The Balkans: Europe's Forgotten Frontier (Review)

In this two-part BBC series (first shown in February 2025), reporter Katya Adler, who covered the conflicts of the 1990s, returns to the Balkans to see how the region has changed, nearly thirty years on from the end of the Bosnian War.  It’s a whistlestop two-hour tour - part travelogue, part social commentary - with archive footage dotted here and there, and a brief history of the region’s 20^th century.  Adler takes us on a fascinating, insightful journey through the former Yugoslav states of Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo, as well as neighbouring Romania and Albania.

The main message that the series brings home is the way outside powers are currently competing for interest in the Balkans, from Chinese investment in infrastructure, to Islamic countries funding the building of new mosques, to Russian political and religious ties (in one disturbing segment, a Bosnian Serb motorcycle group fly Russian flags with Putin’s face on it). It appears that the rest of Europe is losing the battle for influence in the Balkans, hence the tagline of the ‘forgotten frontier’.

 

The theme of wounds not healed is also prominent throughout the two episodes.  Shots of pockmarked buildings, a visit to the Srebrenica memorial and interviews with Kosovar police about the Serb incursion into Kosovo in September 2023 all serve to show how raw the region still is.  There has been no real closure for many of the victims of the wars, which is undoubtedly linked to the fact that many Serbs still see themselves as the victims.  Interviews with Kosovar Serbs were eye-opening - especially the vitriol directed towards the British for their role in the Kosovo War - but most surprising was the implication that it remains a mainstream view amongst Serbs that Kosovo belongs to Serbia.

 

The thread running through all the segments on the former Yugoslav countries is the unspoken question: how many generations removed must we get before people can move on?  Adler interviews some 14-year-olds Bosnians (speaking excellent English, of course) who argue passionately against the segregated Muslim/Croat school they attend.  Does this signify hope for the future?  This documentary would seem to suggest not.  There is now whole generation of adults who were born after the wars ended and yet underlying concerns about tension in both Bosnia and Kosovo pervade.

 

Adler also visits Romania, where the appeal of the super-rich is drawing many of its people back again, despite corruption and criminality in some areas, and Albania, with its newly flourishing tourist industry, but large numbers of migrants leaving.  Slovenia, North Macedonia and Montenegro don’t get a visit.  Slovenia, perhaps, is understandable, since with its virtually ethnically homogenous population and close ties to western Europe, it avoided the conflicts of its Yugoslav neighbours, seceding in 1991 with relatively little bloodshed.  However, I would certainly be interested in a further series, possibly examining the issues between North Macedonia and Greece, as well as Montenegro’s nationalist ties to Serbia.

 

This was a varied and comprehensive watch, as much as it is possible to truly examine such a complex region in just two hours. Like many documentaries of its type, it seeks to present a certain point of view, and interviews the right people to accomplish this.  Personally, I’ve not met that many vehement nationalists in any Balkan country, so it’s hard to know whether the voices heard here are those of the majority or the minority.  However, if you’re interested in the Balkans, this is a must-watch addition to the discourse on the region.  If you know nothing about these countries, it’s a great introduction to their history, culture and politics.  As Adler entreats us – let’s not forget about the Balkans.

 

The Balkan: Europe’s Forgotten Frontier is available on BBC iPlayer.

When is it acceptable to speak ill of the dead?

Baroness Thatcher is proving to be as divisive in death as in power.  Eulogies from the right have been countered by condemnation from the left.  As they lowered the Union Flag to half mast over Number 10, there were street parties breaking out in Brixton.

Many Labour MPs chose to stay away from yesterday's debate

Born in 1987, I am a child of the Thatcher era and have no personal memories of her government, but have read enough to know that I disagree fundamentally with every policy she implemented.  Am I a terrible person if I detail the reasons why?  I would not have been four days ago.  I probably won’t be in four months' time. But is this week the right moment to be launching diatribes against her legacy?

Thatcher may have angered many of my parents’ generation, who hold her personally responsible for their financial suffering, but she was not evil.  A great number of people did - and still do - believe she was doing the right thing for the country. Her death does not mark the end of an oppressive dictatorship. She has not been in power in this country for over twenty years.  Democracy has had it say on her leadership and her party. There is no need to be popping champagne corks at her passing.

George Galloway invited harsh criticism when he tweeted "tramp the dirt down" in response to the news (a reference to an Elvis Costello song attacking the former PM).  The Daily Mail called it a "stunningly unpleasant tweet."  Galloway also added, regarding Thatcher's stance on Apartheid, "may she burn in hellfires."  There have celebrations in cities across the UK and it has been reported that the funeral may be interrupted by protesters.

The outpourings of hatred from some quarters has been described as ghoulish. Others feel that to hold back would be hypocritical.

To rejoice in another's death is macabre, despite what Owen Jones and others like him say. There are grieving friends and family to consider.  It is especially hypocritical for those opposed to the Thatcherite philosophy on the grounds that it lacked compassion.

Some Tories called the Labour boycott of yesterday’s debate an act of disrespect. But to portray Thatcher as a national figure, above politics and party, is both blatantly false, since she embodied partisanship, and highly offensive to the large proportion of the population who did not share her views.  Speaker John Bercow is reported to have been "taken aback" at the request to recall Parliament, particularly since similar action had not been taken in response to the death of James Callaghan, the last former prime minister to die during a recess.

It was absolutely fitting that David Cameron should have been able to pay tribute to a woman who served her country and whom he admired, but this could have been done on Monday.  Setting aside seven and a half hours to debate the motion of considering tributes, when the longest such previous session was 73 minutes (this for Ted Heath; Winston Churchill was given only an unassuming 45 minutes), could be seen as an abuse of free speech and an inappropriate use of the House of Commons, our nation’s most auspicious debating chamber.

However, under the circumstances, a boycott was the right thing to do. Ed Miliband had wanted as many of his MPs to attend as possible, but there were many who would not have wanted to “honour her personal achievements” or “pay tribute to her historic significance”, as Miliband and Shadow Public Health Minister Diane Abbott did, and to do so would have been hypocritical; the equivalent of rolling out those euphemisms reserved for the funerals of unpleasant elderly relatives. But nor was it right for Labour politicians to use the occasion to air vitriolic critiques of Thatcher, as backbencher Glenda Jackson did.

The Labour MPs who boycotted the debate made the correct decision. Tributes should be left to genuine admirers; criticism for another time. To stay silent is a mark of respect for the death of an individual; it does not have to signify respect for her record or her leadership.  Yes, it is acceptable to speak ill of the dead, especially when they were a public figure who made contentious decisions which had such a far-reaching impact on the lives of so many, but not at this juncture.

There will come a time when it is appropriate to debate the Thatcher legacy, but for now, her critics should stay silent and save the champagne and street parties for the moment when every person in the world is in possession of their human rights.