peacefare.net

Fantasy

Charles Kupchan, who is a professor at Georgetown and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes in the New York Times: 

Rather than causing a contagion of ethnic separation, normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo may well do the opposite. Serbia is the region’s dominant player. If it settles its impasse with Kosovo, it may well transition from being an aggrieved troublemaker to a satisfied stakeholder. Serbia’s help would be particularly welcome in discouraging Republika Srpska, the Serb-dominated region of Bosnia left behind by the war there in the 1990s, from seeking to break away. The positive effects of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo further justify a one-off sacrifice of pluralist principles.

This is fantasy. There is no reason to believe that an agreement on ethnic division in Kosovo would not immediately cause a rise in ethnic nationalist claims in both Macedonia and Bosnia. Containing those, in particular if their advocates resort to violence, would be difficult without a major commitment of European and possibly American forces. A land swap would also provide Vladimir Putin with the leverage he needs to push the US to accept the border changes he wants internationally recognized: the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as the annexation of Crimea.

Note that Charles uses the classic op/ed dodge: “may well.” I know of no evidence for the claim that Serbia will be content with a piece of Kosovo. Serb nationalists also claim half or more of Bosnia. Nothing about a land swap between Belgrade and Pristina would discourage Republika Srpska (RS) from seeking to break away. In fact, its president has made it eminently clear in public that any land swap will make him push hard and fast for independence. He won’t care that the proposition is not “consensual.” Serbia would not be able or willing to recognize an independent RS without wrecking its EU prospects, but RS President Dodik and Putin would be content with an unrecognized Russian satellite.

Charles describes the land swap idea as odious, but he has not demonstrated how adopting it will improve the situation. To the contrary, it is entirely predictable that the consequences will be negative. Certainly there is as great a likelihood that they “may well” be catastrophic as beneficial.

Pluralism is not an option to be thrown away lightly for unlikely benefits, especially in a world where ethnic nationalism is on the rise. Fortunately constitutional requirements in both Belgrade and Pristina will prevent ta land/people swap from passing muster. Kosovo’s parliament is mostly opposed. Serbia’s parliament may be more compliant, but the required constitutional amendment there would require approval in a referendum with more than 50% of registered voters participating.

The New York Times piece will revive an idea that was already withering on the vine. That’s where it should stay.