(Estimated Pub Date) the Challenge of Ethnic Conflict to National and International Order in the 1990S: Geographic Perspectives- October 1995

Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268
l
a generalized framework is feasible. First, it is impor-
tant to distinguish between unstable group circum-
stances and triggering actions that lead to strife.
Almost by definition, the presence of a minority
nation constitutes an unstable situation. Identifying
the presence of such nations is an essential first step.
Next, it is important to consider possible elements that
can set off conflict. Regimes control volatile internal
situations through a variety of devices, ranging from
totalitarian suppression to meaningful autonomy. No
matter how successful a policy may be, even in the
long term, it will not satisfy all individuals. Extremists
for a national cause can find ways to manipulate group
opinion that is disaffected for any reason. A dramatic
change of circumstances can provide the extremists
with strong levers. We recently witnessed the mobili-
zation of latent national antagonisms in Yugoslavia,
despite more than four decades of universal indoctri-
nation of the population in the slogan of “brotherhood
and unity.” A disastrously deteriorating economy, a
model of political change presented by a collapsing
Soviet Union, and unwise actions by a federal army
attempting to suppress autonomy allowed nationalist
true believers to mobilize their nations. Once ignited,
national passions fed upon themselves, each group’s
reactions engendeiing counteractions from the others.
Virtually nobody remains a “Yugoslav” any more.
Some Suggestions for American Policy in Dealing
With Ethnic Conflict Abroad
Political geography has evolved some truisms over the
years that are useful for considering ethnic conflict.
Among them are the following:
' The present configuration of states is far from ideal
and embodies tensions that have the potential to
result in fragmentations and_ shifts of territory.
Attempts to preserve the existing status quo in the
name of peace can well exacerbate unstable situa-
tions and even hasten conflict. It is unfortunate that
the United States Govemment tacitly supported the
Serbian-dominated regime’s attempt to maintain
intact the Yugoslav state in the face of escalating
national minority demands for secession. A firm
statement to the Yugoslav Govemment that the use
of force to maintain unity was intolerable to the
United States might have obviated the current
171
conflicts in that tortured land and allowed a peaceful
transition to separate states.
~ Maintenance of an unsatisfactory ethnic status quo
is generally futile for a country and certainly can be
costly in terms of transfer payments and policing.
Although the United States sided with Gorbachev in
attempting to preserve the Soviet Union intact, Rus-
sia’s loss of its Central Asian tenitories was of long-
term benefit to the Russian people in stemming the
outflow of funds to a region that has grave social
and economic problems.
- Gains or losses of territory generally affect only the
local inhabitants of the areas involved, with little
impact upon the overall economy and standards of
living. Although difficult to believe, even the United
States could cede Texas or California to Mexico and
still maintain much the same well-being of its
remaining inhabitants, whether or not NAFTA came
into existence.
~ Small independent states can flourish if they are
willing to yield economic sovereignty to a broader
common market. The inhabitants of 999-square-
mile Luxembourg have done quite well for them-
selves as part of Benelux and now the European
Community. Communist Albania, in contrast, com-
mitted economic suicide by cutting ties to all neigh-
bors and potential partners.
' Allowing national groups to form states of their own
does not inherently result in more intense national-
isms and potentials for greater international strife
but, on the contrary, can have a sobering effect.
Latvians and Slovaks are having second thoughts
about their national quests for independence as they
must now assume full responsibility for maintaining
themselves.
Above all, it is importa.nt to perceive states in terms of
their total political geography. More specifically, it is
the ethnic content of a state that is important, not its
external boundaries. This was a principal fallacy of
geopolitical thinking, which laid stress upon the
geometry of states, their positions, sizes, and
“resources,” rather than upon their degrees of unity
and the abilities of their govemments to elicit support
from inhabitants for “my country, right or wrong.”
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268
\