(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
~ ~
I
The Return, Not the End, of History
Western policymakers were thus ill prepared to antici-
pate the brea.kup of the Soviet empire or the disinte-
gration of Yugoslavia. We believed that a democratic
Soviet Union could solve the,messy nationality prob-
lems ignored or suppressed by czars and commissars
for centuries. In August 1990; in his famous “Chicken
Kiev” speech, President Bush cast his lot with the cen-
tral authorities in Moscow, deriding “suicidal nation-
alism” and averring that “democracy does not mean
independence.” Three weeks later Ukraine declared its
independence; five months later the Soviet Union col-
lapsed. Later in that same yea‘r, Secretary of State
Baker declared a “one Yugoslavia” policy, thereby,
according to many, encouraging Milosovic to pursue a
“one Serbia” policy. By the end of the year, the world
had become all too familiar with the term “ethnic
cleansing.” Far from witnessihg the “end of history,”
we are witnessing the “return of history,” which all too
often in Europe has been characterized by ethnic
strife. '
Russians: “Can’t Live With,Them, Can’t Live
Without Them”
We are also witnessing the geopolitical legacy of
Stalin’s ethnic policies. By removing ethnic minorities
from their homelands and often replacing them with
ethnic Russians, Stalin laid the basis for today’s seem-
ingly irreconcilable tendencies of independence and
interdependence. The former Soviet Republics all
have economic and blood ties'to their Russian big
brothers. And they all resent it.
Group Versus Individual Rights
In addition to these historic reasons, Americans have
another, perhaps more fundamental, reason for our
inability to come to terms with ethnic conflict in
Europe: we hold the individual, not the group,
supreme. European nations have long recognized and
promoted the concept of “group and ethnic rights,"
even if Europeans have as much difficulty in defining
these rights as they have in coming up with an all-
European recipe for sausage.
Americans intuitively approach this subject from a
different perspective. Group rights, in our view, serve
to delineate and emphasize differences among people
and tend to separate rather than unite. From the time
of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, we have held that indi-
vidual rights are primary and not subordinated to the
rights of a particular group, some of whom may also
belong to national minorities. Even in a politically
correct age, many Americans are uncomfortable with
distinctions based on race, religion, and nationality.
American Ideals and European Solutions
In practical terms, what principles guide the American
policymaker in addressing the issue of ethnic conflict
in Europe? Is the concept of individual rights applica-
ble to ethnic and minority issues Europe? Or is it too
anachronistic and too American for dealing with 21st-
century Europe? Can we respect the right of individ-
ual and group self-determination and, at the same
time, defend the territorial integrity of existing nation-
states? In other words, are the Helsinki Final Act prin-
ciples valid or even reconcilable in formulating our
policy toward ethnic conflict? In a changing Europe,
we will be increasingly confronted with uncomfort-
able choices. Without a conceptual context, we will be
forced to rely on ad hoc solutions.
It is perhaps easier to begin to answer some of these
questions by identifying what should not be our pol-
icy. Many Europeans and Americans are ill at ease in
this brave new world. They view the alleged stability
of Cold War Europe with some nostalgia; some even
seek solutions in monolithic ethnically pure states.
Both of these remedies are false and dangerous. The
Cold War resulted in the systematic suppression of the
most basic human and national rights in much of
Europe and a massive misuse of scarce resources.
Solutions based on ethnic purity violate the most basic
tenets of Judeo-Christian beliefs. They are particularly
179
I
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268