The recent referendum in southern Sudan endorsing the secession of that region will produce a newly independent country. And it appears that the central government in Khartoum will peacefully accept the loss of more than a third of its territory—something that it violently opposed over the past several decades.
The outcome in southern Sudan suggests that, contrary to the long-standing bias of current governments in the international system, partition can sometimes be a solution—perhaps the only solution—to irreconcilable differences between ethnic or religious groups within a country. Admittedly, one can point to cases in which the strategy has not worked well, for example Britain’s decision to divide its South Asian colony between the newly independent states of predominantly Hindu India and predominantly Muslim Pakistan. A few cases have even produced disastrous results (the division of Palestine being the premier example). But it is equally possible to cite examples in which the results have been positive, and were certainly better than the alternative. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia’s “velvet divorce” are clear instances of that outcome.
As I suggest here, chronically dysfunctional Bosnia-Herzegovina ought to be considered a prime candidate for partition. Despite the utter failure of that artificial entity to forge anything even faintly resembling national cohesion—much less a competent government and functioning economy—in the more than 15 years since the Dayton Accords ended a violent civil war, U.S. and European leaders still insist on keeping Bosnia intact, even if it must remain indefinitely on life support from international agencies. That is an appallingly short-sighted strategy.
Western policy makers grasp at ever more fragile straws to make their case that Bosnia will eventually turn out to be a success story. The favorite recent panacea is that once Bosnia joins the European Union, the petty ethnic quarrels among the country’s Serb, Croat, and Muslim communities will become irrelevant.Not only does that assumption underestimate the depth of the continuing ethnic hatreds, it is wildly optimistic about the probability of the EU admitting Bosnia anytime soon.
There is more and more grumbling within the major EU states about some of the existing smaller and weaker members. That is especially true in Germany, which has had to shoulder primary responsibility for the financial bailouts of some of those members. The EU already has to deal with such members states as Greece, Portugal, and Ireland that have severe economic problems. It already has one member (Cyprus) that has a huge, unresolved territorial issue (with Turkish troops occupying the northern 37 percent of the country) and another member (Spain) with two simmering secessionist issues. EU governments are likely to be very reluctant about acquiring Bosnia as a member when the country has both political and economic defects that are intractable.
Both the United States and the EU should accept the manifest desire of the Serb minority (some one-third of Bosnia’s population, and one that inhabits a reasonably compact territory) to secede and either form an independent country or merge with Serbia. The United States and its NATO allies have tried to dictate policy in Bosnia for far too long. Their meddling has produced a festering, unsustainable situation. They need to change course and approve a political transition based on partition. Their sole goal should be to orchestrate that process to maximize the probability that it will be peaceful.
Comments
This article bascially calls for genocide to be used as a tool to achieve one's political ambitions. The basic idea is to exterminate a people from their land and then claim it as being yours. Mr. Carpenter main points in the article are exactly those that Karadzic and Milosevic were making while they were committing the 1992-1995 genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Karadzic wanted the break up of Bosnia and Milosevic wanted the formation of Greater Serbia. I do not see any new ideas coming from this author. He calls for a peaceful partion but why does he not call for the 200,000 people that died in the genocide to be brought back to life? Why doesn't he call for the return of over a million refugees who were forced off their ancestral land? Mr. Carpenter calls for the partition of the country but he doesn't tell us who will get what. It is obvious that the Bosnians will not accept that lands on which they formed majorities and were ethnically cleansed from would belong to the Serbs. The cities of Banja Luka and Prijedor as well as all of Eastern Bosnia had Bosnian majorities before the war and before they were brutally murdered and forced off their ancestral lands in actions that the United States has described as genocide (see Senate Resoluiton 134 and Huse Resoluiton 199). The land on which people lived is eternally theirs to keep and the Serbs would never be able to claim it without having to fight an endless series of wars over it. Same question goes for the Bosnian Croats. How would you divide multiethnic cities? Would Bosnians be compensated by getting an equal amount of Serbian and Croatian land? Can Bosnians in Bosnia and those in Sandzak join up as well? Should this principle be applied to all ethnic groups living in the Balkans? Simply put your idea creates an infinitely more complicated, dysfuntional, and dangerous situation in the Balkans then the one that already exists thanks to Serbian ultranationlism and expansionism. You can not compare colonial constructs like Sudan to a country that has existed in it's current form for over a thousand years. If you look at maps of the Bosnian Kingdom in the 12th century you will see that it has the same outlines it has today. Unlike Sudan the Bosnian population was extremely mixed before the Serbs instigated genocide with the very aim of ethnically cleansing land of non-Serbs so the claim it for themselves. The Bosnian people do not accept genocide as a negotiating tool and the idea of "genocide committers keeper" is both morally unacceptable and would amount to the world offically endorsing the policty of committing gneoicde and ethnic cleaansing to gain land or political advantage. Bosnia-Herzegovina belongs to all of its peopel and the only way to achieve long-term peace and stability is to reform the country's post war constitution which bascially entrenced ethnic divisions and emboldened those to committed genocide to continue their policies. Bosnia-Herzegovina will be a stable and prosperous country only once the principles of the EU are written into its constituiton. Only once all citizens are treated equally and refugees feel safe enough to return to their pre-war homes and attention shifts from ethnic division to a common ambition to develop the country economically and improve the living standard of all its citizens. Calling for division is easy that's what Karadzic, Mladic, and Milosevic were doing while they were committing genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992-1995. The real challenge is rewriting the constitution so that it is democratic and allows Bosnia-Herzegvoina to function more efficiently so that it can join NATO and the EU with the goal of long-term peace, stability and economic development.
