Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

July 19th, 2005

Tags

,

Comments

16 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Where Do We Go From Here?

While a serious problem and source of possible instability for Europe and the Balkans, Bosnia is a perfect example and test for future Sysadmin forces. REFL has an article discussing the future of Bosnia and four different plans for getting it back on its feet. Some time ago, I also posted my thoughts on the future of Bosnia Hercegovina. 2005 marks the anniversary firstly of the Srebrenica massacre and also of the Dayton Peace Accords. The article mentions four different plans for the future of the country:

The first proposal calls for strengthening the already powerful Office of the High Representative (OHR), who is appointed by the international community, as a way of breaking the power of the nationalists. Such people led the Muslims, Serbs, and Croats during the war and subsequently remained in power through the ballot box and a series of networks linking politics, business, the security structures, and organized crime.

The second model calls for reducing and eventually eliminating the OHR in the name of democracy. The third proposal envisions scrapping the constitution included in the Dayton agreement and calling a constitutional convention to make a fresh start. The problem with models two and three is that they are likely to strengthen the nationalists’ positions even further, since the nationalists are the best vote getters. A nationalist victory would also result from the fourth model, which calls for giving up on Bosnia as a single multiethnic state and partitioning it along ethnic lines as the only “realistic” option

Interestingly enough, I also discussed an option similar to the fourth plan here posing the theory that synthetic states are bound to collapse eventually and thus should be peacefully broken up before they violent collapse. So what would be the best option for Bosnia? Looking at past ethnically (and/or religiously) divided and artificial states may provide some insight. If we take a few examples, we find that the transition often looks similar to that of communism to democracy as I plotted here. Let’s take Rome, the Mongols, the Ottomans, USSR and Yugoslavia. Graphically, their transition could be represented as such:


However, what happens when the United Nations, NATO or another country intervenes? True to life, things become MUCH more complicated!

Thus, I open the floor for comments, suggestions, critiques and alternative versions as readers like Younghusband, Dan and Mark so wonderfully did during the breakdown of isms discussions. Again, profuse apologies, but as I don’t have internet at home, I won’t be as on top of changes and suggestions as usual. Sorry!

Two questions remain. Firstly, how accurate are the models above. Secondly, using them and other data, what is the best path for Bosnia?

You’ll find a previous set of pictures of Bosnia here. Click below for more.

The hills outside Mostar:

A view of Sarajevo from one of its many hills, this one in Turkish area:

A grim reminder of those killed by snipers. Spots throughout the city are filled with red rubber as a memorials. A bad idea in my opinion.

A view of one of the narrow streets in the Turkish quarter where many oriental style items are sold.

Comments to this entry

Kenneth
July 19, 2005
11:25 pm
The problem comes in computing the "ideal" partitioning of of the state along ethnic/religious/cultural lines. Recall that the "organic" European nation-states were the culmination of ethnic, cultural, religious, and political trends that converged over the course of centuries, if not millenia, trends which it should be noted converged of their own accord and so automatically formed the "ideal" arrangement, or at least one that was more or less optimal. It follows from this and what you have posted above that a miscaculation on the part of whatever coordinating international agency could prove messy. In the final analysis, if we are to create any semblance of lasting stability in the Balkans then we should implement a combination of options one and four, in which Bosnia is partitioned into different states which in turn are ruled by proxy from abroad. This arrangement is the best for minimizing instability in the region. Stability through hybrid semi-authoritarian regimes that Robert D. Kaplan described in _The Coming Anarchy_ which reflect natural, rather than artificial, divisions.
Kenneth
July 19, 2005
11:26 pm
BTW, there appears to be a problem with gravatar on this blog. Any info?
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » More on Artificial States
July 20, 2005
11:48 am
[...] Before I read and respond to the many comments, I’d like first to offer my follow up thoughts of yesterday’s post on the breakdown of artificial states [...]
Chirol
July 20, 2005
3:03 pm
Kenneth: Excellent point which is of course another weakness, that the process of becoming a "natural" state can indeed be a long one as the history of European states shows.

