Explaining the International Relations of Secessionist Conflicts: Vulnerability Versus Ethnic Ties

Abstract

With the end of the Cold War, many observers expected that international conflict would be less likely to occur and easier to manage. Given the successful resolution of the Gulf War and the European Community's (EC) efforts to develop a common foreign policy, observers expected international cooperation to manage the few conflicts that might break out. Instead, the disintegration of Yugoslavia contradicted these expectations. Rather than developing a common foreign policy, European states were divided over how to deal with Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia. Germany pushed for relatively quick recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, whereas other members of the EC wanted to go slower. Some observers expected Russia to fall in line with the West because of its need for investment and trade, but instead it supported Serbia. It is puzzling that Europe failed to cooperate regardless of whether greater international cooperation could have managed this conflict. How can we make sense of the international relations of Yugoslavia's demise? Since secession is not a new phenomenon, we should study previous secessionist conflicts to determine if they share certain dynamics, and we should consider applying to Yugoslavia the arguments developed to understand such conflicts.

Endogenous institutional change after independence

“…DR Congo's transition to independence did not run smoothly; Belgium shortened the time horizon from four years to six months after witnessing the problems France had with its own decoloninzation project (Saideman, 1997). In addition,the Belgian colonial rulers had focused most of their efforts on the extraction of mineral resources and did not leave DR Congo with a strong institutional framework.…”

A Bargaining Theory of Minority Demands: Explaining the Dog that Did not Bite in 1990s Yugoslavia

“… 9 There is a vast and growing literature on the link between ethnic conflict and international politics. See in particular Suhrke and Noble (1977), Heraclides (1991), Morgan and Campbell (1991), Cooper and Berdal (1993), Carment and James (1995), Davis and Moore (1997), Saideman (1997), Lake and Rothchild (1998) and Saideman (2001). I hope to contribute to this literature by explaining shifts in minority demands over time as a response to both internal and external factors. …”

Is Ethnoreligious Conflict a Contagious Disease?

“…They also influence the behavior of states. Majorities in one state that are ethnically similar to another are likely to intervene on behalf of those minorities due to those ethnic affinities James, 1996, 2000;Saidman, 1997). This argument is confirmed by empirical evidence 6 Davis, Jaggers, and Moore, 1997;Saidman, 2002).…”