That Yugoslavia has survived to this day

My opinion is that Yugoslavia is to survive, today was one of the best country to live in the world, we had a strong industry, strong agriculture, a strong tourism, strong military, we were strong in sport, respected in the world, free healthcare, free education, We have laws that are respected, almost crime she did not, while in the successor states of the opposite of this.

Of course,Yugoslavia was ages ahead of all today's successor states.
If it had survived up to this day,we would all be living better.
What bothers me though,is the Yugoslavian crisis of the 80's which ultimately caused the collapse of the country.
I'm not sure if Yugoslavia would have remained socialist(knowing the pushed for neo-liberal reforms in the late 80's) had it survived the 90's.

Nisam siguran dal' bi Juga ostala socijalistička da je kojim slučajem preživjela devedesete,imajuć' na umu Markovića i pritisak za neo-liberalne reforme u ekonomiji,tj postupni prelazak na kapitalistički model.

That would be something like the Chinese model, but it would be better than this and to everything that happened, it might be after a while back on the right socialist path.

To bi bilo nešto kao Kineski model, ali bolje bi bilo i to od ovog svega što se dogodilo, možda bi se posle nekog vremena vratili na pravi socijalistički put.

In 1990 we had three options:
1. Communist Yugoslavia - the best
2. Capitalist Yugoslavia - bad
3. Decayed and war-torn Yugoslavia, which will be puppets republics of Europe and America - the worst
Unfortunately the then leaders have chosen option 3.

1990 godine smo imali 3 opcije:
1. Komunistička Jugoslavija - najbolje
2. Kapitalistička Jugoslavija - loše
3. Raspadnuta i ratom zahvaćena Jugoslavija, čije će republike biti marionete Evrope i Amerike - najgore
Nažalost tadašnje vođe su izabrale 3 opciju.

I guess if all of those things were strong, it would have remained socialist. It's like the kid who doesn't do drugs at a party. He has strong morals and knows better than to do so.

Quote:

we were strong in sport,

I thought yall didn't do to well in the '84 Olympics in Sarajevo.....I do not know to much about Yugoslavia other then that Yugoslavia was neutral and a big leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. I did do a paper in college on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and that about the only part of Yugoslavia's history I know anything about.

I guess my question would be, is there really much of a desire among the local population to reunite the former states of Yugoslavia? Or is there a sizeable portion of the populace that actually looks fondly at the days of Yugoslavia?

Quote:

I did do a paper in college on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and that about the only part of Yugoslavia's history I know anything about.

I'd like to take a look at that paper.
Would you mind sharing (parts of) it with us?
Anyway,you can't really understand the 90's wars without knowing more about the history of Balkan.

Quote:

I guess my question would be, is there really much of a desire among the local population to reunite the former states of Yugoslavia?

No.

Quote:

Or is there a sizeable portion of the populace that actually looks fondly at the days of Yugoslavia?

Yes.

Quote:

I'd like to take a look at that paper.
Would you mind sharing (parts of) it with us?
Anyway,you can't really understand the 90's wars without knowing more about the history of Balkan.

Unfortunately I wrote that paper over two years ago and no longer have it, as it was lossed the last time my old computer decided to crash. But I remember the paper quite well because I used my father as a source for it, he did two tours with the NATO forces there. During his first tour he was with the NATO Air Operations Center and specifically incharge of the NATO Air Tasking Order (IE Choosing targets, prioritizing targets, and assigning NATO air units to attack those targets) but he also helped document some of the war crimes and that is why I used him as a source. If anyone is interested he helped document crimes that happened in Sarajevo. Anyways the paper was done for my International Law Class and therefore I wasn't really looking to take sides. Interestingly enough it was my father that urged me not to take sides, I would of thought he would've encouraged me to reem the Serbs but that was not the case.

My paper was to focus on the tribunals themselves and decide whether the tribunals were effective. In the beginning of my paper I gave a short overview of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the civil war that ensued, while highlighting some of the more severe war crimes such as the Srebrenica massacre. I also highlighted some war crimes carried out by the other states involved in the conflict so as to not show a bias towards one side or the other. I specifically wanted to stress the idea that all sides had killed in cold blood at one point or another in the conflict.

When I got into the bulk of my paper I highlighted the procedures and practices carried out by the UN, NATO, and the local governments to report and document war crimes. Furthermore I went into the trials themselves, and how they were carried out. I specifically highlighted the fact that many local governments tried to use the tribunals to settle old grudges, in some cases falsifiying claims and accusing people that were not involved. I also wrote about how many government were reluctant to arrest their own people. I highlighted one case where Croatia had a claim against Serbian soldiers and the Serbian Government basically sat on the case not wanting arrest their own troops. Like wise I highlighted a Serbian claim against Bosniaks that the Bosniaks were doing little to nothing to arrest the accused. In conclusion I criticised the fact that old grudges were preventing the former parties of the conflict from working together to bring all those responsible to trial, in essence they didn't want to arrest their own country men. This coupled with the fact that the UN and NATO were powerless to make arrests in those countries, meant that many of those involved would never be brought to trial for the simple fact that no one wanted to arrest their comrads in arms.

My recommendation was that an office was created that had the authority to make arrests in all those countries, that was not made up of NATO or UN officials, that instead was either made up of non-European/NATO security personnel from around the world or made up of Balkans security personnel with an equal number of officers from each of the parties involved and headed by someone all countries involved agreed upon. I also recommended the trials be moved to the Balkans so that it didn't look like NATO was prosecuting people for the fun of it (The Hague is not that far from NATO HQ in Brussels.) Lastly I took a jab at the world as a whole, by stating that after the Holocaust the world said never again and yet the 90s were filled with more ethnic genocide and civil wars then the rest of the 20th Century.

BTW Most of my documentation for the paper came from NATO, EU, and UN sources.