You make a good point which leads me to believe that perhaps adding another path to the chart would be worthwhile, namely that of assimilation whereby, over some period of time, the state evolves into a natural and cohesive one. Thanks for the comments!
Kenneth
July 20, 2005
3:05 pm
Thanks!
Dan
July 21, 2005
5:49 pm
Is the European Union an artificial/divided state?
Kenneth
July 21, 2005
11:16 pm
No, not really. It occurs along civilizational lines, ie, the West, and is stable and effective for primarily that reason.
Dan
July 22, 2005
12:59 am
Kenneth,

So is the cultural link between Irish and Geeks stronger than the cultural link between Serbo-Croat speaking Catholics in Bosnia and Serbo-Croat speaking Orthodox in Bosnia? It seems it's hard to say that the EU is artificial/divided, while Bosnia is not.
Kenneth
July 22, 2005
1:02 am
Sorry, to clarify I ment by and large. Big EU players like France and Germany have a fair amount of cultural similarity.
Dan
July 22, 2005
2:26 am
Agreed. However, they don't share a language or a history of being ruled by the same people. Unlike the Bosnians, who share both language and history of rule.
Albert
July 23, 2005
4:21 am
Wasn't Bosnia created out of two parts? I m pretty sure it was two seperate provinces in the times of Rashka. Also considering that the ethnic component didn't change in both parts for about 400+ years doesn't it in fact make it reasonable to re-seperate the two regions to prevent further conflict? My view is that Bosnia is an artificial state that is kept together by both inward and outward elements which are hoping for ethnic change in the other half of it. The most reasonable thing would be to hold a referendum in each part if they want to be part of a united country. And if the right part wants to leave let it.
Dan
July 23, 2005
10:53 am
Albert, Bosnia was created out of Bosnia and Hercegovina. However, the differences were mideval, not ethnic. "Hergoz" just means "Duke," so all Bosnia and Hercegovina means is "Bosnia, and the Duchy." Seperating them would just double the problem.

I agree that referendums would be wise. If Republika Srpska wants to leave or join Serbia, fine. Ditto the Croatian parts.
Albert
July 23, 2005
9:10 pm
I disagree with the notion that seperating would double the problem. The problem lies in having the stability to build upon. Keeping this jumble of ethnicities intertwined doesn't work. Development likes stability and calmness and social cohesion which doesn't exist and only existed when the country was under strong rule. Once the rule over the country weakened all of these realities came into life. Simply speaking once one freedom ergo political self determination came to life another needed to be achieved as well which I see as ethnic self-determination. People want to belong forcing them to belong to a union which takes over who they see themselves being doesn't work. If someone sees themselves as a serb or a croat they will not see themselves bosniak. Social identity doesn't compromise to those factors in which it doesn't have a voice. Having a 1/3rd of a voice creates frustration and just makes the divide deeper. Imagine 3 people and each having to ask the other two permision for every initiative they have.
Dan
July 23, 2005
11:58 pm
Albert,

To clarify, I agree that an ethnic partition may be the best bet at this point.

However, the ancient boundaries (Bosnia, Hercegovina, etc) don't match up to ethnic lines. They are remnants of an ethnically blind feudal age.
heirabbit
July 24, 2005
4:35 am
I think that any state that separates religion and economics from politics can sucessfully include all kinds of factions.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Colonize Nepal!
April 15, 2006
4:21 pm
[...] Though convincing rulers to simply give up power seems unlikely, considering King Gyanendra doesn’t have much of it in the first place only helps. While I believe he can be successfully bribed into exile, convincing the international community to clean up Nepal will be the real challenge, especially of the insurgents continue their war. Even though UN interventions such as in Bosnia and Kosovo are still unresolved, the countries are both stable, relatively peaceful and finally have a shot at a real future. Nepal would be much better in a Kosovo-esque limbo than it is now. [...]