The 1990s dilemma in
Bosnia is the latest in a long line of conflicts in the Balkans. This region has become notorious for its
instability and constantly changing political map. Even in the days of the Roman Empire, the
Balkans served as a crossroads between Catholic and Orthodox parts of the
Empire. It was the middle ground between
Christians and Muslims in the Crusades.
Then we all know how World War I went down. Even in the Cold War, the Iron Curtain split
straight through the Balkan Peninsula.
That brings us up to the conflicts of recent decades. It’s too easy, though, just to say that the
Balkans are a point of conflict just because they are the Balkans, and that’s
because while there is definitely a trend of conflict in the region, there is
not a consistent cause for these conflicts.
It’s not enough to say that there’s a bunch of conflicting ethnic
groups, since the events of the area have revolved around everything from
ethnicity to religion to politics over hundreds of years. So it is intriguing to explore the possible reason
for all of these inherently different types of conflicts happening in the same
place.
I think a major contributing
factor to the constant conflicts in the Balkans is the geography of the
peninsula. If you’re going to divide the
world up into pieces, the Balkans don’t really fit into the puzzle any way you
slice it. You want to divide Western and
Eastern Europe? Sure, England and France
are in the West while Russia and Ukraine are in the East, but the Balkans don’t
obviously fit into either category. They’re
also wedged between Europe and Asia, and wedged between the Mediterranean and
Black Sea. Another major geographical
characteristic of the region is a lack of natural resources; the area is
mountainous and lacks a lot of good farmland.
This could be the reason that the Balkan nations have found themselves
surrounded by big power blocks. The
Greeks and Macedonians expanded south through the seas rather than north
through the mountains. The Romans
expanded east rather than north in the same manner. Then you have the Christian Europeans whose land
path to Jerusalem is impeded by the Balkans.
So there are a number of geographical characteristics that might explain
why so many major powers seem to form around the Balkans rather than in the
Balkans. And when you have lots of major
powers forming around one area…there you go.
I really like your hypothesis about the Balkans and the logic that you used to explain this. From reading this, I would think that this theory or hypothesis would also work for a lot of other countries.
ReplyDeleteLet's take Central Asia, particularly Afghanistan. These are nations that were basically spot in the route of the Silk Road. At the beginning it was trapped between the Persian Empire and Chinese Forces. Then, the Arabic Empire and the Chinese Forces. In the 20th century, it was trapped between Russia (USSR) and Britain (in India and Pakistan). All of this, to a large extent caused the Central Asian Nations, especially Afghanistan, to be very unstable. (Also, these nations are also mountainous or desert, so farming is not a great option; it is so similar to the Balkans....)
If this holds true, that might be a step to the answer to the conflicts that reoccur in these areas: If a nation, or set of nations, are unable to interact peacefully regularly as a result of instability induced by bigger, more powerful nations, then (enter solution here).
I think that the most logical solution is to make the nations, or set of nations, powerful, or rather able to compete on the global market.
If you're interested in this kind of stuff, geopolitics is essentially the study of how geography affects the creation and expansion of cultures/empires, international affairs, and a bunch of other political factors.
Delete