Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohenheim
I don't think there would be another war. It would create some tensions, maybe local riots are possible (mostly in rural areas), but that's about it (for now). I don't see on people's faces around me the willingness to die (once again) for nothing more then the false ideals of some scum politicians with false nationalistic pretensions.
|
According to this opinion piece by a Bosnian journalist an increasing number of muslims are in favour of partition.
An Argument Against the Division of Bosnia-Herzegovina
I am often approached by both Westerns as well as Bosnians with the idea that the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina along ethnic lines is a logical, imminent and perhaps desirable outcome. Benign, yet naïve Westerners seem to believe in the theory of “ancient hatreds and antagonisms” which, in their view, led to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and the 1992-1995 war. (They find this theory particularly applicable to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is often seen as ‘a small Yugoslavia’). Some of them, however, do not believe in the ‘ancient hatreds’ theory because they remember the peaceful days of the 1984 Sarajevo Winter Olympic Games, but they still think that the recent war has damaged the fabric of the multiethnic society beyond repair. Ergo, they argue, all of our efforts to preserve the country and its cosmopolitan character are doomed to failure. They think that we should end this agony, declare the state dead, and find a pragmatic and an amicable agreement on dissolution. Luckily, there are still those from the West that haven’t given up on Bosnia yet.
It is not a secret that the majority of Bosnian Serbs and, to a lesser extent Croats, wish that the country divide and each ethnic group gets its own territory to administer and decide its future (i.e. join Serbia or Croatia proper). What I find shocking are the increasing number of Bosniak voices – who have so far been adamant defenders of the Bosnian statehood under its internationally recognized borders – in letting Serb and Croat dominated regions of the country go their separate ways. These voices can most often be heard in Sarajevo – the most prosperous city/region in the country where Bosniaks are a demographic majority. They argue that the country will never go forward because of ethnic Serbs’ (and to a lesser extent Croats’) objections to the reforms that would make the country less burdened by bureaucracy and less prone to crime, corruption, etc. (manifested in opposition to Constitution and Police reforms). This defeatist approach is understandable given the inability of the Bosniak political leaders to formulate a strategy of making Bosnia and Herzegovina a more unified and functioning country and attractive not only to Bosniaks but also to Serbs and Croats. The failure of such a strategy stems from the Bosniaks’ political philosophy which emphasizes that all ethnic groups should live together in a single state despite the fact that it also states that Serbs are guilty of having committed genocide against Bosniaks. It is a conflicting strategy that reinforces ethnic divisions and obstructs meaningful reconciliation, which is the foundation for building a better society and a stronger state.
After the recent political showdown where the Republika Srpska leadership was on the verge of pulling out of the state institutions (and shutting down the state government), the voices of those mulling an amicable breakup of the country seem to have multiplied. The idea of federalizing Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of ethnic principle (which is, in fact, a legal precursor to a formal break-up of the country based on ethnic lines) is gathering momentum and it is viewed as a legitimate political goal as any other. It seems that those who hope for the division and federalization of Bosnia and Herzegovina outnumber by far those who argue for its preservation as a multiethnic society. Because of this development, I feel compelled to write (again) about why the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina along ethnic lines is politically wrong, immoral, and dangerous.
The present-day ethnic make-up of the country is based on the campaign of extreme violence, brutality, and state-sponsored terrorism against civilians, based solely on the ethno-religious principle. Because of that extreme violence – which included mass executions of civilians, random shelling and sniping, starvation, mass expulsion, mass imprisonment, rape, destruction of cultural sites, etc. – we cannot take the current demographics as the guiding principle for any future internal structuring (administrative and territorial) of the country. As a counterargument, some will say that refugees have had a chance to return to their pre-war homes. But this line of thinking is nothing more than further legitimization of ethnic cleansing that started in 1992 and is ending just now. Yes, many refugees and displaced people have had a chance to receive grants to fix their homes. But how can they return to the places where they will not be able to find any jobs? Can they be expected to send their children to schools in which history classes teach that their ethnic group is an enemy to another group? Can they be expected to go to the local police or municipality (or any other local government institution) and meet face-to-face with the same people who harassed them 15 years ago, maybe even raped or killed someone they used to know? Can they be expected to live at a street address whose name glorifies the military (and paramilitary) units and commanders who executed or oversaw ethnic cleansing? The list can go on and on. Refugees and displaced persons have never had a chance of returning to their homes in real and tangible numbers. And then, there are those who were killed and will never return anywhere – 60,000 Bosniaks, around 30,000 Serbs, and close to 10,000 Croats, according to the latest, most scrutinized figures and widely-accepted figures. What makes ethnic cleansers really successful is being able to come away with a victory (an ethnically “purified” territory) under the guise of democracy and transparency.
