IN-DEPTH BRIEFING // #72 // MARCH 24
CONFLICTING MEMORIES, CONTRASTING NARRATIVES AND THE WAY AHEAD: THE COMPLICATED CASE OF
AUTHOR
Major Rocco P. Santurri III US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command
The Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research is the British Army’s think tank and tasked with enhancing the conceptual component of its fighting power. The views expressed in this In Depth Briefing are those of the author, and not of the CHACR, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Ministry of Defence, British Army or US Army. The aim of the briefing is to provide a neutral platform for external researchers and experts to offer their views on critical issues. This document cannot be reproduced or used in part or whole without the permission of the CHACR. www.chacr.org.uk
NATO AND SERBIA
A
S Russia’s “special operation” against Ukraine rolls into its third year, the shockwaves continue to reverberate throughout Europe in ways expected and others unforeseen. NATO has felt the full weight of the conflict and has experienced significant changes few envisioned a scant time ago. Finland and Sweden abandoned decades of neutrality for membership, while many NATO members have paid long-overdue attention to their atrophied military capabilities. With fears of a wider conflict on the minds in Brussels, NATO considers further enlargement (or expansion, in the eyes of Moscow) as expedient. This sense of urgency has also widened the aperture when considering who to engage for future membership. One such country in this category is Serbia, long considered an ally of Russia. Mention of Serbia joining NATO has often evoked fears of introducing a Trojan Horse
into the alliance. But as the war continues, many favour a harder push by NATO, and influential members such as the United Kingdom, to consider Serbia for membership. However, the history between the UK, NATO and Serbia is complicated by events during the Yugoslav War, as British jets took part in air strikes on Serbia. The threemonth bombing campaign remains a bitterly divisive issue that has been fuelled by a war of words between NATO and Serbia since the first bombs fell. While consideration should be given to Serbia pulling closer to NATO, any hope of a future together must involve NATO reconciling the past, while also weighing an opportunity to minimise Russian influence in Europe against inclusion in the alliance of a potentially divisive member.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” – Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities In the 1990s, optimism reigned
1 // IN-DEPTH BRIEFING // CHACR
throughout Western Europe and America. Communism was defeated, the global economy was relatively healthy and 9/11 was not even a consideration in the wildest of imaginations. This, however, was not the case in the Balkans. Only a few years earlier, the region struck an optimistic tone. After 1989, many countries in Central and Eastern Europe saw their opportunity to win the freedom that had eluded them since World War II. Yugoslavia offered a complicated and unique case. This conglomeration of states was riddled with national, political, ethnic and religious differences. Born in 1918 from the ashes of World War I, Yugoslavia consisted of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. Historical animosities between the unwilling participants were held in check by the unifying Josef Tito. Through his efforts, tensions simmered but did not boil over. As such, Yugoslavia carved out a relatively peaceful existence from its incarnation through to