logic of yugoslav nationalism in serbia

staatsvolk

tito had influence over confederal nature

the immediate recognition of the dismemberment from the US could also be from ideological differences as Milosevic was seen as a communist leader of serbia more than his nationalism that he shared with other Yugoslavian leaders. US was able to frame Serbia and Slovene-Croat as communist vs democracy.

an assumption that would connect EU and US in the quick dismemberment of Yugoslavia is realted to how powerful/large the Yugoslavian army was. additionally, its suspected that american recognition of the independence of B&H was becuase they were known to induce open warfare in Yugoslavia. plus, Bosnia had the highest concentration of military industries, therefore supporting the separation ensured a rapid debilitation for Yugoslavia

ohhh. *this is an assumption on their part

emphasises the international communities involvement with the Yugoslavian responsible disintegration of Yugoslavia. There was a mix of open political support and ready acceptance of the dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

describes the series of proclamations of independence from Slovenia and Croatia, the recognition and acceptance of Slovenia, Croatia, and B&H into the UN, the civil war that broke out amongst the disintegration that the European Union and US legally intervened with to turn it into an international conflict, and the UN Security Council imposing sanctions on Yugoslavia.

wow two years

the first priniciple that the author's argue that contribute to a successful multinational federation is Staatsvolk. it's not a pancea but the evidence demonstrates that the more heterogenous a federation is the more likely it will be unstable, face secessionism, or break up becuase the minorities are more likely to think they can prevail. the authors suggest that multinational federations without staatsvolk to survive as democratic entites they must develop consociational practices to protect interests of all comm. adding Gannon into this paragraph because they share similar views, the majority nation must appropriately behave to maintain stability.

mentions india's refusal to recognize religion, not ethnicity, as the basis of state formation. india is a successful multinational federation but due to their refusal to recognize religion they have had issues with Kashmir and Punjab. violoence would be a result of centralising decisions.

canada is a great example of a successful multinational federation that has had its up and downs regarding quebec. the problems arose as the authors argue, due to centralising movements away from multinational federalist principles. in 1982 the canadian prime minister Trudeau introduced two major changes to the constituion to weaken Quebec's powers. tensions rose and a there was a close referendum result in 1995 that lessened the tensions.

introduces the idea that these failed multinational federations had a lack of Staatsvolk and were the most heterogenous. this combine created major tensions. in O'Leary's past research they have found that the world's stable and durably dem majoritatian federatiosn are so because that have straatsvolk (dominant people/identity)

authors argue that collapses were caused by insufficient implementation of pluri-national federal principles. for example war started in croatia because the serb population wanted to stay in Yugoslavia (this sentiment also spread to bosnia).

the authors even argue that it is because of these centralising movements and majoritarian policies of the dominant groups that contribute to the wars and conflict of the existing nations that came out of the federations.

wrong historical causation leads to prominent arguments against multinational federation. the authors in this article argues its attempts to unitarise and centralise multinational federations that lead to secession and violence. For Yugoslavia, the successive Serbian-dominated moves against autonomy of the others lead to Kosovo to de facto breakaway. it could be said that federal constitutions with procedural and negotiable secession rules might have avoided violence and even succession better.

the authors of this paper counters the argument that mono-nation-building strategies can be used as an alternative for deeply diverse states is that these strategies have not been successful. UK's civic and unitary state did not prevent the nationalism of its different nations. Therefore the UK had to use a devolution strategy but it still does not quell nationalism.

counterfactuals = relating to or expressing what has not happened or is not the case. authors against multinational federation argue that it was unnecessary to accommodate diversity through federation and that there were democratic civic or unitarists (one nation) alternatives.

the econoic systems within these failed federations eventually proved incapable of providing a reasonable or growing standard of living for citizens. different economic systems of the different regions of the state caused resentment.

colonial federations still were imprinted by the departing metropolitan. s decision to federate instead of the indigenous elites. this case includes Nigeria and Cameroon.

