Chechnya, a territory within Russia with a long history of resistance to rule from Moscow, moved in 1995 to achieve complete independence.
Yeltsin considered the matter to be a test of the strength of the Russian state and the effectiveness of his presidency.
Chechnya appears to be set for independence after a bitter war between the Russians and Chechens in which the Russians suffered many setbacks and eventually withdrew.
The conflict resumed in 1999 after Moscow provoked Islamic fundamentalist forces in Chechnya with raids on neighboring territories.
The Russians were left with an apparently unwinnable guerrilla war on their hands after they reoccupied the territory.
Russia was weakened by the Chechen war at a time when it needed to be turned into a prosperous and powerful modern country.
The Western countries were careful to treat Russia respectfully because it had a world-destroying arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Yeltsin was invited to the annual meeting of the G7 leaders in 1997.
Russia was seen as a partner by NATO rather than an adversary.
NATO's eastward expansion strained the partnership, but in 2002 a NATO-Russia Joint Council was established to deal with common threats.
Russia is still a long way from truly joining the West on equal terms, as it is still in a state of resentful dependence on its former capitalist rivals.
The fall of communism in eastern Europe unleashed many long-suppressed national conflicts, but they did not lead to war.
The orgy of genocide and expulsions of national minorities during and after the Second World War released the most destructive national passions in the region.
Most eastern European nations were content with their existing borders, and even dissatisfied ones knew that nationalist wars would lay them open to German or Russian interference and prevent them from fulfilling their ambition to join the West on equal terms.
The United States and the EU countries were determined to damp down national conflicts.
National ambitions were not satisfied in the Balkans.
The territory has been made one of half a dozen small, mostly Slavic nations and of three religions by the early medieval barbarian invasions, the schism of the Greek and Latin churches, and the centuries of Turkish rule.
Rival nationalisms, great power intervention, and two world wars turned these nations against each other.
After the First World War, western civilization in the world of today united for the first time in their histories to form Yugoslavia, but their rivalries and disputes continued.
The Communist party took over power after the Second World War.
Ethnic persecutions and expulsions were avoided by Tito.
There were strong minorities of other nations in all of the republics except for the northernmost one.
After the death of Tito in 1980, Communism and federal ties weakened, and nationalist ambitions resurfaced in the Serb republic.
The Serbs have a glorious medieval past and a recent history of resistance to foreign rule.
Many of their nation lived as minorities in the neighboring republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, along with Roman Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians, as well as in the main Croat territory, the republic of Croatia.
The Serbian Communist leader, Slobodan Milosevic, reinvented himself as an extreme nationalist and revived the movement for a "Greater Serbia," to include the entire nation, that had precipitated the First World War in 1914.
In order to fulfill their own national ambitions, most of the republics declared their independence in 1991, and at that point their hostilities exploded.
Serbia was the inheritor of the former federal state.
It formed a new Yugoslavia and tried to gain control of the territories of Serb minorities in Croatia and Bosnia.
The only country that avoided massacres and ethnic cleansing was Slovenia, which joined less troubled eastern European countries on the path to EU membership.
The UN established a war crimes tribunal in the Netherlands after sanctions against Serbia.
NATO sent in western European troops after the European Union brokered cease-fires.
The ethnic cleansing and massacres went on for four years despite all the measures.
The armed forces of the EU countries were not strong enough to intimidate the warring parties, and the United States was unwilling to risk its own forces in this European dispute.
An alliance of Bosnian Croats and Muslims and an army from the Croatian republic helped tip the balance against the Serbs.
A U.S. initiative brought the parties to a peace agreement.
The borders of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia were the same as they were in the old Yugoslavia.
NATO forces and a NATO administrator were supposed to keep the peace in Bosnia, where a Muslim-Croat region and a Serb region were to be created.
The main ethnic minority in the Serb republic, ethnic Albanians of Muslim faith, were attacked by the Serbs in 1999.
The map shows the division of Yugoslavia to benefit the Croats, Macedonians, Serbs, and Slovenes.
