Brcko unchanged

Multi-ethnic veneer: a Croat war memorial in Brcko city centre

     

Many people see Brcko  as one of the few multi-ethnic successes of post-war Bosnia. To others, paradoxically, it is a potential flashpoint that could trigger renewed conflict. Both views are wide of the mark. This is because, despite the unified political apparatus and the veneer of multi-ethnicity in the city centre, Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats live in different parts of Brcko District and have little reason to provoke a conflict over territory that they do not inhabit.

Brcko District is neither part of the Muslim-Croat Federation nor the Republika Srpska (RS) [Correction: it is part of both. See comments below] and has a single political structure, despite containing large numbers of each of the three ethnic groups. The Serbs gained control of Brcko city in the early stages of the Bosnian war in 1992 and expelled its Muslim (now known as Bosniak) and Croat inhabitants. But the multi-ethnic make-up of Brcko District today is not due to successful returns of non Serbs to Brcko city, but to the fact that most of the territory of Brcko District, which was established by Bosnia’s international supervisors in 1999, had not been under Serb control during the war.

Results from the 2010 general election show that the area that was under Serb control during the war, including the town and the rest of the “corridor” that linked the eastern and western arms of Serb-controlled territory, is still overwhelmingly Serb, though modest numbers of Bosniaks and Croats have returned to formerly Serb-controlled areas. Although it is not part of the Federation or the RS [see above correction], Brcko District’s inhabitants are citizens of one of the two entities. Most Bosniaks and Croats in Brcko District are citizens of the Federation and most Serbs are citizens of the RS, though a significant number of the Bosniaks who have returned to formerly Serb-controlled areas such as the city are citizens of RS. Citizens of the Federation and RS voted for identifiably Bosniak parties in substantial numbers in areas that had been under Serb control during the war, but the data shows that these areas are still dominated by Serbs. This may be one of the reasons why, as related by a report by the International Crisis Group last month, “Brcko Unsupervised”, Serbs often still use maps that ignore the existence of Brcko District and show Brcko city and the former corridor as parts of RS.

The Bosniak and Croat areas of Brcko District are also ethnically divided, though this dates back to before the war and was not caused by ethnic cleansing between the two groups. While many Muslims were expelled from Brcko city, most Croats even before the war lived in cohesive areas outside the town. Despite making up 25% of Brcko municipality’s pre-war population (against the Muslims’ 44% and the Serbs’ 21%) Croats were by far the smallest group in the city. During the war (as I described in a previous post, “Unintended Consequences in Bosnia-Herzegovina”) the Croats in Brcko municipality sought to establish two of their own municipalities, Ravne-Brcko and Gornje Ravne, around the Croat villages, but abandoned these plans after the war when it was agreed that Brcko would become a district. Nevertheless, the 2010 election results show that they still occupy very cohesive areas, which is likely to be an important  factor in any future negotiations over the district.

I pointed out in my previous post that any attempt to link these Croat areas with the Orasje enclave in northern Bosnia, which remains under Croat control, would bring the Croats into conflict with the Serbs as it would encroach on the former corridor between the two halves of the RS. I should have added that, while linking all of these territories with the Orasje enclave would cut the Serbs’ corridor, the part of Brcko District that abuts the Orasje enclave is largely Croat, so it would still be possible for the Serbs and Croats to agree a delineation of territories that would result in some of Croat-majority Brcko District joining an expanded Orasje enclave. This is hypothetical given the international community’s support for the continued existence of Brcko District, but in light of recent co-operation between Serbs and Croats, is a real possibility. That said, most of the Croat areas in Brcko District fall south of the former corridor, so barring the creation of a new corridor south of the previous one, could not be attached to the Orasje enclave without cutting the corridor.

