The Western Assistance Disparity
Fumio Kishida and leaders of the Baltic states at the sidelines of the 2023 NATO Summit (Japanese Cabinet Secretariat)
Luke Carter
After two socialist regimes fell in the early 1990s, the USSR and Yugoslavia, nearly twenty nations had their independence restored. In 1993, the World Wide Web was introduced and made a recently disjointed world connected. How well did the recently independent nations adapt to the globalized world and what is their spread of internet access like, and why is there a difference? To calculate their efficiency at catching up with the pace of technology, by utilizing internet access as a metric of modernization, the research establishes that the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are in a better position with internet access than the former Yugoslavic states of Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Macedonia. Modern day statistics and a brief overview of how Supranational Organizations aided can provide evidence that the neglect of the West towards the Balkans has caused the Baltic nations to rank higher in internet access.
The spread of democracy to the Eastern Bloc of Europe was a joint effort embodying majority of the West. The former nations of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia had grown used to a force field surrounding all information. As pronounced by the University of London’s Ben Worthy, “In Europe the idea of ‘opening up’ government to popular scrutiny became a rallying cry of revolutionaries in England in the 17th century and France and America in the 18th. Philosophers from Kant to Bentham and Rousseau to Marx all supported greater openness, though it took until the mid-20th Century for the idea to become part of mainstream political and legal discourse, having been pushed by political outsiders such as Woodrow Wilson and Leon Trotsky.” (Worthy, 1). Analysis of these nations' ease of access to the internet and information is a measurement of western influence and assistance in modernization. With causes such as the Three Seas Initiative, connecting the countries of the Baltic, Adriatic, & Black Sea, it has led in strides towards “... ensuring that the whole region develops the most advanced digital infrastructure, based on secure fifth-generation (5G) networks. It will also require building digitalization into other, more traditional infrastructure, including “smart” roads, energy systems, and cities.” (Burwell, 6). However, the Three Seas Initiative avoids the lower half of former Yugoslavia, as it is a European Union run program. There is evidence suggesting that the West was more tender to the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in comparison to the nations of the Balkans; Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia – leaving the recently Soviet nations in a relatively better position than their southern counterparts.
There was no certain date on the absolute dissolution of Eastern European Communism. The loosening of Marxist rule was present through a majority of the 1980s, with the fall of both the Yugoslavia and the USSR at the turn of the next decade. However, remnants remained until potentially 2006, with that being the official year that “Yugoslavia” was removed from modern maps (Britannica). The 1990s consisted of these countries in an uncertain panic, and larger powers were scrambling to assist..
An American attempt at participating in this scramble of assistance was successfully enacted by President Bill Clinton. “The Clinton administration’s Baltic policy can be seen as one of the most successful elements of its European policy. It increased the self-confidence of the Baltic states and provided much needed reassurance that reduced Baltic fears that they would again be abandoned or neglected by the West.” (Larrabee, 57) - had this happened a decade prior or later, President Reagan or George W Bush may not have been as generous, especially had the War on Terror still ensued in the 2000s. The Baltics would not have been thought twice about. Luckily, this attempt was matched with an embrace to be assisted in the northern nations, proving that capitalist restructuring was a possible future for former communist states.
The reason this was not reciprocated in the Balkans can be blamed on the myriad of conflicts that came out of the Yugoslav dissolution. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia each had their own violent conflicts that varied in both length and impact. Yet, there were attempts at providing aid during these conflicts. “The initial plan (which, as will be shown proved unsuccessful) of the [Peace Conference for Council of Ministers of the European Community] was an attempt to achieve a ceasefire and stop the aggression towards Croatia” (Gagro, 306). This was not a successful cause. With this, there were deniers of assisting the Balkans, claiming it was the start of an unfavorable chain of events for Europe. "Balkism” and “Slavophobia” is a real construct, which “came primarily from anti-liberal conservatives who feared that the ripples of change might spread elsewhere in Europe, from Slavophobes who saw Balkan nationalism as a vehicle of Russian expansionism, or from pacifists, highly fearful of the Balkan conflicts' destabilizing potential and most prone to introducing dramatic comparisons of the Balkans to tinderboxes and powder-kegs.” (Michail, 222). This fear tracks, as there are echoes of chaos stemming from this region. Relative to the “Powder-Keg” referenced in 20th century history; to some, WW1 is even considered the “Third Balkan War” (Wiki). A lack of desire to aid, while dismissive, could be considered warranted by Americans and the EU, who were distributing aid. Some, like Charles Wolf of the RAND Corporation, thought that there was no future where assisting either set these Eastern European nations was beneficial in the long run, stating that “Western assistance to Eastern Europe will do little more than assuage the consciences of the donor governments if it is provided in a form preventing disequilibria and allowing East European governments to postpone transformation.” (Wolf, 148). His claim is that the West coming in to save the day and change these nations' ways, is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It is ineffective and acts more as a handicap to these infant nations' progress towards development of their own stable identities - rather than a weak attempt at fitting in with its continent's status quo, and this was being said in 1991.
