(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
prematurely. This then precipitated a concern on the
part of Serbs who did not want to be a part of an inde-
pendent state in which, they felt, their human rights
would be threatened.
Take the case of Georgia. Georgia, which seceded
from Russia, is now trying to,stop Abkhazia from
seceding. Where does it all end? This trouble comes
with every secession. Unless there is some way in
which that can be codified and stratified, it will be
chaos.
DR. HONEY: I agree with you. Virtually no state in
Africa has an order that was determined by African
peoples. Why should the peoples of Africa not have
the same kind of self-determination that at least some
non-Africans have enjoyed in‘other places?
DR. WIXMAN: But what often happens when the
secessionist movement is denied? Are we going to
dictate that people live together in shotgun wedding
relationships? Should we say to Croats, Muslims, and
Serbs, “You must live together,” when we would not
do that ourselves? I agree thatithere are perils of seces-
sionism, but the peril of not doing it, I think, is equally
dangerous. '
Do we tell Moldova that it cannot become indepen-
dent from the Soviet Union because 12 percent of its
population would be unhappy? Do we tell Georgia
that it should not secede because 100,000 out of 6 mil-
lion people will be unhappy? I think countries need to
be prepared for independence; not leap into it, but the
lack of preparation is the problem.
DR. DE BLIJ: May I make one other point? That
relates to the issue of boundaries. In 1992 the United
States went to the Baltic states and talked about solv-
ing problems within existing borders. When this
occurred, I cringed; just as pipelines and roads can be
moved, boundaries, which are ihere to serve us, can be
moved. If it is time to move them, let them be moved.
You are never going to have total agreement on mov-
ing boundaries. In fact, hundreds of thousands of
casualties occurred when Pakistan was separated from
India. Nevertheless, this action probably saved mil-
lions of lives. All countries and all people should be
able to argue about moving their boundaries.
DR. MURPHY: Dr. de Blij’s last comment, in a sense,
touched on a point I wanted to make. When we think
about the issue of potential fragmentation, what are
we thinking about in terms of the units we end up
with? I think our tendency is to think about conven-
tional units of sovereign states.
One of the most remarkable things Dr. Williams
alluded to yesterday was that, in Western Europe, the
major threats are not seen as the regional secessionist
movements. Why is that the case‘? It could well have
something to do with the changing nature of sover-
eignty in Europe. It could also have to do with the fact
that it is possible for someone in a region within a
state to feel multiple layers of identity, some of which
are attached to being a European.
DR. HINKLE: We seem to be, in one sense, moving
toward an intemational norm of the rule of law in gov-
eming intrastate relations, individual human rights,
and collective group rights. It is going to be hard to
reconcile that with the proposition that you cannot
allow norms of international behavior to stand in the
way of a rational adjustment of international bound-
aties just because it seems to balance out in terms of
demographics or some other factor.
DR. DE BLII: But we are trapped in such a boundary
in South Africa. In that country, partition, even some
sort of a temporary confederal arrangement, might
ease the fears that are presently ripping the place
apart. What is so great about keeping South Africa in
one piece? It has no history of integration. It has
always been a divided country.
DR. HONEY: Dr. Gundersen said we should not ask
for redrawn boundaries because such change would
have to be agreed upon by all parties. Well, if it is
democratic, what does that mean? Democratic can
mean 50 percent plus one.
DR. GUNDERSEN: I would just refer to the facts of
the last two years. In alluding to the statement by
former Secretary of State Baker on Yugoslavia and the
statement by former President Bush on Kiev, I was
saying that the United States was trapped in a certain
east-west bipolar context.
'
193
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268