Serbians in Croatia and Albanians in Yugoslavia were discontented with their national minorities in the new states.
NATO forces held together Bosnia, where there was no absolute majority.
Kosovo gained independence under NATO protection in 1999.
The lands of former Yugoslavia are balanced between nation building and further redrawing of borders.
The Albanians were driven out of their province by the Yugoslav army.
This ruthless example of ethnic cleansing shocked the world community.
Russia sympathized with the Serbs as a Slav and Orthodox nation, so the United Nations failed to act for fear of a veto.
The members agreed that the Serbian crimes must be stopped and the refugees allowed to return.
The United States used its military power to enforce the deci sion.
The Serbian army and targets were attacked by the air forces.
Some Muslims fled to other countries after their homes were destroyed.
The ousting of Milosevic as leader of Serbia was the result of this renewed disaster.
When he tried to hold on to power despite the elections, he was forced out by massive street demonstrations in the capital city of Belgrade.
The end of Serb efforts to unite their nation within a single state was welcomed by the NATO countries.
The leaders of the various republics of the former Yugoslavia were encouraged by the United States and the EU to work together.
They received financial help and were offered the hope of eventually joining the EU.
The leaders of the various national groups within the republics were offered the same incentives to work together.
The governments of the republics were expected to arrest suspected war criminals and send them for trial.
Milosevic behaved in the courtroom as a victim of a Western conspiracy after the Serbs handed him over.
Shelter, food, and help were given to victims of ethnic cleansing.
The help came from NGOs based in western Europe and the United States that helped mobilize volunteers more efficiently than the government.
Repairing Failed States is about nation building and civil society.
The West faced an open challenge to its hopes for a harmonious world order in Yugoslavia.
Lessons from the experience of western Europe during and after the Second World War were used to deal with the challenge.
Military force would restore order and force warring nations apart.
The task of reconstruction would be easier with financial help.
Reconciliation and cooperation would bring prosperity and harmony so that national grievances wouldn't matter.
The punishment of war criminals by legal trials would discourage vengeance and make nations repentance of their crimes.
The approval of the United Nations would give legitimacy to these and other measures.
The West was acting in the interests of peace and order in the international community, not just for the sake of its own interests and values.
After due debate and consultation, the community should give its approval, in its own interest, as well as that of the former Yugoslav nations and of the West.
It seemed that Yugoslavia, with its complex ethnic and religious mosaic and its peoples unfamiliar with modern democratic government, needed more than the experience of postwar western Europe to help solve its problems.
Western leaders looked at the lessons of their past to come up with two promising theoretical concepts.
The idea of applying the lessons of the Western nation-states to the decolonized nations was originally proposed by political scientists.
A human group acquires the status of a nation in three ways.
It develops economic links of trade, travel, and communication that overcome the isolation of the smaller communities that make it up, and it creates a powerful and effective government.
An effective democratic government in which all members of the group participate helps to give them a sense of common national identity is one of the three processes that interact so as to push each other forward.
Bosnia and Kosovo have obvious relevance to the concept of nation building.
NATO administrators in those lands need to wield sticks and carrots, NATO troops need to stand guard, and Western NGOs need to provide disinterested help and advice to promote reconciliation and economic development.
It is possible to turn the Muslims, Croats, and Serbs of Bosnia into Bosnians, and the Albanians and Serbs of Kosovo into Kosovans, without either destroying their ethnic and religious individualities or using force.
Enlightenment beliefs about the social contract and rulers as agents of society were the basis of this idea.
In the 1970s, it was revived by dissidents of communist rule in eastern European communist countries.
Kolakowski believes that the direction of control should be exactly the opposite of what the state tried to do under communism.
"Civil society" means grassroots networks of organizations and activities separate from the state but influencing and controlling it, which in their view form the foundation of democracy," said Kolakowski.