Much has been made of the possibility of Bosniak-Serb clashes in Brcko District. In an article last year, “Croat Crisis Pushes Bosnia Towards Endgame”, the analyst Matthew Parish noted that Bosnia’s three ethnic groups have “become used to living apart in the 15 years since the war ended” and so are unlikely to want to go to war to capture territories with which they have no connection. However, he advanced Brcko as a caveat, saying that there is “a real risk of ethnic confrontation there if the transition to Republika Srpska domination of the town is not managed smoothly.” But if the Bosniaks have given up on formerly Bosniak-majority municipalities that are now in RS, such as Srebrenica, they are unlikely, leaving aside economic considerations, to care much about Brcko, which was not a Bosniak-majority municipality before the war. Notwithstanding the much-praised multi-ethnic advances that have been made in fields such as education in Brcko, election results define politics. These show that Brcko remains rigidly divided, which is why ethnic conflict is as unlikely there as in other parts of Bosnia.

(Apologies for the lack of maps. You can see the map of Ravne-Brcko and Gornje Ravne here http://www.dubrave.ba/images/main/ravne-brcko-l.gif , and the International Crisis Group report also has a useful one http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/balkans/bosnia-herzegovina/B66%20Brcko%20Unsupervised.pdf. You can browse the 2010 election results in detail here: http://www.izbori.ba/Finalni2010/Finalni/ParlamentBIH/Default.aspx)

The indivisibility of citizenship (a diversion)

This print from the 1790s, “French Telegraph Making Signals in the Dark”, shows the British statesman Charles James Fox signalling to a French fleet heading towards an undefended south coast of Britain. It is not difficult to imagine a modern day politician being similarly pilloried in a newspaper cartoon, this time over the issue of the European Union. And it is not just EU-enthusiasts whose attachment to Britain might be called into question. Scottish and Irish nationalists would openly acknowledge their indifference or antipathy to Britishness, as would many among ethnic minorities who remain attached to their homelands and continue to participate in politics there. Less obviously, many “Euro-sceptics”, supposedly the most patriotic Britons, are emotionally attached and committed to causes that do not always coincide with Britain’s interests. 

Hardly any of the last group, who see their adherence to the Anglosphere and the special relationship with the United States as an extension of their British identity, would accept that their Britishness is in any way compromised by their outlook. It would be absurd for an American to insist that the United States’ history begins with the American Revolution. Many American traits of which its citizens are so proud can be straightforwardly traced back to the former mother country; the two countries have a common history. It would be just as foolish for people in Britain to deny this fact, which is why so many here see in the United States the expression of all that is (or was) best about Britain. Largely because of this common history, the two countries’ interests often coincide, so when Brits express strong support for America, they are often doing so because they see it as a means to further Britain’s interests.

But pro-American Atlanticists do not always see the special relationship in terms of Britain’s interest. It is often seen as a friendship, a relationship that pretty much by definition cannot be based on selfishness.  They may not advocate a political union of the kind supported by Euro-federalists, but clearly the idea of the special relationship and close ties with other Anglosphere countries goes beyond a simple alliance of convenience. The potential for the special relationship to damage British interests while advancing those of the United States becomes apparent when one considers that the Americans have been among the most enthusiastic proponents of European integration; the gulf between Euro-enthusiast Atlanticists and “Euro-sceptic” Atlanticists may not be as wide as is sometimes suggested. In both cases there is a strong commitment to the defence of “the West” and an internationalist strand with the potential to clash with Britain’s narrower interests.  NATO, the military alliance that arose at the beginning of the Cold War but seems to have become permanent, against George Washington’s famous advice about avoiding permanent alliances, is more or less the military wing of the European Union. So the European integration so loathed by the most vociferous Euro-sceptic Atlanticists, is in fact an important aspect of the special relationship.

