Nostalgia for Old Name Lingers in Uneasy Union
ELGRADE, Serbia, March 8 — Yugoslavia, a country that will forever be
associated with war in the Balkans, was consigned to the history books last
month when its leaders agreed to a rebranding exercise imposed by the European
Union to stop it from subdividing further.
Its borders remain the same, but its new title, "the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro," is as awkward as relations between its constituent republics.
That said, both in Serbia, the dominant partner, and in Montenegro, a tiny coastal state that had been seeking a divorce, people generally agree on two things: the new name is awful, and it will not last long.
"It takes an eternity just to pronounce it," scoffed Maja Jovanovic, a 28-year-old hairdresser in Belgrade. "I can't exactly imagine anyone falling into a state of frenzy chanting it at a soccer match."
Over the mountains to the south, Montenegrins are just as dismissive. Furthermore, for every separatist there is an ardent Yugo-nostalgic, reminiscing fondly about a country that was for most of its history ruled by autocrats who suppressed ethnic rivalries and kept most people in gainful employment.
"All the newspapers say Yugoslavia has died," Bosko Sjekloca, a history professor from the Montenegrin capital, Podgorica, said with a sigh. "But the Yugoslav ideal will never die."
Others contend that it has been dead for more than a decade, after five wars that claimed close to a quarter of a million lives, while creating four new countries and two semipermanent international peacekeeping missions.
"For the past 15 years we only had this fictional Yugoslavia made up by Slobodan Milosevic," said Mirjana Jelovic, a 57-year-old doctor, referring to the former Serbian and Yugoslav leader. "I'll just keep calling myself a Serb. Russians say they're from Russia, not from the Commonwealth of Independent States."
As with many outside interventions in Balkan affairs, the demand from Western Europe that the illusion of a union between Serbia and Montenegro be maintained derives from the unplanned consequences of earlier interventions.
Having encouraged Montenegro to secede as a way of pressuring Mr. Milosevic in the late 1990's, Western policy makers changed direction when Mr. Milosevic lost power in 2000. He is now in The Hague being tried on charges of war crimes.
Since then, they have been preoccupied with the question of what to do about Kosovo, where the majority Albanian population fought to repel his repressive security forces until NATO intervened in 1999. Kosovo's Albanians also want independence, but United Nations resolutions still classify their province as part of Yugoslavia.
The collapse of the Yugoslav federation would make it impossible to contain Kosovo separatist demands, international officials contended. Hence Yugoslavia's new name and a new constitution that classifies Kosovo as part of their union, to which both republics have agreed to adhere for at least three years.
The solution has further incensed Kosovo Albanians. Their increasingly fraught relationship with the United Nations officials who govern the province has encouraged Serbian politicians to demand the partition of Kosovo into Serbian and Albanian territories. That is the outcome that international officials most want to avoid.
"I'm not sure what the European Union thinks it has achieved by sending Javier Solana down here to invent new countries that don't work," said Milan Stolic, a Belgrade lawyer, referring to the European Union's foreign policy chief. "Maybe we should just call the place `Solania' and have done with it."
Almost everyone contends, though, that the constitutional sleight of hand was essential. "It buys us some time," one European diplomat said. "We're simply not ready to start talking about the future status of Kosovo at this stage."
But the inevitability of talks on this issue only makes it more likely that Serbia and Montenegro will part company as soon as the terms of their new relationship allow.
Senior politicians from both republics say the deal is unworkable in the long run because it has officially sanctioned the existence of separate economies, each with different currencies, and two conflicting legal systems.
"Even if the rest of the world is integrating, I think it would be much better if Serbia and Montenegro split up," said Neli Perovic, a 35-year-old Belgrade economist. "We're clearly too immature to make things work together."
The flags of both Serbia and Montenegro are virtually identical tricolors of red, blue and white, although the Montenegrin blue is a slightly lighter shade. But despite nine months of tortuous talks on the constitutional framework, there is still no agreement on how any of its official symbols should look. The union has no national anthem either, although one is to be composed by the end of this year.
Confused as to which country they inhabit, many people have paused to reflect on the passing of a name that once seemed to offer hope for unity in a troubled corner of Europe, where bitter rivalries between ethnic groups stretch back centuries.
Yugoslavia, which means "land of the southern Slavs," came into being in 1929 when the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes created after World War I adopted a name with greater resonance.
Nostalgia for the days of cold-war prosperity under the nonaligned leadership of Tito is perhaps the most striking consequence of the creation of Serbia and Montenegro.
"Farewell Yugoslavia," said a headline in a Belgrade paper the day the old federation was dissolved. "You live on in history and the memories of generations that grew, lived and bled under your name."