SimplyStated's comment is an example of the type of thinking that has mired Bosnia-Herzegovina in permanent political crisis since 1994. Simply accuses the author of this thoughtful column of arguing "for a peaceful partion" without asking "for the 200,000 people that died in the genocide to be brought back to life? Why doesn't he call for the return of over a million refugees who were forced off their ancestral land?" The point Simply is making, in other words, is that allowing the Serbs of Bosnia to secede would essentially "ratify" their crimes of the 1990s, by allowing them to create a separate country on the lands that they "conquered" through genocide.In other words, Simply is not really interesting in turning Bosnia-Herzegovina into a functioning democracy... instead, he (or she) is interested in exacting revenge against Bosnia's Serbs. And, since Bosnia's Serbs want independence, they should not be allowed to have it. Simply's argument is open-and-shut.In other words, Simply is not really interesting in turning Bosnia-Herzegovina into a functioning democracy... instead, he (or she) is interested in exacting revenge against Bosnia's Serbs. And, since Bosnia's Serbs want independence, they should not be allowed to have it. Simply's argument is open-and-shut. The problem is that this revenge-mentality not only unfairly punishes all of Bosnia's Serb community for the genocide of the 1990s (as though every single Serb were a murderer--exactly the type of racist mentality that makes genocide possible to begin with), it also--ironically enough--doesn't do anything for Bosnia's Muslims, the main victims of the genocide. When will Bosnian Muslims finally be allowed to live in a functioning country? The answer is simple: once they have a country of their own, and aren't engaged in a constant stalemate against their Serbian neighbors. In fact, an independent Bosnian-Muslim Bosnia would likely be a candidate for EU membership ... because it would no longer be a pandora's box of ethnic divisions. Imagine that. Not only a functioning nation, but all of the economic opportunities that EU membership would bring. The only question that remains is: do Bosnia's Muslims deserve these things... or do they deserve to be permanently held hostage by those who seek a revenge that will never come?
1. The total number killed in the Bosnian war was 100,000 persons, not 200,000. Roughly half of those killed were soldiers. 2. The only case of Genocide in the war was the killing of some 8,000 men in Srebrenica in 1995. Although various Bosniak activist/politicians argue that the war was one of Serbian aggression against Bosnia with Bosniaks suffering widespread genocide, the International Criminal Court has tested both of these allegations and found them wanting.
.
I agree with the basic idea, but with two stipulations. One, Serbia would recognize Kosova's independence in exchange for receiving the eastern section of Republika Srpska. Only those portions of Republika Srpska that border on Serbia would be eligible for annexation. The northern area of Republika Srpska would revert to the Bosnian Federation. Two, Serbia would compensate Bosnia for the damages caused by the war with reparations to compensate for Bosnian costs of repatriating its refugees who wished to return from Europe and America.
1. As Serbia and Bosnia are two different nations Bosnian Serb secession cannot be premised on Serbian recognition of Kosovo. However, if Bosnia recognized Bosnian Serb independence would be a shining example for Serbia to follow with regards to Kosovo. 2. Why would only half of the Bosnian Serb territory to be allowed to seceede (or "annexation" as you label it)? The Bosnian Serb Republic is a recognized entity. 3. Why should Serbia "compensate" Bosnia for damages of the war? It was a civil war between various Bosnian parties. Serbia did not invade or attack Bosnia. This has also been the conclusion of the ICJ when the Sarajevo has pressed the issue. Would Croatia and Nato also be required to "compensate" Bosnia as they at least formally were, at times, warring parties in the conflict (which Serbia was not)? 4. The EU and international community have already provided more aid (including for refugee repatriation) per capita to Bosnia, and the Federation in particular, than to any other post-conflict nation since WWII. Those who have not returned most certainly don't want to leave their lives in Canada, Sweden and Germany for the squalor of Bosnia.
I agree with Ted Galen's position - partition is often the only sustainable solution, especially when it concerns a large and concentrated minority and other solutions have been tried. Bosnia, itself the creation of a partition, has shown itself unable to resolve its internal differences. Allowing the Bosnian Serbs to secceede is in effect no different from allowing Bosnia or Kosovo secceede from Yugoslavia. As to the issue of the war (raised by one comment). No, allowing the Bosnian Serbs to secceede would not be rewarding "genocide". To begin with, the war resulted in 100,000 casualties, not 200,000, of which about half were soldiers. Arguing that a war where civilians are killed/murdered disqualifies a nation fom existence is absurd in the light of history. Europe is full of nations forged through wars and massacres. Breaking up Yugoslavia was a bad idea. For foreigners to meddle and support new national constellations of their choice was even worse. The 'West' would do well to finally allow the people of the Balkans to make their own choices. Finally, allowing the Bosnian Serbs to secceede would be a great incentive for Serbia to recognize Kosovo's independence.