Yugoslavia Revisited: An Examination of the Immediate Effects and Long-Term Implications of Western (Foreign) Policies During and After the Yugoslav Crisis

This research project consists of four studies that examined the immediate effects and long-term implications of Western foreign policy strategies in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The crisis in SFRY in the early 1990’s began with secessionist groups conducting small-scale attacks on military and civilian infrastructures, yet it was the coercive threats of the U.S. and other western powers that escalated the violence. Although there were numerous factors that led to civil war enveloping Yugoslavia, only one causal factor of the war was a necessary condition. Study 1 is a case study analyzing the processes and effects of U.S. (as well as E.C.) foreign policy during the early stages of the Yugoslav crisis; focusing on one causal factor – the West’s strategy of coercion from 1990-91. Counterfactual theory of causation, as well as counterfactual analysis, with an emphasis on historical and logical consistency, and necessary and sufficient conditions, were utilized to support the hypothesis that the coercive strategy implemented by Western powers in the Balkans from 1990-91 was the cause of the war. The methodology used in this study is frequently utilized in case studies analyzing causes of war (as well as peace), however it has not yet been utilized to analyze the cause of the Yugoslav civil war. This study, therefore, contributes to the literature on counterfactual analysis, as well as on the Yugoslav conflicts and U.S. foreign policy more broadly. Study 2 examines possible bias by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Scholars have long debated the impartiality of this institute. Some argue that the Tribunal is biased while others argue that it fairly and impartially seeks justice for all the victims of the war. The present study offers a narrower approach to the question of possible bias by examining whether certain case variables were associated with case outcomes. The results show strong evidence of an association between the ethnicity of the accused (and of the victims) and the verdict and years sentenced, which calls into question the Tribunal’s impartiality. Nonetheless, the main goal of this study was not to question or dispute its decisions but to assess the validity of certain grievances against the Tribunal. For instance, the Serbs feel the Tribunal has not delivered justice for their victims and –as a result– their ‘collective suffering’ has been disavowed by the other communities in the region as well as by the West. Western political elites have largely rejected the validity of the Serbs’ claim and have attributed their belief to a denial by the Serbs of their role in the war. Unfortunately, the contentious nature of this debate has contributed to the lack of peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts in the region. Study 3 extends on the issue of bias by examining the messages disseminated by the ICTY. Previous studies have demonstrated that Tribunal has made prosecutorial decisions and reached judgments based on ethnicity. Furthermore, some scholars argue that the workings of the Tribunal have aggravated tensions in the region and are the primary cause for the negative perceptions of the ICTY by many communities in the Balkans. In response, the Tribunal has largely blamed the regional media and ‘nationalist politicians’ for spreading ‘gross distortions and blatant falsehoods’ about its work. Subsequently, it created an outreach program to try to change its image in the Balkans. Using thematic analysis, this study examined the way the Tribunal has framed the Yugoslav conflicts. The results show that the Tribunal’s frame of the conflicts mirrors that of the U.S. government and Western mainstream media, indicating ethnic bias by the Tribunal. Overall, this study supports findings of framing studies, as well as empirical and critical studies on the ICTY. Finally, Study 4 examines the effects of the ongoing media demonization/dehumanization on the target group that began at the onset of the crisis in Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s. Recent empirical research has shown that dehumanization can have severely negative consequences. Few studies, however, have focused on the target group and those that have were experimental. To fill this void, this study focuses on the effects of dehumanization from the perspective of the target group through a real-world experience of dehumanization. Serbians and Serbian-Americans were recruited to participate in a series of focus groups and one-on-one, semi-structured interviews via Skype. The results show effects that include feelings of numbness, lethargy, a reduced tendency towards action, and lack of self-assertion; responses that are defense mechanisms against emotional distress. These results support previous studies on dehumanization. However, the most dominant themes were motivations to take action and ‘fight back,’ mainly through political engagement and mobilization. The results can essentially be boiled down to responses of ‘fight or flight,’ with the former as the most dominant. This study, therefore, adds a novel insight into the effects of dehumanization