Western government leaders and diplomats were inspired by this school of thought and believed that NATO administrators and NGOs should help develop civil societies in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The combination of force, aid, processes of punishment and reconciliation, and grassroots reforms, all in the name of the international community, was successful.
The massacres and ethnic cleansing were stopped by it.
The former Yugoslav states cooperated with each other on matters of common concern.
Efforts for reconciliation and grassroots rebuilding were not as successful as they could have been.
The trials at The Hague were essential in the interests of justice, but caused more resentment than repentance among the nations to which the defendants belonged.
National minorities within each state lived in their own enclaves, guarded by peacekeepers, and resented by the majority population.
Albanians, Croats, and Serbs were not simply ethnic or religious groups, but members of nations that had already undergone lengthy processes of building.
They were told to stop building nation-building processes in order to rebuild themselves as Bosnians or Kosovans.
Many of the groups still see themselves as members of historic nations with the same right to fight for independence and unity as the Germans and Americans.
The conflicts and rivalries that were unleashed by the end of colonialism in Africa and Asia continued after the fall of communism.
The leaders of the international community had to take responsibility for the peace and order of the community when ethnic and religious disputes exploded or threatened to explode into war.
Every postcolonial dispute was a challenge to the West.
The Western countries were at a disadvantage in meeting these challenges.
With so many challenges to deal with, Western governments had limited time to spend on any one of them, and they spent much of that time arguing among themselves over what was to be done and which government was to bear the burden of doing it.
In any case, Western voters were reluctant to spend money and risk lives in interventions where their troops might actually have to fight.
Western countries were interested in the disputes they claimed to adjudicate.
The world is still too large and disorganized for anyone to easily steer it.
Saddam Hussein was favored by the western countries against Iran.
Saddam's first step to conquering Saudi Arabia was the occupation of Kuwait, a pro-Western Arab state with rich oil fields.
A month later, in an unprecedented show of unity and determination, the United States led a coalition of powers within the United Nations (including many Arab countries as well as the Soviet Union) to declare and enforce a total trade embargo against Iraq.
The UN Security Council authorized the coalition powers to resort to military action in January 1991, when it was clear that this measure was insufficient to compel Saddam to withdraw his army.
The coalition forces, led by the United States, routed the Iraqis.
Kuwait's independence was restored.
The Kurds achieved self-government after the U.S. supported a rebellion against Saddam in the north of Iraq.
Saddam's programs to develop atom bombs, poison gas, and killer germs should be dismantled.
Hopes for developing effective means for providing global security were raised by this successful demonstration of collective action.
It showed the limits of what collective action could do.
Arab members of the Gulf coalition did not want a coalition to overthrow Saddam.
As Sunni Muslims, they distrusted the Shiites of Iraq who had also rebelled--a feeling that the Western governments shared, since the Shiites were presumed to be proIranian fundamentalists.
Saddam was able to stay in power because of these reasons.
The U.S. had trade sanctions in place.
The outlaw was able to show his defiance despite the international community's victory.
The Republic of South Africa was the last outpost of colonial rule.
The leaders of the Afrikaners tried to build a state and society based on the idea of separation of races in order to make whites a privileged ruling group.
South Africa was isolated during the Cold War because both the rival blocs and the decolonized countries believed in racial harmony.
The countries on South Africa's borders gained independence in the 70s.
English-speaking South Africans saw themselves as part of a larger world that had mostly turned against them, even though they benefited from apartheid.
Hundreds of deaths and imprisonments were caused by growing unrest in the black communities.
Nelson Mandela, the leader of the banned African National Congress who was serving a life sentence for treason, was one of the most prominent black leaders.
Both men gained a worldwide moral status like that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King because they preached racial harmony.
South Africa's economic partners began to cut their commercial and financial ties with the country at the request of Tutu.
African American leaders in the United States were successful in persuading financial institutions to stop giving loans to South African companies.
South African business leaders joined the calls for an end to apartheid because they felt that the end was near and the regime was in danger.
F. W. de Klerk, an Afrikaner and a strong supporter of apartheid who became prime minister in 1989, now believed that only one policy and one leader could save South Africa from civil war.
