Politics

De lange schaduw van de Grote Oorlog

Jan 29, 2014 Joschka Fischer

BERLIJN – Het is dit jaar honderd jaar geleden dat de Eerste Wereldoorlog uitbrak, wat reden genoeg is om te overdenken wat we vandaag de dag nog van deze cruciale Europese catastrofe kunnen leren. De consequenties van de Grote Oorlog voor de internationale betrekkingen en het mondiale statensysteem zijn namelijk zeker nog voortdurend te voelen. Dus, hebben we iets geleerd van het falende beleid van regeringen, instituties en de internationale diplomatie in de zomer van 1914?

Grote delen van het noordelijk halfrond worstelen nog steeds met de erfenissen van de grote Europese rijken (het Habsburgse, Russische en Ottomaanse) die in het kielzog van de Eerste Wereldoorlog instortten, of wiens verval, zoals dat van het Britse imperium, door de oorlog veroorzaakt werd en bezegeld door zijn nog bloediger vervolg een generatie later. De hieruit voortkomende breukzones (in de Balkan en het Midden-Oosten bijvoorbeeld) zijn de bron van een aantal van de huidige meest ernstige risico’s voor de regionale en zelfs wereldvrede .

Na het einde van de Koude Oorlog en de ineenstorting van de Sovjet opvolger van het Russische Rijk, ontstond er opnieuw oorlog op de Balkan en onder zeer gelijke omstandigheden als die heersten in de periode voor 1914, waarbij agressief nationalisme het desintegrerende Joegoslavië uiteindelijk herschikte als zes aparte staten. Natuurlijk was de Servische president Slobodan Milošević, wiens roep om een Groot-Servië de oorlog deed ontstaan, hier niet alleen in; Europa verkeerde voor een moment in het gevaar om terug te vallen in de confrontatie van 1914, waarbij Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië Servië steunden en Duitsland en Oostenrijk Kroatië.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Jan 31, 2014

Mr. Fischer warns us that the peace we are enjoying in Europe is "precarious". Honestly, does Mr. Fischer think that "only as long as the Balkan countries believe in the European Union and the benefits of membership" would peace be permanent here?
On the other hand, he is right about the reverberation of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 has for the Levant and the Balfour declaration of 1917 for Israel and Palestina, nearly 100 years later.
Yet does Mr. Fischer believe the US is to blame for having "rendered the Sykes-Picot structure untenable, because no other external force for order is available"? There had always been insurgency against interlopers as well as French and British occupiers in the region. After they left, rebels took over and became autocrats, who then got ousted and replaced by others of the same sort.
Mr. Fischer fears "the memory of 1914 may trigger the most concern in East Asia". Yet despite "all the ingredients of a similar disaster", he sees "grounds for optimism". Apart from the "continued presence of the US as a stabilizer in the region", he can also count on the interests of Russia and India.
Mr. Fischer should have quoted Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace, published in 1795. Kant's theory is that democratic leaders are restrained by the resistance of their people to bearing the costs and deaths of war. A democratic culture of negotiation and conciliation, plus the hurdles to taking swift action, does favour peace. Even if China and Russia are no democracies, popular resistance and the burden of bearing costs and casualties will inhibit them from waging war.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Miodrag Perisic Jan 31, 2014

I am sickened by this type of 'condensed', laconic reflection on a long period of human history, using mostly widely accepted (and mostly wrong, of course) stereotypes to explain complex events, such as disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 90-ties. Without much love for late Mr. Milosevic, there was no "call for Greater Serbia" by him, officially od otherwise. Mr. Fischer should better elaborate on his own government contribution to inciting and directly assisting separatist movements in Croatia and Slovenia, which led to final breakup of Yugoslavia, the same thing repeating again with Kosovo. Yes, there were separatist tendencies inside Yugoslavia, but they would never have succeded at that time without external help; the same problems were successfully dealt previously, within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, since Germany was not allowed to interfere at that time!
- Steven Calascione Jan 31, 2014
  
  Joschka Fisher has steered clear of any mention of the spark that set the world alight in the fateful summer of 1914. That's because the focus now is on getting Serbia admitted into the EU which will help clarify the status of Kosovo (ref. UNSCR 1244, "ICJ Opinion" and the Kosovo Declaration of Independence). Kosovo's Stabilisation Tracking Mechanism (STM) programme is underway, at some point they will qualify for EU membership.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steven Calascione Jan 30, 2014

Mr Fischer has not mentioned Africa the most troubled child of all with serious ethnic, religious and governance issues rooted in history. Take Somalia, until recently a British and Italian protectorate. Concerted efforts by the international community (naval patrols in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden and capacity building in Kenya and Ethiopia) are having the desired effect but the cost, human and financial, is high. Governance is key in Africa, as elsewhere, even if simmering feuds (in the Ogaden region for instance) threaten to upset the apple cart.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Jan 30, 2014

Political shadow boxing
History is an unavoidable shadow. Unresolved issues remain so, unless they fade away. Focussing on the Balkan's I would like to add, that it was quite clear in the 1960s that Yugoslavia was held together by dictatorial force, the Tito regime. It was already doubtful then, that it could be held together without that ditatorial force. Tito died in 1980. Serbia's wipping up Serbian nationalism came gradually and was the hapless attempt to create a regime that could hold Yugoslavia together, at least by a 'forced consensus'. European embassies and Yugoslavia-departments in the respective foreign ministries spent many millions on political analysis 'for the birds'. For the fraction of the cost of the subsequent disaster, and the political and economic disaster since the Dayton accord, Yugoslavia could have been helped on a path to a consensual state, or alternatively, a peaceful break-up, like Cechoslovakia. Every option and opportunity was missed by all European states, with Paris and London leading the fools. Remeber Mitterand in Sarajevo shortly before the explosion. Throughout the 1980s Yugoslavia and Europe had the chance to escape the historic shadow, at least a bit. But political common sense is not very common.
- Miodrag Perisic Jan 31, 2014
  
  And prey expalin, how was then Yugoslavia held together before WWII??
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/FcujK7wnl

De lange schaduw van de Grote Oorlog

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

De lange schaduw van de Grote Oorlog

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification