the same way that Milosevic was. In different times he would have been a communist. His constitutional role is minimal anyway, the real damage will be inflicted by any future government in place.
Don't try to justify it. Stuff happens dude. I think I met her in Munich at a jazz concert. Later they (we) jammed in the beer cellar and so forth and so on... Romance.
"See, it is warmongering if a federal government tries to prevent the violent secession of the members....."
Do you feel the same way about the US federal government's actions during the "war between the states"? Do other people/nations have the right to self-determination? Serbs dominate the Balkans because of their close alliance with Russia/Soviet Union which has historically attempted to exert control in the area. The Slovenians, Croatians and the people in Bosnia (aside from Serbian nationalists) want no part of that alliance and don't wish to live as second class citizens.
Thanks to Matej for responding. I think he makes several mistakes. The most obvious is the notion that there is or is not a right of succession. Everything depends on circumstances and particular constitutions. The second is a highly distorted view of Yugoslav history. Many Croatian political intellectuals were more enthusiastic about South Slav union than Pasic or his king. It's a long story I don't
Much feel like retelling. When Croatia seceded to become a Nazi ally, and then proceeded to murder large numbers of Jews and Serbs, a fair minded observer might well question motives. I supported the more recent secession of Croatia in principle at the time and still do, but it was a messy and violent affair, contrary to international law. And if my Croat friend resale believes in a right to secede, I wonder what he thinks of the violent and genocidal suppression of the Krajina Serbs. Let's rerun the footage, shall we?, of Croat planes strafing the fleeing women and children. Even the Serbophobes at NPR and the BBC were temporarily horrified. Let us cut the hypocrisy.
In Slovenia, pre WWII support for Yugoslavia was overwhelming. In WWII Slovenian Chetniks were numerous and after the war they became the leading kadres of the very pro-Yugoslav Slovenian Communist party.
Likewise, the Dalmatian Croatia was overwhelmingly pro-Yugoslav and King Alexander in return made sure that huge investments were put into the city of Rijeka since he was not able to hold on to the neighbouring Italian-annexed Fiume.
There couldn't possibly be a post about Serbia without the entry of our favorite Croat nationalist to peddle the most rudimentary of lies. Transparently dishonest though they may be to anyone remotely familiar with Yugoslavia, their repetition has succeeded in altering opinion in the US and as such I try to respond when possible.
To that end, for anyone to suggest that the Serbs were allied with Communists and Soviets is to turn history on its head. It seems very convenient to forget these simple facts which refute these stupid notions:
a. Yugoslavia was a communist dictatorship which means it had a dictator - a Soviet trained one in fact - and said dictator's nationality? Croat.
b. Said Croat dictator also had an inner circle - in which case it would be useful to understand exactly how many of those men were Serbian. Answer? Exactly zero.
c. Said Croat dictator who claimed to be against that bogeyman known as nationalism carved up only one nation/republic in his attempt to disenfranchise a population inside Yugoslavia. Was it Croatia? Slovenia? No, it was Serbia.
Croatian nationalism is a "special" kind of movement which distances itself from things like facts and reality.
While Matej busies himself claiming that the Serbs were Soviet-allied commies his compatriots back in Zagreb are presently involved in another major fabrication - impuning the name of General Draza Mihailovich whose legal rehabilitation is finally at hand in the Serbian courts. The Croat claims against Mihialovih? Why - surprise, surpirse - they are the same as the claims of the aforementioned, Soveit-trained Croat communist dictator of former Yugoslavia: that he was a collaborator, one allied with the Nazis. Yes, the very same Mihailovich who coordinated with the Serbian-Americans in the OSI the greatest rescue of American airmen EVER for which he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom!
(As an aside, folks, one reason the Croats like to claim Serbs are allied with those "commie Ruskies" is to establish this notion of western / eastern which they feel helps accentuate the divide between Serb and Croat. Never mind facts like Serbia has a monarchy which is blood-related to the Windsors. General Mihailovich was protecting that throne and today its heir Prince Alexander is often the one seated at gala events next to Prince Charles of Windsor - most certainly not a Croat prince.)
