Tweet
EUROPE'S NEXT TROUBLE SPOT
By Patrick O'Brien
Washington Post
Nov 3 2008
Imagine it's February, 2008. Kosovo's declaration of independence
from Serbia is imminent. International analysts are warning about
reactionary moves by other breakaway regions. They say that South
Ossetia and Abkhazia would become more daring in making official
their already de facto independence from Georgia. They also say that
after the successes of these regions-turned-states, we shouldn't
be surprised by the appearance on the map of independent republics
called either Transnistria (in Moldova), Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan)
or Republika Srpska (Bosnia-Herzegovina).
Eight months on, those predictions are still prescient. The "who
started it" question in Georgia is, in a way, irrelevant. All
the players played their roles quite well, and foreordained
result was Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as
independent states. It's important to remember that Russia gave a
very clear warning in February, just before Kosovo's declaration. But
neither is any major power supporting self-determination across the
board. Without a common framework agreed upon by the major powers
(the U.S. and Russia, of course, but also China and a united EU),
traditional alliances and strategic concerns will determine who
recognizes whom. The result could be a map of Eastern Europe with a
lot more dotted lines where there were once solid lines.
So what's the next trouble spot? Bosnia is a good
bet. Bosnia-Herzegovina has a federal system uniting two autonomous
entities: half of the country is made up of Bosnians and Croats, the
other half by Serbs. The latter, called Republika Srpska, has recently
been moving toward more autonomy within the federal system. For 13
years the Dayton Peace Accord has embodied the spirit of power-sharing
between these groups, and it has been enforced by a western military
presence (NATO until 2004, when it was succeeded by the EU).
But recent strains between Haris Silajdzic, the senior President of
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Milorad Dodik, prime minister of Republika
Srpska, can only work to strain the confederacy. Local elections
held nationwide this month gave a boost to ethnic parties of all
stripes. Now recall that in February, some politicians in Republika
Srpska said that Kosovo's cessation would be the green light for their
immediate cessation from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course, "immediately"
in diplomatic language may mean years, but eight months without such
a declaration is no reason to feel complacent. The English-language
media has been largely mute on Bosnia lately, except for a warning
in The Guardian by Richard Holbrooke, the architect of Dayton, to
wake up and smell the Turkish coffee. If Holbrooke is right and the
Bosnian Serbs are positioning themselves to declare independence,
America's and Europe's reaction isn't clear.
Unlike in the 1990s, when America was at the height of its relative
power and thus able to extend security over the region, America is
now fighting two wars in the Middle East and is preoccupied with the
financial crisis. Europe is still divided on its interpretation of
Kosovo and is severely dependant on Russia for energy. The question of
the day in the 1990s -- "Why should I be a minority in your country
when you could be a minority in mine?" - is surfacing again. And
to ethnic separatists, post-Kosovo, there is no longer a satisfying
answer.
By Patrick O'Brien
Washington Post
Nov 3 2008
Imagine it's February, 2008. Kosovo's declaration of independence
from Serbia is imminent. International analysts are warning about
reactionary moves by other breakaway regions. They say that South
Ossetia and Abkhazia would become more daring in making official
their already de facto independence from Georgia. They also say that
after the successes of these regions-turned-states, we shouldn't
be surprised by the appearance on the map of independent republics
called either Transnistria (in Moldova), Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan)
or Republika Srpska (Bosnia-Herzegovina).
Eight months on, those predictions are still prescient. The "who
started it" question in Georgia is, in a way, irrelevant. All
the players played their roles quite well, and foreordained
result was Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as
independent states. It's important to remember that Russia gave a
very clear warning in February, just before Kosovo's declaration. But
neither is any major power supporting self-determination across the
board. Without a common framework agreed upon by the major powers
(the U.S. and Russia, of course, but also China and a united EU),
traditional alliances and strategic concerns will determine who
recognizes whom. The result could be a map of Eastern Europe with a
lot more dotted lines where there were once solid lines.
So what's the next trouble spot? Bosnia is a good
bet. Bosnia-Herzegovina has a federal system uniting two autonomous
entities: half of the country is made up of Bosnians and Croats, the
other half by Serbs. The latter, called Republika Srpska, has recently
been moving toward more autonomy within the federal system. For 13
years the Dayton Peace Accord has embodied the spirit of power-sharing
between these groups, and it has been enforced by a western military
presence (NATO until 2004, when it was succeeded by the EU).
But recent strains between Haris Silajdzic, the senior President of
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Milorad Dodik, prime minister of Republika
Srpska, can only work to strain the confederacy. Local elections
held nationwide this month gave a boost to ethnic parties of all
stripes. Now recall that in February, some politicians in Republika
Srpska said that Kosovo's cessation would be the green light for their
immediate cessation from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course, "immediately"
in diplomatic language may mean years, but eight months without such
a declaration is no reason to feel complacent. The English-language
media has been largely mute on Bosnia lately, except for a warning
in The Guardian by Richard Holbrooke, the architect of Dayton, to
wake up and smell the Turkish coffee. If Holbrooke is right and the
Bosnian Serbs are positioning themselves to declare independence,
America's and Europe's reaction isn't clear.
Unlike in the 1990s, when America was at the height of its relative
power and thus able to extend security over the region, America is
now fighting two wars in the Middle East and is preoccupied with the
financial crisis. Europe is still divided on its interpretation of
Kosovo and is severely dependant on Russia for energy. The question of
the day in the 1990s -- "Why should I be a minority in your country
when you could be a minority in mine?" - is surfacing again. And
to ethnic separatists, post-Kosovo, there is no longer a satisfying
answer.