>
> 'the recolonization of yugoslavia': as though YU were a solid,
> homogeneous, and abiding entity that merely and passively was sub-
> ject to the wills and wiles of great powers. 'yugoslavia' is the
> name for what seems to have been the very transient period during
> which the great powers exerted less direct influence over the re-
> gion; but it was formulated through the very aggressive suppres-
> sion of its component cultures--basically, *tito* colonized it.
More seriously, a couple of things. First, which is it? You object to the use of "colonization" on the basis of some postruc-esque argument ("It's not identical to itself; therefore it can't be colonized." [?] ) Then, you claim that Tito colonized it by way of "aggressive suppression of its component cultures" at a time when the great powers had no interest in Yugoslavia. (Evidently, Tito can render YU's citizens powerless, homogenous, and passive in a way that others cannot. Interesting, though how do you figure?) But, second, the US and USSR had a very strong interest in Yugoslavia during the Cold War. However, they were interested in its neutrality--they wanted it to remain as a buffer zone between Western and Eastern Europe. So its integrity was important: Tito could distance himself from Stalin just so long as he kept the federation together.
Yugoslavia was always the mythic example of "socialism that worked." And, there are those that think that postwar Yugoslavia was a pretty good example of a multinational state (Peter Gowan, Susan Woodward among others)--it gave formal constitutional status to every member of the federation in order to avoid Serb dominance. The suppression of cultures argument doesn't wash in that context, since such cultures don't become the grounds of political emnity by themselves, and since you make the argument that Tito's "mechanisms and balances" lived on past his death. Even if they did, and whatever they were (can you give examples?), that doesn't explain how cultural differences became an issue. Indeed, it seems to buy the American and European press line that the conflict was mainly and intrinsically one about cultures. That line ignores that the break-up coincided with the break up of the Soviet Union--ie that it was at least in part a crisis of US/Europe's desire to reorganize the erstwhile socialist world--and that it was in part due to the differing interests the U.S. and Europe had in Yugoslavia.
All of which is not to say that I agree with Yoshie about Gitlin . . .
Best Christian