You see folks, the Croats will set us staright - in WW2 it was really the Serbs who were the Nazis and Commies and the poor little fellows from Zagreb (Ante Pavelic, Josip Broz) were just good little "Christian", "democratic", and by all means "western" guys who were tarred by Serbian propoganda. Just like their heir in the 1990s, Franjo Tudjman, (and his henchmen Gotovina and Makrac, sitting in an appeals court at the Hague) was misunderstood when military intercepts recorded him blatantly planning the genocide of Serbs in the Military Krajina.
Poor fellows, the Croats. I suppose if my people were on the wrong, losing, evil side of history in every single historic period these past 100 years I might lie about it also.
Eagle's and Matej's posts are exactly what I mean when I apply the term "Rashomonic". Is the truth somewhere in the middle and is the search of the objective truth close to impossible? Whatever the answer may be, the main aspect of this conflict, contrary to what we are led to believe, is that most Croats and Serbs do not hate each other and are for all intents and purposes the same people. In addition, as the now hated dictator vociferated in the famous 1974 speech, "without each other they are nobody and nothing."
How absolutely correct this warning was, we are reminded of almost every day.
I don't think this is a good example because whIle Eagle may be biased he is reciting facts Matej is repeating propaganda. Same people? Perhaps.but they appear to have entered the Balkans as separate tribes, have different religiomsand histories and if I have been correctly informed different languages though that may be propaganda. Some Croats did speak a dialect closer to Slovenian. Obviously there has been a great deal of intermarriage and some Dalmatian/Kotor Catholics used to say they were Serbs. Serbs don't object to this but some Croats defaced the tombstones of Catholic Serbs. I know and like many Croats and Serbs but their qualities, good and bad, seem quite different. Like Czechs Croats value money and security and bourgeois decency while Serbs often prefer glory and machismo. On the other hand , the Croat I hired was unreliable, incompetent, not especially clean, henpecked, and disloyal. I have never met such a Croat before or since. It is like the Scots v English quarrel. I like both but at the extremes they are different.
When I lived in Australia in the mid-seventies I met a student who I pegged for Eastern European. Feeling adrift and isolated in a foreign land, and always hoping to learn something about the lands neighboring those of my forebears, I struck up a conversation. She said she was Yugoslavian. Hoping to gain her confidence by displaying some knowledge of her homeland, I rattled off some basic facts about the place. Once she was satisfied that I was not a complete ignoramus about it, she opened up a little. On the subject of the language, I mentioned I had heard it called "Serbo-Croatian" and tried to find out if this was because, in fact, it was a blend of two distinct languages, and how could this be? She downplayed the difference, saying, in effect, that there were regional versions but that most anyone could understand anyone else. When I came to the subject of ethnicity, however, she became guarded. At first she repeated what I thought sounded like the official line: ethnicity, nations and nationalism were things of the past. I knew how deeply interested I was (still am) to know the ethnic makeup of my father's people, from that cauldron of nationalities now lumped together as Romania, so I pressed her to be more candid. Choosing the two major components, I asked her point blank, are you a Serb or a Croat? She positively blushed and said heatedly "I'm a –– !" "Those –– are not good people!" I've forgotten which was her group and which was the other, but the sudden venom in her voice has always stuck with me.
I understand the distinctions that Dr. Fleming is drawing and I believe he is correct in what he states about differences at the extreme. But on the average I am not so sure of sharp distinctions beyond those that the environment may foster. In this respect I am influenced by the immigrant experience in the US. The life choices made and lifestyles are similar for both groups. And I'm not meaning certain Serbs or certain Croats, rather the whole cross section viewed across rural, urban, nationalist, Yugoslavist, etc.
Then again, when I consider the broader historic sweep and what the two peoples were parties to I tend to conclude that there is no way these peoples are similar at all.
Will science have something to say about this as genetic trackers become better understood? One of the recent studies suggests that the Serbs and Croats have a very close biological link, perhaps the closest of all the peoples in the Balkans by a significant degree.
Biologically, religiously, lingusitically - how much more different are the Croats and Serbs than say the northern and southern Germans?
Croats and Serbs themselves have tended to believe, albeit in different ways, they are very similar. The attitude is readily evident in many Serbs. And could the most extreme Croat chauvanists in Pavelic's movement really have believed that Serbs were that different if they were willing to accept large swaths of them as Croats if they would only convert to Catholocism?