The potential for the special relationship to damage Britain’s interests becomes even more apparent when you consider that the United States’ foreign policy is often influenced by the many ethnic lobbies that are active in that country and so cannot even be seen as acting in America’s, let alone Britain’s, interest. In some cases these lobbies’ aims are so integrated into the general thrust of US foreign policy that few question whether there is any divergence with America’s national interest. Cuban Americans get a free pass thanks to their staunch anti-Communism, which dovetails nicely with mainstream American patriotism, but whether America would still pursue the same policy toward Cuba if there wasn’t such a large Cuban community in America is an interesting question. American support for Israel is tied up with the defence of “the West” in general but is at least in part a consequence of the large Jewish population in the United States. These cases do not obviously affect Britain, but consider the following. The United States played a significant role in shaping the 1990s “peace process” in Northern Ireland and this was largely due to the influence of Irish America. Americans’ equivocation and –and in some cases support – in the face of Irish Republican terror has been well documented, but worrying aspects of their role in shaping the peace process are sometimes overlooked.  Before the September 11 atrocities, the New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, now feted as an enthusiastic supporter of the special relationship, welcomed the Sinn Fein president Gerard Adams to New York’s City Hall. According to the New York Times: “’I think President Clinton should greet him,’ declared the Mayor, joining the Irish visitor's own campaign for the Clinton Administration to honor him with a personal White House visit, which would add to the pressure on London for peace talks open to leaders of Northern Ireland's militant republican movement.” You might think that Americans were right about Northern Ireland and that we benefited from their prodding, but the damaging potential of their influence, not just over our foreign policy but in our internal affairs, is clear.

The most obvious impediment to Britishness is dual citizenship. While many dual nationals simply have a foreign nationality for convenience or because they haven’t bothered to renounce it, others see it as an important part of their identity and play an active part as a citizen of the foreign country. Even Michael Portillo, the former Conservative politician who used to dream of being prime minister of Britain, used his Spanish nationality to vote in that country’s last general election. How does a dual national decide how to vote if the interests of one of his countries of citizenship are in conflict with those of the other? (An example in Mr Portillo’s case would be over the issue of Gibraltar.) Countries have many areas of common interest, but there are other spheres where they can only be in competition and where competition – as in the corporate world, for example –adds to human prosperity. Such competition can only thrive when states command the full loyalty of their citizens.

Some British citizens who are not dual nationals act as if they are.  When the Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, ahead of the 2008 election in the United States, wrote: “I am a lifelong Republican, and have, over the years, felt a far more uncomplicated loyalty to that party than to my own,” was he not calling into question his loyalty to Britain in the same way as Mr Portillo? A more blatant example of loyalty to foreign causes entering British politics is the success of the JFK (Justice for the Kashmiri Community) party in Birmingham, which in 2000 successfully pressured the city council to pass a resolution supporting the self-determination of Kashmir. More recently, in the East London borough of Tower Hamlets, which has a large Bangladeshi population, the council has also waded into the foreign policy arena, calling for a boycott of “the pariah state” of Israel. In 2009 elections for the European Parliament, a candidate campaigning on the issue of Tamil rights in Sri Lanka won nearly 3% – in some boroughs more than 7% – of the vote in London.

Britishness does not preclude support for foreign causes as long as these are not in serious conflict with the interests of Britain, but if we accept the contention that one can have many different loyalties and identities but can only have one national loyalty, the above examples are problematic. The political scientist Samuel Huntington in a book about American identity compares dual citizenship to bigamy. That is not as harsh as it first appears if one considers that in a free country, citizenship is just one part of a person’s identity, independent of religion, family and many other aspects of life. To expand on the familial analogy, isn’t it best for Britain to be a family of peoples with a common loyalty rather than a vague geographical and political arrangement whose citizens are only there for convenience and feel little affinity with the soil they inhabit? The family unit, in which parents are devoted to their children but also encourage them to behave with compassion towards others,  has over time been a source of immeasurable human happiness. The same may be true of states. Perhaps a better analogy is religion; as Huntington writes, it is difficult to be half Muslim and half Catholic. The divisions between countries are equally rigid. The author Noel Malcolm points out in his pamphlet ‘Sense on Sovereignty’, “sovereignty cannot be divided up into percentage units.” Sovereignty, like religions, is indivisible. Perhaps the same should be true of citizenship.