The second reason against dividing (and destroying Bosnia and Herzegovina) has to do with the cultural belief that various ethno-religious groups can live and prosper side by side. This is not a utopian view. It has been a centuries-old reality of this country and the whole region. The long stretches of multiethnic peace and prosperity were not an exception to the rule; they were the norm. The recent war is an exception. Today, I see ordinary people regularly crossing the country’s ethnic and entity borders for commerce, sport, cultural events, etc. The so-called ancient antagonisms do not exist despite the fresh memories of war and violence. Ordinary people do what they have to do to survive and to provide for their families. Ethnic tensions exist only on the political level because they are tools of mass manipulation and staying in power (with all the financial benefits that such a situation brings to those purporting these views). In the age of increasing clash between civilizations, especially the Islamic East and the Judeo-Christian West, it would be a real tragedy and an irrecoverable cultural loss to sentence to death a small but (once) very vibrant multiethnic society for the sake of short-term political pragmatism.
Even if we put aside the moral and cultural implications of dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are serious political and security ramifications of such an outcome. Naturally, if Republika Srpska would become a separate state, it would strengthen its ties with Serbia just to the East. At the same time, Bosnian Croats would look to the West and make a stronger connection with Croatia. This would leave a small, isolated patch of land in Central Bosnia for the Bosniak population to form their own country – a Gaza Strip in the middle of Europe, a country and a people with no future. Under such circumstances, Bosniaks could become prime targets for extremist religious and political views – disenfranchised and desperate people often are. They may vent their anger not only against their former neighbors (who had destroyed their country), but also against the West (that has abandoned them one more time, just like in Srebrenica in 1995, and left them with no future). The break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the isolation of Bosniaks would add to the list of grievances of global Islam against the West. It would be another example to Muslims all over the world of how the West treats them – by placing an entire country and people into an enlarged Abu Ghraib centered around Sarajevo. This would be the greatest PR victory and a wonderful recruitment event for Al Qaeda and similar groups.
On the other hand, preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a “Mission Impossible.” Yes, there are difficulties in reaching an outcome that is acceptable to all groups and interests. But the Western countries – especially EU and US – have more power and tools to reach those goals than they think. All it takes is a more active diplomatic and economic engagement and a better harmonized long-term strategy for the Balkans. The current attitude of providing quick fixes to hot problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina must be substituted with a clear strategy of reforming the country’s institutions and integrating them into the European mainstream. Federalization of the country is not the answer. Quite the opposite, it is the entrenchment of the idea that various groups – that have lived and inter-married for centuries - now cannot live together and must be separated. Federalization of the country undoubtedly leads to dissolution.
Preserving the country and integrating it into EU is a winning solution for all of its residents (save for a few politicians who plan on becoming rich overnight by preying on ethnic fears). Having a once war-torn nation join the European community of nations as a self-sustainable democracy would represent a major diplomatic and moral victory for EU. It would also be an American victory against extremism and a testament to the fact that US is not at war with the entire Muslim world; it would be a foreign policy victory for the administration that knows only foreign policy defeats. Finally, the preservation of the multiethnic Bosnian state and society would be a clear statement that the widening gap between civilizations (East and West) is not irreparable. Jews, Christians, Catholics, Muslims and Atheists can live together in peace, harmony, and prosperity. They have in the past. They can do it again if given an honest chance. If these goals are not worth fighting for, then Bosnia and Herzegovina, indeed, is not worth saving.
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008
Question about Republika Srpska (Bosnia)
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