Nelson Mandela was the leader of the policy to end apartheid.
South Africa became a multiracial state over the next five years after de Klerk and Man dela agreed to end apartheid.
After such a drastic regime change, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission headed by Tutu exposed the crimes of apartheid without putting anyone on trial, as well as the misdeeds of antiapartheid groups.
There were a lot of problems in the restructured state.
There was a lot of unemployment among blacks as well as hostility between the races.
The problem of AIDS was ignored by the government for a long time, even though it was spreading disastrously.
South Africa remained an advanced economy, a regional power, and an example of peaceful resolution of a historic conflict.
There were also defeats.
The international community was unable to prevent many conflicts in Africa and Asia from exploding into war, massacres, and ethnic cleansing.
The international community could not resolve other postcolonial conflicts that smoldered on without actually bursting into fullscale war.
The international community did not take action to stop a vicious ethnic war that took place between two former Soviet republics in Asia.
At least half a million people were killed in central Africa in the summer of 1994 in ethnic fighting, and another hundred thousand died of disease in refugee camps.
It was the worst act of genocide since the atrocities in Kampuchea in the 1970s, and the international community did nothing to stop it.
Other African civil wars were more successfully ended by the intervention of the United Nations and sometimes by French or British troops.
Food relief, medical aid, and help with reconstruction were often supplied by the United Nations and Western-based NGOs.
The chaos in Africa showed the limits of the international community's ability to maintain peace and order, and of the West's ability and willingness to lead the community when its own vital interests were not involved.
The end of the Cold War, the end of apartheid, and the united action of Arab states under U.S. leadership in the Gulf War all seemed to point to an end to another lengthy conflict, that of Israel and the Arabs.
A leading Arab country, Egypt, had recognized the Jewish state a dozen years before, and it was clear that the Arabs could not destroy Israel by force.
In Lebanon, the Israelis had learned.
They weren't strong enough to force Arab states to make peace by invading and occupying them.
The Jewish state could only hold on to these territories by force and oppression.
The United States, Israel's main supporter and the backer of many Arab governments as well, was eager for a settlement that would help consolidate a harmonious international community under U.S. leadership.
The key to the settlement of the conflict was a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
A crucial agreement was concluded in 1993.
The Palestine Liberation Organization was officially recognized by the Israeli government as the sole representative of the Palestinian people in return for the PLO's recognition of Israel.
Arafat was elected president under an interim government that granted limited Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and the West Bank.
An Israeli peace pact with Jordan followed.
The beginning of a "peace process" that would require painful sacrifice from both sides was what the Israeli-Palestinian agreement was about.
Most or all of the lands the Israelis had occupied in the West Bank would have to be given up.
The Palestinians would have to give up hope of returning to the homes they lost in Israel.
Jerusalem, which both sides claimed was their national capital and which was holy to both Judaism and Islam, would have to be agreed upon by the two sides.
The official leaders of both sides were unwilling to challenge the opponents of compromise because of strong forces on both sides.
There is no Israeli government that could stop the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and the oppression of Palestinians in Jerusalem.
Arafat made only token efforts to stop terrorism by Islamic and nationalist groups, who now send suicide bombers to kill civilians inside Israel.
Most large Arab towns in the West Bank were included in the Palestinian Authority's area of control in 1995.
The countryside was under Israeli control.
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, made a renewed effort for peace with all of Israel's neighbors.
He withdrew Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and began negotiations for peace with Israel's other northern neighbor, Syria, as well as for a final settlement with the Palestinians.
After intensive negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, face-to-face meetings of Barak, Arafat, and Clinton were held in the United States.
Barak for the first time appeared willing to end the occupation of most of the West Bank, but Arafat could not make compromises over Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees.
The result was an outbreak of fierce fighting between Palestinians and the Israeli army and the election as Israeli prime minister of Ariel Sharon, a believer in the historic right of the Jews to make their homeland in all of the lands west of the Jordan and the main backer of the settlements.
