In the 1990s,
at the end of the Cold War when tensions in eastern Europe were easing and
western Europe and the United States were enjoying a period of relative peace,
the notion of ethnic cleansing or conflict of cultures was not prominent in the
international community. After World War II, the international community set
forth policies and law to ensure a genocide or unification of a single race
would never plague any nation and that global diversity was a positive implication.
However, the fall of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War appeared
to usher in a period of progressive ideas to promote stability in eastern
Europe; however, ironically, the sudden independence of the former
Soviet-controlled Balkan States led to a rise in nationalistic pride where
religion was used as justification for war and ethnic cleansing. The reunification of Germany and the fall of
the Berlin Wall, both symbols of the fallout after World War II, stood in stark
contrast to the re-igniting of religious differences that had laid dormant for
so many years under the reign of Yugoslavian President Josip Broz Tito. The Balkan states of Croatia, Serbia, and
Bosnia were unable to peacefully exist without Tito’s overbearing rule and the
result was a gradual swell in nationalism where religious differences “proved
combustible” and ignited another genocide in Europe (Berkley Center for
Religion, Peace, and World Affairs). The example in the Balkans following
Tito’s death demonstrates the danger posed by rising nationalism and how
sectarian groups will use religion to justify destructive actions against the
perceived “racial other.”
The death of
Yugoslav President Tito and “economic decline” were a factors for reigniting
tensions between the newly independent states and an unleashing of nationalism
within each separate Balkan nation (Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and
World Affairs). Following in the
footsteps of the Nazis, Croatian Democratic leader Franjo Tudjman emerged as a
combatant ready to impose nationalism and ethnic homogeneity within Croatia,
which had a large Serbian population; once again the Serbs fell victim to Croat
atrocities. During World War II, Croatia
maintained a past alliance with Adolf Hitler that saw Serbians sent to
concentration camps. Consequently, religion was used politically as a method to
ensure Croat ethnic supremacy. Religion in Croatia was a catalyst for conflict
and the defining factor to weed out those members who did not fit into its
nationalistic vision.
As Croatia
reinforced its dominance within the Balkans, religion became intertwined with
ethnicity to form of solidarity among the Catholics. However, in order to maintain its superiority
over other religions, Croatia imposed a strategy of psychological warfare in
order to annihilate any opposing ethnicity. Peace became inescapable for these
individuals, especially Serbian women and children, who were among the worst
targets. The Croats use of psychological warfare consisted of using pictures of
raping, degrading, and mutilating females on state television as a way to
depict a vulnerable and emotional image of ethnic crime. These human rights
violations and war crimes were “psychologically powerful...anyone who watched
these scenes, hearing a discourse of genocide night after night over a period
of years, could easily become convinced of these [Croatian] atrocities” (Gagnon
2). Essentially, this use of warfare to bolster religious superiority among
Croatian Catholics became a justification for ethnic cleansing and unifying a
singular ethnic-religious identity. This warfare became the basis for squashing
one ethnic group’s cultural background and religious affiliation. These same
practices were prominent in World War I and World War II.
Eventually, as
the Bosnian-Herzegovina War erupted, hatred and violence among religions hit a
tipping point that divided the region immensely. Religious distinctions became
a part of political passion and nationalism in order for “leaders [to]
successfully mobilize them in a deadly struggle for power” (Berkley Center for
Religion, Peace, and World Affairs). The historic precedence of
religion-inspired genocide during the Ottoman Empire and World War II became a
factor in mobilizing ethno-religious division and psychological warfare between
Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs, and Muslim Bosniaks. Seemingly, within heterogeneous
communities within the Balkans, the pursuit of religious superiority became a
construct to rationalize and to suppress opposing religions, races, and
cultures and ultimately promote a power paradigm for the dominating nations. As
Balkan nations achieved more independence, the lines between religion and
ethnicity were blurred as one’s religion also became one’s ethnic roots. From a
Bosnian Muslim soldier, he states, “I never thought
of myself as a Muslim...I’m European, like you...I do have to think about
myself as a Muslim, not in a religious way, but as a member of a people. I have
to understand what it is about me and my people they wish to obliterate”
(International Center for Religion and Diplomacy).
The implications of nationalism and homogeneity from the Balkan Wars
mirror the current rise of nationalism in the United States as evidenced in the
election of Donald Trump to the office of president. Trump rode into the White House on a platform
to “Make America Great Again,” questioning and threatening to repeal many
international agreements or pacts. While
not directly using religion as a justification to essentially keep America white
and Christian, Trump used the travel ban from Muslim-dominated countries and a
repeal of the DACA program to limit immigration to those individuals either
non-Christian or non-white.
As Tudjman was “nationalist obsessed,” Trump echoes the same sentiment through
his policies (Traylor). The homogenous
identity of a white, Christian race has become the trademark of the Trump
presidency. Diversity, once integral to
American identity, has become undermined as Trump justifies his actions through
an appeal to patriotism and nationalism.
Works
Cited
Berkley
Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. "Bosnia: Ethno-Religious
Nationalisms in Conflict." Berkley
Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Georgetown University, Aug.
2013,
s3.amazonaws.com/berkley-center/130801BCBosniaEthnoReligiousNationalismsConflict.pdf.
Accessed 22 Oct. 2017.
Gagnon,
V.P. "Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s." The Myth of Ethnic War, Cornell University Press, 2006, pp. 1-30.
Johnston,
Douglas, and Jonathan Eastvold. "Religion in the Bosnian Conflict." International Center for Religion and
Diplomacy, icrd.org/rp24/. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017.
Traylor,
Ian. "Franjo Tudjman." The
Guardian, 12 Dec. 1999, www.theguardian.com/news/1999/dec/13/guardianobituaries.iantraynor.
Accessed 22 Oct. 2017.
I really enjoyed your thesis and the idea that people use religion as the tool for political gain. It is an idea that can be seen in conflicts all over the world and throughout history. One example of this could be the use of religion in the Iranian revolution and the overthrow of the Shah. The points that you made in the last paragraph really echoed some of the things that we discussed as a class when analyzing different types of calls to war. In some ways the speeches that Trump made can emulate the patterns that these calls to war had. He, with his supporters, created a unified front against the democrats and immigrants (etc). He used religion and nationalism as a way to unify his supporters, and he was able, against all odds, to garner enough support to be elected president.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite parts about studying history is really thinking about how and why leaders utilize forces like ethnicity, race, religion, etc. to advance their personal political agendas. Your analysis of the leaders during the Yugoslav conflict was very interesting and touched upon the different reoccurring historical themes that I mentioned above. I think that it is important to learn from events in the past to prevent falling into the same traps that humans have been struggling with throughout our history. Taking this into account, I found it, and still find it, quite shocking that Trump was actually elected to be president. I do find it thought provoking how Trump utilized forces like religion and nationalism to create his political identity, which ended up carrying him to the Oval Office.
ReplyDeleteGoing through the political spectrum for many countries many try to separate church and state but here you show how the leaders in the Balkan nations used their religion to further their political agendas. I liked the furthering of this point where you spoke about the Ottoman empire being about ones religion. The fact that this is needed to separate and gain enough power should be beneath most but it is a driving factor and it can create unwavering support for leaders and other officials.
ReplyDelete