While I regret how I ended my earlier post above which might suggest some deep dislike for Croats in general, that is not the case. I grew up as and remain to some extent a Yugoslavist. In this I mean not necessarily that I believe the Croats and Serbs are ultimately compatable but rather that I believe a federated Yugoslav state would have best served the individual peoples by fostering regional stability (both vis-a-vis expansionist Islam and expansionist liberalism) and enabling some measure of sovereignty for them as a whole. Clearly, as a Yugsolavist, I believed in some degree of compatibility which is to say sameness.
The Yugoslav peoples cooperating amongst themselves would have been far better off politically, economically, and culturally than where they find themselves today answerable to Germans, Americans, Russians, Turks, and others. That is how peoples as ardently Christian and conservative as the Croats and Serbs end up with unprecedented national debts, mujahedeen in their midst, meek socialist politicians, and homosexual rights movements.
Eagle, if I may, to what extent does bruised ego play a role in the Serbo-Croatian divide tragedy? As Roman Catholics, did the Croats by and large resent the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as the fact that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a successor state to the Kingdom of Serbia and ruled by Serbian princes? If so, did this resentment spill over into a strange repugnance for anything "Yugoslav" no matter who was the nominal head?
More importantly, could anything (such as the federalization you suggest) have been done to temper this, or have the machinations of the modern press just been too strong to resist, and no peasant will accept to be a part of a political unit in which something he can identify as his own ethnic group does not possess significant bureaucratic control?
I'm not a Slavicist or Hellenist by any means, but to me the implications of the answer to this last question seem grave. If the latter be the case, then it may simply be futile to discuss Serbo-Croatian reconciliation until there is a definitive and total reversal of the Schism of 1054, and in that case, given the devastation the region has suffered and is likely to continue to suffer for the next few decades, this issue needs to go higher on the priority list than it has been for some time...
Nicholas, that is a great question but I'm not sure I can do it justice in answering. I will say that the kingdom went a long way toward trying to accomodate Catholics, enacting religious freedoms that put Catholocism on the same plane as Orthodoxy even though the throne would remain Orthodox. And willingly doing so without a formal concordat with the Vatican or pressures from powerful Catholic nations. The Karadjordjevic dynasty even undertook symbolic gestures like incorporating the Croat checkerboard into state symbols and naming offspring after famous medeival Croat monarchs (there were no living Croat heirs to intermarry with). Beyond the symbolic, political structures aimed at local autonomy were also experimented with. This at a time when majority opinion in Serbia itself was against a Yugoslav state and instead favored consolidation of Serbian lands in an independent Serbian state. Even so, I realize these may have been viewed as inadequate in light of a Serbian and Orthodox throne over Yugoslavia. But flash forward to the 1990s. By this time the majority of Serbs were resigned to a secular and non-nationalist Yugoslav state as a compromise worth making to preserve the peace and some economic stability in a demographically overlapping and contested geography over which they didn't want further violence. Now, I realize that this will be challenged by some as a veiled attempt at Serbian hegemony. But some facts in addition to the ones I provided earlier help explain a more complex picture that emerged at this point that reflects circumstances that go beyond a religious divide: Yugoslavia already had a federal structure but was not satsifactory to Croats; a strong proponent of reforms within the federation was the last premier, the democratically oriented Croat Ante Markovic; studies produced in Serbia and Macedonia explained with facts of when and how Slovenia and Croatia were economically favored republics within the communist state structure; and the movement for democracy after 1981 and particularly after 1989 would have naturally favored the more numerically superior Serbs, though the republic structures that divided them up would have served as a counterbalance (think US House vs Senate balancing act). Taking these facts (and others too numerious to list, which involve foreign powers meddling inside Yugoslavia) into account, I am hard pressed to reduce the situation to a religious dispute. But could that divide which originates back in 1054 and is further depeened by a succession of painful events since then be the root cause which is insurmountable? That is a good question for which I don't have a satisfactory answer.
Thank you for your response, which seems to confirm to some extent what I suspected. If there is indeed a lack of common material destiny to unite the Serbs and Croats, then a common spiritual destiny is the only hope for healing and fortunately will be more powerful and more perennial.
The EU may not go the way of the dinosaur, and Serbia may yet join. But for spiritual healing to take place, people have got to learn not merely to mistrust but to ignore the materialistic Eurocrats on deep issues that actually matter.