The death of the Syrian President after many years of power and disagreement over the removal of Israeli territory from Syria caused the negotiations to stall.
The United States and the western Europeans supported the peace process as best they could because of their support for the Palestinian Authority.
The peace process was halted because one party or both parties were unwilling to make compromises necessary for compromise.
Western power was used to influence the conflict between India and Pakistan.
The two countries had fought each other in the past, but in the postcommunist era, rival fundamentalisms drove them onto a collision course.
There was an uneasy balance of power between the army and fundamentalist Muslim political parties in Pakistan.
Army generals were able to overthrow politicians who they thought were corrupt or who tried to bring the military under civilian control.
Challenging the growing power of fundamentalist Islam was one thing, but overthrowing politicians was another.
The generals had to compromise with fundamentalism or risk revolution in the country.
The army and Islamic fundamentalists collaborated to undermine Indian rule over a Muslim majority in the part of Kashmir that India controlled.
There were two developments in India, one of which was the rise of Hindu nationalism.
Hindu nationalism, like Islamic fundamentalism, is a movement that reestablishes traditional religious belief in a stricter form than was usual in the past, despises other religions, and is suspicious of cultural influences from the West.
It is not an international movement but a nationalist one.
Indian Hindu revivalists have made little effort to spread their influence to other Hindu peoples in southern Asia, but they have been intent on building up the power and prosperity of India.
The secular Congress party had steered India to independence and had been the main governing party since then, but Hindu nationalist parties became an increasingly formidable threat during the 1990s.
The rise of Hindu nationalism was accompanied by repeated bloody clashes with India's religious minorities--Sikhs, Christians, and above all the country's 140 million Muslims, who make up nearly onesixth of the population.
Hindu extremists tried to turn Muslim shrines into Hindu temples.
In 1998, the main Hindu nationalist party took over from the Congress as the largest party in the Indian parliament.
After the United States imposed mild economic sanctions, the governing party decided to authorize underground tests of three atomic weapons and two more.
In 1974 India tested a nuclear device, but since then Pakistan has been working on its own nuclear program.
To show that India was a great Hindu nation that could not be trifled with was the main point of the tests.
Two weeks later, the Pakistanis exploded their own atom bombs.
The United States imposed mild sanctions again.
The two South Asian nuclear powers almost went to war in 1999 after Muslim militant made incursions into Kashmir.
The fact that two important non-Western members of the international community were able to ignore the wishes of the leading Western member did not make a difference.
The hatreds resulting from these struggles helped nourish the one international ideology that still rejected and sought to overthrow the Western-dominated world order, Islamic fundamentalism.
Fuel to the flames of many conflicts was added by fundamentalist Islam.
Two of the threatening problems of the 1980s were made by the continuing conflicts.
Islamic fundamentalism developed into an international movement opposed to the existing world order.
There were countries where Islamic fundamentalism was in power, countries where it was a strong movement without actually being in power, and countries where it was repressed.
Unlike communism, it had no worldwide appeal but affected only Muslim communities and even countries that suppressed it had to find a way to live with it.
If anything, Islamic fundamentalism helped it to spread.
Iran remained the leading Islamic fundamentalist country.
The future of Islamic fundamentalism as a Muslim alternative world order did not look promising if Iran was any guide.
Iran restored normal relations with most Western countries other than the United States after the disastrous war against Iraq in the 1980s.
There were signs of a reaction against fundamentalism within the Iranian society.
A struggle began between "reforming" and "conservative" groups after the election of a moderate president.
The conservatives usually had the upper hand.
The country seemed to be condemned to political and economic stagnation, even though the conservatives had lost their militancy.
If the reformers were to win, the result would be a liberalized Islamic society but no longer a militant challenge to the world order.
The lead in Islamic extremism went to Afghani stan after Iranian militancy died down.
After years of civil war, the Taliban came to power in 1996, after the soviet troops had left.
