I can think of two solutions....simply to redraw national borders along ethnic lines....[or] to build a large wall around the area and let them kill each other..."
Steve, of course you know better, as you indicate in your final paragraph. But the attitude that these two half-serious proposals reflect is unfortunately typical of Americans, who have, in general, no understanding whatsoever of so-called ethnic conflicts, and hence tend to be snotty-superior about them. (Please note the "so-called".) So, with your permission, I should like to rant about that for a bit.
Where proposal (1) is concerned, there is no way to create "ethnically pure" national states in the Balkans (or in Africa) by redrawing the borders. What would you do with Transylvania? Or Vojvodina? Or etc.? Of course, you could always deport one or another national group from such ethnically mixed territories, but what would be your criterion for deporting the one rather than the other?
The "let them kill each other" approach embodied in Proposal (2) is based on the wholly mistaken but unfortunately widespread presupposition is that the conflicts in question are all chronic ("thousand-years-old") tribal conflicts, i.e., totally irrational and uncontrollable.
History belies that. In point of fact, many of these "tribes" have lived peacefully together for considerable stretches of time. Why do they start fighting from time to time?
1) When they are forced to compete for resources. (Generally speaking, this is true only of very primitive societies, and does not hold for the 20th century, which is what we are talking about.)
2) When their own government, an outside government, or an ambitious out-of-power group incites them to.
Very frequently, the fighting in such cases is almost entirely one-sided. One recent case in point is the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda. In an earlier message, Chuzzlewit talked about Hutus and Tutsis killing each other. No, it was Hutus killing Tutsis, period, egged on to do so -- rather, ORDERED to do so -- by their own "Hutu Power" government officials, radio stations, etc., etc. That does not mean that throughout their history of mutual relations, Tutsis have been blameless with regard to the Hutus. But it does mean that what happened in Rwanda was not a run-of-the-mill "tribal conflict", but a horrendous government-inspired massacre of a minority group in the population. It was proportionately just as thorough as the Holocaust in Europe -- and all in the space of a couple of months!
May I urge anyone who is really interested in questions such as this to read Philip Gourevich's We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda. An extraordinarily illuminating book (especially about international reaction to the slaughter).
3) Frequently, the real issue is one that Americans should be able to understand, from their own experience: it is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. One national group is being deprived of its civil rights, which may (or may not) eventually lead to protests & subsequent violence.
Let us take the question of the Jews in Europe. Anti-Semitism was endemic in Europe, occasionally stoked -- and periodically dampened down -- by the powers that be. In the 20th century, Hitler, for reasons of his own, chose to stoke it, and once in power proceeded to dispose of the Jews altogether. Was that an "ethnic [read tribal] conflict"? Should we have just walled the Germans and the Jews off and let them slaughter one another? (As if the Jews were striking back!) After all, there were statesmen at the time who might have preferred to do that -- if the Germans had only left the Czechs, and then the Poles, alone.
What about the civil rights struggle of blacks in America? Are we talking "ethnic [read tribal] conflict" here? Should we have just deported the blacks back to Africa? (Such proposals had been made in the past.)
You may say -- well, the slaughter of the Jews was a case of RELIGIOUS antagonism (NOT!), and discrimination against blacks was based on RACIAL antagonism, so there's no real parallel here. Nonsense. Discrimination -- or worse -- often stems from officially sanctioned policies towards a specific, easily identifiable ETHNIC group. That does not mean that the ethnic group in question has been without sin throughout its history; only that, at this particular point in time, it is clearly the victim of injustice.
My point is that we cannot just turn away from the Balkans, or from Africa, or any other ethnically mixed area of the world, and dismiss the problems there with the seemingly "sophisticated" argument -- "Well, they have been killing one another for centuries, so let them continue."
In each specific case, we have to recognize that the conflict is probably much more complex than that, which requires us to clarify what the situation actually is. THAT is the hard part.
Joan |