The year 2004 is the first in which nations from either set region were admitted into the European Union. The charts above display a direct correlation and consistencies between internet percentages and supranational organizational access. By 1999, all three of the Baltic states had been invited to join the European Union. Simultaneously, in 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was dropping bombs in Serbia; both to assist in the conflict that had run through the whole of the Balkan peninsula and to reprimand for the response to sanctions placed on the nation from both the United States and European Union. The ethnic wars that ensued in the southern side of Eastern Europe were not indicative of a region doing very well on their own. Immediately gaining the ability to be autonomous, losing the shackles of a Socialist regime, and diving into a decade-long conflict was not good advertising for Supranational Organizations, like the EU or NATO, to make additions to their ranks. The entirety of Yugoslavia fell into conflict, and those who resolved were rewarded for swift conclusions via consideration and implementation into either the EU or NATO.
However, towards the end of the Union's demise Baltic citizens were in no rush to presume the western ways of capitalist societies. Through Soviet research, no more than 1/3 of Baltic citizens were interested in a free market. From Anatol Lieven, “The Balts were certainly more amenable to capitalism than the Russians; even so, according to a Soviet poll in February 1990, only 30.1 percent of Estonians, 21.9 per cent of Latvians and 14.8 percent of Lithuanians viewed individual capitalist activity favorably.” (Lieven, 337). Even at the end of the Soviet regime, the citizens of the Baltics were not begging to be annexed into the Western cradle. Part of the effective communist agenda was to import the same level of disdain Americans have for such overt socialism onto their perception of capitalism. Despite this, each nation eventually concluded that the benefits of being in the EU outweighed their Soviet indoctrinated, anti- capitalist ideals. Each of the three countries were invited and admitted into the EU by 2004.
Political scientist Dan Reiter wrote that “... qualification for NATO membership is probably not necessary as an incentive for East European states to resolve their disputes with one another” in reference to the breakout of the Yugoslav conflicts (Reiter, 49). One of the main tenets of being in Western Supranational organizations, like NATO or the EU, is to uphold democracy. Therefore, the qualification alone to being admitted into NATO would deter the newfound democracies in what-was Yugoslavia from continuing their conflicts with one another. Nevertheless, Reiter made a clear point that admittance was simply not enough to make the conflict yield. Bar Slovenia, the most North-Western Balkan, it took another 9 years and 2 months for the EU to admit the next (and only other) member of former Yugoslavia to the EU, Croatia. These countries were the highest Balkan states in terms of internet usage in 2004, and they were the nations that effectively seceded from Yugoslavia by the end of summer 1991.
Conclusion
Despite the 20th century looking semi-synonymous for the recently freed Baltic states no longer being a part of the USSR and the war-torn Balkans diving into self-destruction after the fall of Yugoslavia; the millennium's final decade was imperative to their current status. Their behavior was being judged and tried through the lenses of those who had the desire and resources to assist. The United States, European Union, and NATO were all prepared for the fallout of the end of communist Europe. Along with the regional differences, there is a sure-fire pecking order that these countries fell under - the Baltics came out on top. Between the two, the Balkans lost the 1990s. Democratic-ness, Peacefulness, Europeanness, and Internet availability are all vessels for what propelled the Baltics ahead of the Balkans – not that it was ever a declared competition. While not surprising, this is indicative of the West putting aid into where it encountered the path of least resistance. It is no question that of course, these multi-national organizations would admit the ones willing to be admitted over the ones committing an ethnic cleansing of their neighboring nations - giving the former Soviets a relative advantage in the years to come.
Citations
Worthy, Ben. “Chapter 2: Freedom of Information in Europe.” Transparency and Secrecy in European Democracies, Rutledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2021.