The new regime imposed the strictest version of Islamic law yet seen, including prohibitions on any kind of activity by women outside the home, in contrast to the Iranian fundamentalists who mobilized women for their own religious and political purposes.
The Taliban regime was ostracized by most of the world, and had unfriendly relations with Iran because they were Sunni Muslims.
It used many modern methods, such as political parties, TV stations, and Web sites, in addition to its appeal to religious tradition and resentment of the West.
Christian missionary organizations and Western NGOs often bring food relief and medical help to impoverished Muslim regions such as Gaza or Shiite districts in Lebanon, performing the same tasks as fundamentalists.
Islamic fundamentalism wanted to overthrow secular Arab nationalist governments like those of Iraq, Syria, or Algeria, and those that were supported by the United States.
In Pakistan, the territories under the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, fundamentalist movements had more or less freedom to operate and a larger or smaller share of government power.
Some countries had to give the movement some room.
They allowed radical propaganda against the United States, Israel, and the West in general.
Nuclear weapons as a symbol of national power and a deterrent against attack were not the only things that India and Pakistan wanted.
Some countries looked to new and deadly poison gases as well as to new and lethal strains ofbacteria as cheaper alternatives to the expensive and difficult to produce atom bombs.
After the Gulf War, Iraq's efforts to make such weapons were stopped by the UN, and even after it expelled the inspectors, they were not successfully revived.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, North Korea began to develop nuclear weapons.
To solve the problem of making atom bombs in the 1990s, it exchanged nuclear technology with Pakistan and Iran, where both conservatives and reformers were eager for nuclear prestige and power against Israel and the United States.
Libya and Syria, where the rulers wanted the reassurance of having weapons of mass destruction, concentrated on the more easily developed poison gas and killer germs.
Most of the WMD efforts made slow progress in the 1990s.
The attractions were kept as a way for unofficial groups to carry on conflicts against organized states and for weaker states to harass stronger ones.
The Internet and e-mail made it easier for terrorist groups to spread their messages.
Terrorist acts became more difficult to stop as perpetrators appeared to not have the desire to save their own lives.
In the 1980s, suicide bombing was used by Syrian-backed Muslim groups against U.S., French, and Israeli troops in Lebanon.
The use of suicide bombers against civilians increased in the 1990s.
The Islamic Resistance Movement, a Palestinian fundamentalist organization, took up suicide bombing as a way of disrupting the peace process in order to annoy the Israelis and weaken the Palestinian Authority.
Saddam Hussein knew that the families ofmartyrs received large gifts of money from both Syria and Iran.
A new and formidable terrorist group or network of groups was emerging, which received little or no support from the traditional state backers of terrorism.
Osama bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian building contractor and had a lot of money.
A Sunni Muslim fundamentalist who despised the secular dictatorships of Syria and Iraq as well as the no-longer-militant Shiite fundamentalism of Iran, bin Laden first "invested" his wealth in recruiting fighters against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
After arriving in that country, the recruits had to register in camps or "bases" financed by bin Laden, and soon he began calling his organization "The Base".
After the Soviets left Afghanistan, bin Laden turned his organization into a global network of terrorist groups, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan, under the rule of the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban movement.
The United States was chosen as a new target because it was more dangerous to attack than Israel.
The United States was the most deadly threat to Islam according to bin Laden.
The puppetmaster of many Arab governments, including that of Saudi Arabia, was the backer of the Jewish state.
The land of the holiest of mosques in the world, Saudi Arabia, was insulted by its stationing of unbelieving troops during and after the Gulf War.
In 1995 and 1996 groups affiliated with Al Qaeda carried out truck bombings of U.S. installations in Saudi Arabia.
It was a threat to the international community because of its inhumanity and because it was a kind of private violence on an international scale.
The international community was against the development of WMDs.
Treaties against the development of nuclear and biological weapons were negotiated in the 1970s, and a similar treaty went into effect against chemical weapons in 1993.
The interests of the international community's leading Western members were against the interests of terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs.