The concept of “ethnic cleansing” was introduced in the 1990s, when it was used to describe the ethnic-based population transfers, destruction of cultural monuments and murders committed during the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Regardless of its form—ranging from marginalizing the language to genocide—ethnic cleansing is inherently violent, disruptive and destructive. Yet last week, a New York Times op-ed suggested that the swap of northern Kosovo for some or all of Serbia’s Presevo Valley “would bring peace” to the two states, at odds since Kosovo unilaterally seceded from Serbia in 2008.
This claim reveals a profound naïveté about the current political and social realities in both countries and their neighbors. It also ignores the region’s sordid history of “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” a concept long proven oxymoronic. The author of the op-ed—Charles Kupchan, a former member of the US National Security Council— concedes that the forceful creation of monoethnic communities might sound “morally offensive.” And there is very good reason for it.
Kosovo proclaimed its independence following decades of marginalization and discrimination as first part of Yugoslavia and then rump-Yugoslav Serbia and Montenegro. In the years since, conflict between the countries has simmered, fueled by claims of mistreatment of ethnic Serbs living within Kosovar territory and of Serb interference in the state’s politics. Further, nationalists in Serbia maintain that Kosovo, as the origin site of the Orthodox faith, is the birthplace of the Serbian nation and is their rightful territory.
The United States and European Union would be violating the countries’ sovereignty if they were to block presidents Aleksandar Vučić of Serbia and Hashim Thaçi of Kosovo from peacefully reaching a deal and garnering domestic support for it. However, the international endorsement which the NYT op-ed encourages would set a dangerous precedent for irredentist and nationalist movements in neighboring Bosnia and Macedonia.
The fact that the Serbian government is considering land swaps shows a certain willingness to compromise. Mere years ago, relinquishing any part of Kosovo would have been anathema. However, Serbia’s interest in claiming territories inhabited predominantly by ethnic Serbs evokes the aspirations of Slobodan Milošević, Serbia’s president from 1989 to 2000. Milošević’s dream of establishing a “Greater Serbia” accelerated the disintegration of Yugoslavia and became the pretext for ruthless genocidal campaigns across the region. The apparent renewal of this vision blows a dog whistle for Serb nationalists both in Serbia and Bosnia.
A PRVE news broadcast in August 2018 raised eyebrows internationally as a graphic appeared to present Bosnia’s Republika Srpska and northern Kosovo in the same color as territorial Serbia (as opposed to ethnic composition, as none of the depicted territories are monoethnic). | Image from Jasmin Mujanović, via Twitter.
This is not the first time territories have been divided based on the ethnic groups living there. Among the most notable and notorious is Israel-Palestine, where disputes over borders and rightful ownership of land have led to over 70 years of conflict. A more apt comparison may be the case of India and Pakistan, in conflict since the partition of the Kingdom of India in 1947, in which 14 million people were displaced and between several hundred thousand and two million died.
Three wars were fought over the disputed northern state of Jammu and Kashmir, and the conflict continues as hostility and suspicion persist. In an article in the Times on September 4, journalist Maria Abi-Habib refers to India as Pakistan’s “archrival,” and that overtures to resume peace talks were met with a “tepid” response from India. Bilateral trade between the two countries is nonexistent, and in the ongoing war in Kashmir, “the violence is becoming smaller, more intimate and harder to escape.”
In former Yugoslavia, attempts to reach peace through ethnic homogenization have fared similarly. During the Bosnian war of 1992 – 1995, Milošević and his Croatian counterpart, Franjo Tuđman, reached an agreement to divide ethnically mixed Bosnia between them, but it collapsed. The United States and Europe also worked to establish more ethnically homogenous entities within Bosnia through the Dayton Accords, establishing two entities within the state, the Bosniak-Croat Federation and the Serb Republika Srpska, and mixed Brčko District. Further, it establish a complex constitutional system to balance the powers of each ethnic group, including a tripartite presidency. Yet this did little to build meaningful peace or stability in the country, which suffers from nationalist division to this day.
Current president and former prime minister of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik, an ethnic Serb, has repeatedly called for a referendum for the region’s independence from BiH. On October 7, he will run for the Serb seat of the tripartite presidency. In that position, his nationalistic aims would have more weight and influence, particularly given likely support from Croat member of the presidency, Dragan Čović, who has renewed calls for a third, Croat entity: an unfulfilled war aim.
In a 2017 interview, Kurt Bassuener of the Democratization Policy Council noted that independence referendums and further ethnically divide Bosnia “would be tremendously destabilizing, and almost certainly precipitate violence.”
Three former high representatives for Bosnia and Herzegovina agree, and expressed their apprehension with the proposal for land swaps between Serbia and Kosovo given its repercussions outside the two countries.
“Such a policy would be misused by nationalist politicians to further challenge borders and destabilize other countries in the region,” Carl Bildt, Paddy Ashdown, and Christian Schwarz-Schilling wrote in an open letter to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. “We know the region well enough to know that moving borders like this will not solve divisions, it will deepen them.”
The legacy of the Yugoslav wars raises the importance and possible impacts of the Serbian-Kosovo proposal. Even in the best-case scenario, a peaceful swap, it could embolden nationalists bent on independence or unification across the region. International support would only bolster and legitimize these arguments, quickening a potential return to violence.
Easy solutions are often the most tempting, but expecting land swaps to bring lasting peace requires a faith blind to both history and current realities. Recognizing the success of the deal and the stabilization of relations between the countries is one thing. But an endorsement from the international community carries significant weight, and given without caution can have severe consequences.
PHOTO: Celebration of Kosovo’s five years of independence in its capital city, Pristina, in 2013. (C) Stephanie Sugars.
Be First to Comment