Wolf, Charles J, editor. Promoting Democracy and Free Markets in Eastern Europe. RAND, 1991.
Michail, Eugene. “Western Attitudes to War in the Balkans and the Shifting Meanings of
Violence, 1912-91.” Journal of Contemporary History 47, no. 2 (2012): 219–39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23249185.
Gagro, S. F., & Vukas, B. (2012). The Path of the Former Yugoslav Countries to the European
Union: From Integration to Disintegration and Back. Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law, 19(2), 300-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1201900206
Larrabee, F. Stephen. “BALTIC SECURITY.” In NATO’s Eastern Agenda in a New Strategic Era, 1st ed., 51–86. RAND Corporation, 2003. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mr1744af.10.
Lieven, Anatol. “Building on Ruins: The Recreation of the Baltic States.” In The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence. Yale University Press, 1993. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cc2kwj.16.
Reiter, Dan. “Why NATO Enlargement Does Not Spread Democracy.” International Security 25, no. 4 (2001): 41–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3092133
BURWELL, FRANCES G., and JÖRN FLECK. “The Next Phase of Digitalization in Central and Eastern Europe: 2020 and Beyond.” Atlantic Council, 2020.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26698.
U.S. Department of Commerce. "Serbia - Information and Communications Technology Market." International Trade Administration. Accessed April 30, 2024.
"Country Report - Yugoslavia." Wikisource. Accessed April 30, 2024.
"Yugoslavia." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Separation - "Slovenia's Path to Independence." Slovenia 2001. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Tanner - Tanner, Marcus. Croatia: A Nation Forged in War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Democratic Peace Theory - Russett, Bruce M. "The Democratic Peace Theory: The Most Important Finding of the 20th Century?" The Journal of Conflict Resolution 39, no. 4 (1995):
739-767.
Wiki - "Third Balkan War." Wikipedia. Accessed April 30, 2024.
"UCLA: Birthplace of the Internet." University of California Office of the President. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Graph 1 Citation
“World Development Indicators.” DataBank. Accessed December 19, 2024. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators/Series/IT.NET.USER.ZS#.
Graph 2 Citations
Lithuania Invitation
Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Lithuania to the European Union, signed in Athens on 16 April 2003, [Online], available:
https://www.lrs.lt/sip/portal.show?p_r=39134&p_k=2#:~:text=The%20Accession%20Treaty%2 C%20which%20was,became%20the%20EU%20Member%20State [Accessed 29 April 2024].
Latvia Invitation:
European Parliament, "European Parliament", [Online], available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/hel1_en.htm [Accessed 29 April 2024].
Estonia Invitation:
Central and Eastern European States in the European Union, ed. F. P. Walters, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002, [Online], available:
https://books.google.com/books?id=qC7pvX2M39AC&pg=PP9&source=gbs_selected_pages&c ad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 29 April 2024].
Graph 3 Citations
Bosnia Invitation:
European Commission, "Bosnia and Herzegovina," [Online], available: https://neighbourhoodenlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/bosnia-and-herzegovina_en [Accessed 29 April 2024].
Serbia Invitation:
European Commission, "Serbia," [Online], available: https://neighbourhoodenlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/serbia_en [Accessed 29 April 2024].
Montenegro Invitation:
Balkan Insight, "Montenegro Targets 2025 to Be Ready for EU Accession," [Online], available: https://balkaninsight.com/2021/03/26/montenegro-targets-2025-to-be-ready-for-eu-accession/ [Accessed 29 April 2024].
Slovenia Invitation:
Government of the Republic of Slovenia, "Slovenia's Integration into the European Union,"
[Online], available: https://www.gov.si/en/topics/slovenias-integration-into-the-europeanunion/#:~:text=Slovenia%20becomes%20a%20full%20member%20of%20the%20European%20 Union,-
Prior%20to%20accession&text=On%2023%20March%202003%2C%20the,after%20completing %20the%20accession%20process. [Accessed 29 April 2024].
Croatia Invitation:
European Commission, "Croatia," [Online], available: https://neighbourhoodenlargement.ec.europa.eu/croatia_en [Accessed 29 April 2024].
North Macedonia Invitation:
European Commission, "North Macedonia," [Online], available: https://neighbourhoodenlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/north-macedonia_en [Accessed 29 April 2024].