Is Croatian EU dream going to appear as a nightmare

Tomorrow Croatia will become a member of the European Union. Nevertheless, many would still predict that there is almost no chance for Croatia, or for any other Balkan state, to achieve the level of autonomy (inside or outside of the EU) which would be enough for these countries to be labeled as sovereign. Some others would probably say that Croatia has just launched the happiest era in the history, but this is in my opinion not even worth of opposing. Instead, I will shortly elaborate on the alternative for the subordinated ex - YU sphere, including Croatia.   

Not only recently, but many have been pessimistic towards the so called Western Balkans since centuries. Even Engels was harsh towards southern Slavs whom he described as 'peoples which have never had history of their own...who are not viable and never will be able to achieve any kind of independence¹

According to this, neither Croatia, nor Slovenia or any other potential EU member from the Balkans will never be able to achieve independence, no matter what. While this is certainly true in the case of the 'independent' Croatia and Slovenia within EU, same as of the other post - Yugoslav 'independent' states which are still waiting in what David Harvey calls the waiting room of history, one important fact should not be neglected.

Namely, all these territories had spent a long time under the dominance of different empires. Consequentially, in the modern era, they hadn't managed to achieve de facto independence before 20^th century. The only historical moment in which southern Slavs made this step towards more independence was therefore within the SFR Yugoslavia (since the previously formed Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a Serbian dominated state), because the most significant factor that determined the relationship between the center and periphery in the 16th century, as Wollerstein argues, was a strong state.2

Thus, as soon as Croatia discover, what Slovenia has already discovered - that their future within the EU is quite miserable, they might recall the idea suggested in this text, but also in many others before. The part which is missing from the Engels's statement is therefore, that 'southern Slavs would have never been able to achieve independence – if they had stayed divided'. At the moment, all the former Yugoslav republics (including the most developed Slovenia) are doing much worse now than during the Yugoslav era. Instead of being the periphery out of the EU, Croatia thus became the periphery within EU. One could logically ask, isn't this still, a step forward? And the answer would be 'yes, it is', but not in a sense in which the protagonists of the dominant political discourse would put it. As a matter of fact, this is the first and the last step forward that any of the states from the European periphery can make. As soon as this becomes more clear, coming closer to the capitalist core and thus, coming to the position of being the exploiter instead of the exploited, will look like a mission impossible.  

Instead of neglecting the reality and following the 'European path' as suggested by the 'transitologests' on one hand or anti – western, nationalistic perceptions of Serbia or Croatia on the other, the third way, and the way out from the 'periphery trap', might be the unification of the region which is enveloped by this hard disease called dependency. What one could come up with, in order to challenge this idea, is the impossibility of any reunion of the region due to the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. Nevertheless in one of the conversations I've had with Croatian philosopher Boris Buden, he said something that has never drew my attention before and which has inspired me to say the following. 
Not only that all the ex YU republics have achieved the most remarkable level of the independence in their history, within socialistic Yugoslavia, but also national aspirations could have been achieved rather in the socialist Yugoslavia, then in any other possible scenario (including the EU membership). If we assume that what is often labeled as 'national interest' demands independence, the situation in which all the former Yugoslav states are today, doesn't allow them to fulfill any of their interests, including the ideological aspirations of those who have significantly contributed to the dissolution of that country – the nationalists. Actually, they only shifted the focus from one dominant discourse to another (from the social to the national / ethnic / religious). This is what Rastko Mocnik calls the 'ethniticisation of the exploited classes'.  More so, in spite of the failure of their ideological project (due to theoretical impossibility to achieve nationalistic paradise under the de facto foreign rule) they succeeded in securing their own beneficial positions within peripheral societies ³ , while still presenting the outcomes of what they have done as a victory of the nation. This is why Croatian elite is happy with their country becoming a member of the EU. This is why in Croatia, same as elsewhere in the Eastern Europe, only one class will benefit at the expense of the other and the EU is actually one of the strongest instruments for the legitimization of this process. What has already happened in Croatia, same as in all other ex - YU states, is the internalization of the external hegemonic discourse, by the domestic elite. Furthermore, what the accession to the EU will bring to the Croatian society, is even more backup support for this process. 

However, I am not as pessimistic as Engels was. What we can do with regards to this situation, is first diminishing the domination of the transitional discourse. This should be made first domestically, by disclosure of real intentions and interests of the local elites. The key is therefore in abandoning the present perception of reality and turning towards something new, but at the level of the whole Yugoslav sphere, rather than separately. Finally, the main point is rather going to be clarified by the words of Boris Buden: It doesn't mean that a better world is possible only in the past, but rather that its improvement without past is not possible.⁴

 

1see: Ozkirimli, Umut, Theories of nationalism, Freed Halliday, 2000, p. 28

2'While the sixteenth century was a period of the rise of state power in western Europe, it was an era of decline for state power in eastern Europe, both cause and consequence of the latter's economic position', Wallerstein, p. 309

3 'I argue that violent conflict along ethnic cleavages is provoked by elites in order to create a domestic political context where ethnicity is the only politically relevant identity' ; Gagnon, V.P. , Nationalism and ethnic conflicts – article: Ethnic nationalism and international conflict, US, 2002, p. 134

4 Buden, p. 188