Twenty years after the first stirrings of war in Yugoslavia, where is the region going?

A KEY event in the break-up of Yugoslavia took place 20 years ago this week. On June 27th 1991 the Yugoslav army moved to re-establish control of the border in Slovenia. Croatia and Slovenia had declared independence a week earlier. The Belgrade magazine Vreme is marking the event and asked me to contribute a piece. Here is the English-language version:

Two years ago I coined the term "Yugosphere" in an article for The Economist. I thought the word encapsulated some of the dynamics I had seen developing in the former Yugoslavia in recent years. Some misunderstood me, but the fact that the word has since entered the lexicon suggests that it usefully captures something many people instinctively knew existed—and indeed lived every day.



Two years later, the idea of the Yugosphere bores me rigid. But it appears to be here to stay; if anything, the idea is more necessary than ever.

Let me explain. First, the Yugosphere was simply a way of describing the renewal of thousands of broken bonds across the former state. (Kosovo is a partial exception, for obvious reasons.) It does not mean that the state of Yugoslavia is coming back. Moreover, although I think it is a beneficial development, it is not irreversible.

To a great extent the Yugosphere is an economic and social phenomenon. When a Croatian company like Atlantic Grupa buys a Slovene one, Droga Kolinska, which in turn already owns Serbian ones, which in turn distribute across the former Yugoslavia, that is the Yugosphere. (And, I might add, nothing to do with "Yugonostalgia".)

When the Regional Cooperation Council in Sarajevo, headed by a Croat, organises endless meetings covering culture, law, industry, environment and whatever else, that is the Yugosphere. I could talk about which musician is performing where this summer, or why the Ratko Mladic story was broken by Jutarnji List, a Croatian newspaper.



But the idea also has political application. I expect to see ever-more co-ordination among the states of the former Yugoslavia. There are many models to follow. Think of the Benelux countries, which once worked together intensely before much of their co-operation was made redundant by the European Union. Another is the Nordic Council, which brings together a natural group of Scandinavian countries, some in the EU and some not. Likewise, there is the example of the Visegrad group of central Europeans.

Some may think that the dysfunctions of the former Yugoslavia will make co-operation impossible. Rows over Kosovo stymie the Central European Free Trade Agreement, which groups the western Balkan countries and Moldova. Bosnia does not work as a proper state. Two ex-Yugoslav states are in NATO, and one is in the EU (soon to be followed by another). Serbia has a Kosovo problem, and vice versa. This does not look like a model of co-operation.

Fair enough. But here is a cold observation, intended not to offend but to put things in perspective. Imagine Europe as a city. The region of the former Yugoslavia is a poor but peripheral suburb, with some nice streets and others controlled by gangsters, whether real or dressed up as politicians.



The city as a whole is in trouble. The richer districts are furious with the spendthrifts from the municipality of Greece. There are migrants from poorer cities like Tunisia and Afghanistan sleeping in the park and demanding money.

Europe has two options. It can mobilise its natural and comparative advantages, such as common culture, history, markets and so on. Or it can wither, watch its population age and its best and brightest flee to places with brighter prospects. The same applies, on a smaller scale, to the former Yugoslavia.



Call it the Yugosphere, call it the “region”, the “zone”, the Adriatic or whatever. No one outside the area cares. In fact, given everything else that is going on in the world few people outside the Balkans care about the region at all. Look at the Yugosphere. Disastrous demographics, low productivity, comparatively poor infrastructure, suffering from a long-term decline in education standards. And a combined population barely the size of Shanghai. In a world like this more co-operation is surely in everyone's interests.