Yugoslavia isn't actually a multinational federation, it was decentralised but that doesn't mean its was democratic, it was held together by the League of Communists. Other "multinational federations" which are more like pseudo-federations include USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Nigeria. they all had weak or no overarching identities and no democratic mechanism for developing those identities

this harks back to an article i read a little bit of (i think it was the Yugoslavia one) where america's motivation relied on ideological differences to further break up that federation. but that's an interpretation. regarding the paragraph, american academic argue that the break-up of former communist federations are due to their implemenation of "ethno-federal" strcutures. Jack Snyder argues that ethnofederalism tends to heighten and politicise ethnic consciousness, creating self-conscious intelligentsia and org strucutres of an ethnic state in waiting. implying that federalism leaves ethnic groups waiting for something they will not receiving leading to nationalism and tensions. additionally snyder notes that nationalist violence happened only where ethnofederal institutions channelled pol activity along ethnic lines (ex: USSR and Yugoslavia).

to manage divisions in thnically heterogenous soc many different authors have suggests that federations can be partly designed to prevent ethnic minorities from becoming local provincial majorities. a balance of power principles, proliferating points of power away from one focal centre, encouraging intra-ethnic divisions, nad creating alignments based on non-ehtnic interests. america suggested this to iraq.

brings in the disagreement that american academy and policy making have with multinational federations that is unlike Jacobins because americans reject the strong state idea. The disagreement is that America's position on federalism is that it shoud be more national than pluri-national. Instead american praise federalism for its ability to diffuse power to multiple points and it protects liberalism and enhances markets. americans even encouraged federalism for post-war germany. additionally, american federalism's goal is the same as Jacobinism which is to contruct a single poeple out of many.

breaksdown where the negativity toward multinational federations are coming from. Specifically from France's Jacobins where he thinks that pol recognition of multiple nations/ethnic comm institutionalizes and reinforces division, endangers national/state unity, and leads to state breka up. Then refers to practical examples which include several eastern euro states that have moved to replacing pluri-naitonal federations with "nationalising" states (tightly centralised, controlled by dom national comm, and intent on honogenisation of deviant identities). these nationalist seek indep as unitary, sovereign and indivisible nation-staets with some able to consider confederation.

highlights the federal principle of the ability for groups to easily secede if they want to. in the case of Yugoslavia is was a part of the full constitutent unit of the USSR were able to break away and break even further into independent states. In the case of succession it begins when the regional gov balme their central counterpart for whatever ails them; this contributes to intergovernmental politics of division

details the accounts were multi-national federations have collapsed or have failed to be durably democratic all around the world.

understanding the term and relevance of "multination/pluri-national" or "ethno-federal" federations instability. mentions Yugoslavia's disintegration during its transition to democracy. (which the authors argues is crucial for the stability of multinational federations, alongside the choices of no democracy and no single state)

argues that multinational federations cna succeed under certain conditions and the arguments against are greatly exagerated, based on majoritarian bias, spurious arguments, and misleading comparisons.

fucking agree!

describes the lessons to be learned from post-war Bosnia: equality is contested concept and that dif groups and reps are very aware of dangers of exclusion and discrimination, inclusion of some groups might lead to exclusion and institutions to include may turn out ot be exclusive and discriminatory, and necessity for time to adapt and be flexible. other post-conflict situtations interact with this issue of equality so to address the author argues it needs, precise constitutional mechs and protection of certain rights and that they need to be allowed to change/evolve over time

B&H has most complicated pol system because it combines mutli-d federal system with power-sharing amongst elites form three constituent peoples. its institutional framework served to end the 1992-1995 war and lay foundation for elite cooperation and fed.

Oh okk so, yes the author is promoting multinat fed as one of the best forms to uphold dem because it has the ability for the minority nations to be heard. but a level of self-restraint must be seen by majority nation so there isn't any state stability with the minority nation fighting back for more autonomy. (additionally, their level of autonomy is not a 1 conversation deal its a day-tp-day.) the author uses the federalism formula and applied to complex pol systems to demostrate that if the majority nation cannot uphold deep div then minority nations will get angry and put in a situation of dominance.

