(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
~ Expansionism-—the areal extension of a State and
domination of neighboring States’ territories and
peoples (Parker, 1988) or the claiming of others’ ter-
ritories overseas (Christopher 1988).
~ Irredentism-—the claiming or taking of another
State’s territory based on a cultural claim, whether
true or not. Nazi Germany’s claiming and taking the
Sudetenland (in Czechoslovakia) in 1938 is the clas-
sic example.
- Separatism—-the separation of one part from another,
whether partially or totally. If a regionally based
group causes friction between the region and the cen-
ter, accord may be achieved by the granting of auton-
omy as in Euskadi, northern Spain. Decolonization
and the granting of statehood due to demands from
within a colony is another form of separatism; it is
significant that most colonies obtained independence
within their colonially derived boundaries because
separatist threats were perceived to be too great to
pemiit otherwise? If an intemal-to-a-State solution
to discord is not enough, the State may disintegrate
as a result of secessionism, whereby the territory is
divided into two or more parts as with the recent
breakup of Czechoslovakia.
Measures of Identity
All these territorial processes imply people. Of con-
cern here are people in groups. The word “people” has
legal meaning; it normally encompasses all the inhab-
itants of a State. All people living within Botswana,
for example, are said to be Batswana, whether or not
they all have allegiance to such a definition of group
“self.” Some sub-State groups claim they are “people”
and thus deserve international recognition (Knight
1988; Crawford 1988). Many other terms are used to
describe groups of people, including nations, ethnic
groups, and tribes. All evoke feelings of self-worth by
members and feelings of suspicion toward nonmem-
bers. To get around the problems of evocative defini-
tions, I have offered the phrase “group territorial
1 This conservative view is under threat, as demonstrated by the
recent creation of Eritrea out of part of Ethiopia, a territorial break
that perhaps is but a prelude to territorial partitioning and new State
creation that could occur throughout Africa.
identity”; that is, if the group becomes active in a
political manner and makes it needs known with the
State, it becomes a “group politico-territorial identity”
(Knight, 1982).' _
Group territorial identities, involving as they do
numerous ways for people to identify and bond and
yet also to be separate, form an aspect of the geogra-
phies of the mind, because the links-while some-
times having physical expression, as with flags,
national anthems, favored symbolic sites (Zelinsky,
1988)—remain"essential1y in the mind, to turn off or
on. Each definition of group self implies some other
group, with different values, different attachments,
and different allegiances-—the description of which
may not reflect reality from the perspective of that
other group (Said, 1993; Godlewska and Smith 1994).
Just as territory has inward and outward conse-
quences, so too does identity. Some groups look
inward, stressing the need for security, whereas others
are keen to look outward, seeking opportunities for
interaction with others. The concepts of territory and
identity thus share a fundamental tension between
these competing elements.
We operate at several levels of identity. At the center
is the self, normally set within a family. Beyond that,
we are amazing creatures because we have the capac-
ity to attach ourselves to many aspects of our group
identities, such as in a neighborhood, a religious com-
munity, a scout troop, a football team, a region of the
country, or even the nation—all of which are tied to
particular places (Tuan, 1977). We can flick a switch
in our minds and change attachments, as is appropriate
at the moment. But each of us ultimately gives priority
of belonging to a particular level of abstraction of
identity. For many people priority in the people-to-ter-
ritory link is at the level of the State. However, for
many others, priority is given to a lower order alle-
giance. For instance, some may have allegiance to a
regionally based identity, as to Punjab rather than to
India. Others may give primary allegiance to their
tribe/ethnic group/sub-State nation. The latter three
forms of group identity may be based on claims of
common ancestry; common language; (selective) his-
tory; traditions; and, above all, in the name of the
group, a particular territory.
18
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268