1. Introduction The <strong>Synthetic</strong> Report elaborates the contents and the results of the Report on the Theory and Practice of Human Rights and Minority Rights under the Yugoslav Communist System and the country specific Reports on Actors and Means of Ethno- Mobilization, Third-Party-Intervention and Violence. The present survey will attempt to explain why violent ethnic conflict occurred in Yugoslavia. It will also try to establish “the point of no-return” at which ethno-mobilization was so advanced that a violent ethnic conflict became unavoidable. Dealing with of the process of ethno-mobilization leading to ethnic violence, one must first observe that four different views on its nature have basically been presented in the literature. 1 The first (“primordial”) explanation model stresses the primordial character of ethnic affiliation, attaching to it an “overpowering emotional and non-rational quality”. According to this view, in the former Yugoslavia, a fierce competition for political power combined with uncertainty and distrust turned entire ethnic communities against each other and activated hatred that had previously been hidden just under the surface of “normal” inter-community relations. According to the second (“instrumentalist”) view, ethnic loyalties are manipulated by politicians and intellectuals for political ends, such as, for example, the establishment of a new state. The third (“constructionist”) model opposes the idea of a primordial character of ethnic affiliations, arguing that ethnicity is only one of several roles and identities that matter and is subject to change, as it is constructed and eroded by political institutions and choices. Finally, according to the fourth (“collapse”) model, the security dilemma arising from the conditions of state-breakdown is the main source of ethno-mobilization as it let the ethnic group appear to be the powerful protector of life and property against ethnic rivals. Instead of relying on one particular model, the present <strong>report</strong> will take an analytical-comparative approach based mainly on the data provided in the aforementioned <strong>report</strong>s and, where appropriate, evaluating the findings against the conceptual framework presented. The variety of concepts taken alone shows that convincing results cannot be reached by limiting the analysis only to one group of actors, for example politicians. Therefore the <strong>report</strong> will attempt to define the major actors of the process of ethno-mobilization, make an assessment of their role and means used to trigger it, to slow it down or to minimize its impact. It begins with an analysis of some basic concepts put forward in the literature and definitions provided in the country <strong>report</strong>s. On this basis, country specific definitions of ethno-mobilization and its common traits are elaborated. The second part deals with the “grass roots” of the conflict which have to be sought in the Yugoslavian Communist system. The emphasis is put on the final stage of its development. This part includes an analysis of the concept of statehood and the rights which were granted to the nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia that left all of the ethnic groups unsatisfied, a special focus being put on the Serbian constitutional crisis. According to the initially prepared questionnaire the following three parts draw up a comparison of the country specific results on actors and means of ethnomobilization, minorities and third-party interventions. The subsection on actors and means of ethno-mobilization concentrates on the most important actors: the political elites and the clergy, also showing how important the media were in this 1 The following overview is based on Anthony Oberschall, “The manipulation of ethnicity: from ethnic cooperation to violence and war in Yugoslavia”, Ethnic and Racial Studies (2000), 982-984. 6
process. The next subsection points out the legal and actual effects on minorities in the respective republics, the last subsection deals mainly with the role of foreign states, international institutions and their (in)effective influence on negotiations, violent escalation and peace settlement. 7
Change language