Multinat fed are not a panacea but its best for fulfilling dem principles and give voice to minority nations/large # of pol comm. "complementary to this", multinat fed can give added val to principle of self-gov in dem settings through implantation of innovative pol practices in maintaining multinat unity.

Mutlinat fed allow for the minority nation to institutionalise a pol of recognition and minority nations are able to develop policy instruments to put limits on dom of majority nation. Therefore the extent that minority nations are treated fairly can expect state stability will be increased and constitutional loyalty will stay intact (because the minority nation won't want to escape). All of this means the majority nation must excerise a level of self-restraint

OH! resistnace to deep diversity is ever where and well documented but what makes multinat fed "better" is its ability to consider the voice of the minority nations because they are built into the pol fabric of the country.

The author reiterates the imoprtance of finding an equilibrium between self-rule and shared rule in order to achieve respect to lang protections, hiring practices, and provision of fair rep in Legilative Assembly and Upper House for the minority nations.

There are many cases where the regional state regained their autonomy (East Timor, Eritrea, Kosovo, Montenegro, and South Suden) and they have become independent. (*which it is a point for multinat fed are doomed to collapse...)

To continue off the point raised about majority nations seeking more control, Jammu and Kashmir had their fully auto state downgraded to union territory.

Shout out to Philip Resnick, might hav eto check him out on his views. The author highlights that the central challenge is within finding a proper equilibrium between sefl-rule and shared rule. The Canadian fed is complex and Quebec desires to have share of pol competencies. Though there are some minority nations that are fine with the central state taking care of certain businesses because the minority nation doesn't have the resources to self-rule. But this may lead to situations where the majority nation takes more and more control away from minority

This is a lot of what the author is arguing but it is framed in this essay through the backing up of Pierre Trudeau's point about multinat fed (which is the advantages of staying integrated for the minority nation must outweigh the down-sides/other opportunities that may occur when spilting. Author added on that this success is dependent on how much the central state is willing to accomodate deep diversity. Lists examples of how the central state can accomodate. mainly pol power sharing, pol auto, adoption of collab

fed can only be instilled and prosper in dem pol settings

These are counter arguments

Integration of these 2 things won't guarantee that the nultinat will survive because the terms must be negotiated ona day-to-day basis. However the 2 things do contribute to strengthening relations of trust between pol partners.

Author highlights other authors support for their argument because the 2 things are incentives for ethnic territorial interests to mobilise and organise their opposition aginst central state. the author uses USSR Yugo and Czechslovakia's collapses as examples.

national pluralism really matters and must be protected institutionally. 1st stress importance of asymmetrical arrangements. 2nd more decentralised pol regime. The author argues the incorporation of these 2 will favour pol stability.

depoliticise both ethnic and cul rights in multinat/ethnic settings. the author is highlighting the urgency of advancing pol rights of comm in territorially-delineated space so liberalism can take diff and more performative exp to prompt state actors to go beyond indiv pol autonomy.

it is important to distinguish concept of nation/s as demos/demoi from state as pol institution. this connects to the authors argument that there is a need to decouple the concepts of nation and state when observing the way state nationalists act in div pol settings.

The author argues that the US model is a little flawed regarding its opposition to the pol and juridical exp of national plurality.

Fed generally refers back to the US model because of its pol stability but the down-side is that it comes at a very high cost in hum lives.

These processes are major hurdles for implementation of interactive dynamic of cultural diversity and dev of relations between minority and majority nations

The author suggests the addition of a 4th process which consists of forcing fed members to adhere to same norms, standards, and objectives as ones determined by central state in the name of efficiency, performance, nad rationality

The 3rd process of renationalisation regards anti-immigration policy implementations aimed to "protect the national cultures of Euro countries against population flows of global migration". France, Germany, and UK are challenging the principle of deep div by arguing that multicul is detrimental to maintenance of pol and soc cohesion.

There are observed efforts from the minority nations to "get a better deal" with existing pol settings (ex: Meech Lake prop with Quebec and Canada & suspension of pol institutions in Catalonia through application of Article 155). These are situtations where the central state are using the carrot (Canada) or the stick (Spain) to tame/silence opposition.

2nd process of renationalisation has to do with national responses to national building strategies. They assert they ought to have equal status with majority nation and claim to have right both to internal and external self-determination. Mentions Quebec's pol force mobilising behind "equality or independence". Similar scenarios have emerged in Catalonia, Basque country, Scotland, Flanders, and beyond.

The 1st is about the recurrence of violent conflicts in Cen and East Euro following collapse of USSR in 1993. Discusses two fallen multinat fed (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) because they were affected by the pol tensions from the collapse. Their dismantlement led experts to say multinat fed could only lead to or feed pol instability. Or the author reframes as the experts are saying multinat fed contained the seeds of their own failure in their ethno-nationalist comp.

Just introducing the 3 key processes of renationalisation that is taking place in Euro identitfied by Joseph Marko

There are countries (Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Switzerland, and UK) that have been willing to provide support to minority nations through dynamic push and pull that was benefitted by new sensitivity to cul pluralism, nat div, and linguistic div. However, in countries like Spain it wasn't going to last the whole time due to impending dom pol forces trying to reverse it back to central state hegemony and they themselves upholf state stability.

Trend of renationalisation (powerful forces bringing together the central state back) in the past 3 decades. This leads to weaker groups from holding onto their own power which lead to distrust and mistrust among leaders and neg impact between pol comms.

This the final definition the author landed on regarding multinat fed. Its a more collaborative and mutual agreement of the diversity of a multinat or multi level fed.

*I'm a little confused about this paragraph but here's my go. The author is engaging with the discussion about how most forms of multinat fed is linked to ethnofed whic is linked to be unstable "as narrow ethnic identities would prevail over broad civic achievement" or to the unraveling of various communist feds. The author's aim is to take rep of pol interests and their dem exp seriously instead of assuming like Bunce and her colleagues that all pol actions are motivated by ethnic aspirations/goals.

This is the author's definition of multinat fed, one about recognising presence of multiple identities and sustaining appropriate institutions capable of empowering pol comm to promote state differentiation and state collab.

Author highlights existing definitions of mulitnat fed. 1st and dominant current focuses on notion of territorial or mon-nat fed. 2nd thats gaining more prominence current focuses on pol presence of more than one sociological nat & sig for pursuit of pol legitimacy and maintenance of pol stability

Authors thesis + roadmap are here. Thesis = present multinat fed as a new distinctive form of pol association to favour nat div within complex dem settings. Roadmap = what multinat fed offers alt to dom lit on territorial/mononat fed, ongoing nat building processes and how multinat fed can aid, discusses reasons to adopt multinat fed in nat diverse contexts.

another counter arugment which involves students saying that multinat fed need a Staatsvolk to impose pol will to assert more dominance to be stable. Author fights this claim by arguing that we have seen the consequences of this through Spain (jailing pol leaders) and India when they removed the statute of pol autonomy from the Kashmir.

all nat subjects of a sovereign country. or those subjects belonging to the dominant ethnic group of a country, excluding minorities, especially those who belong to nations that have states of their own

The author brings in counter arguments from Christian Joppke (who argues that states are more inclined to secure and fortify majority culture and impose their authority, through adopting measurements) and Brian Barry (who argues that cultural diversity -> state fragmentation that turn into exploitation from ethnocultural pol entrepreneurs). Author concludes they are insensitive to minority claims

The author highlighted the period of advancement of deep diversity from late 1980s - mid 2000s. Within this period sprouted the ideas that diversity is really important to creativity that sustain public life. But after this period liberal Western dems witnessed backlash against this trend.

Mentions Myanmar, India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Iraq. Author shares these cases as a way to demonstrate where the n. gative protrayals of multinational federations are coming from + the root of the issue (the imposition of common nationality).

Very expansive and thoughtful. This report was to recommend an implementation of social insurance right after the war ended. It classifed a broad range of people that would recieve these benefits. I believe it touched on where the money would come from.