It may seem unfair to ask of Europe that it confront and solve its own problems when it comes to petty nationalism. But in fact Europe must, if it wants to see itself through its long-heralded and badly needed unification. For this to work, basically the EU must be able to manage the transition out of nation-statehood in both directions -- sorting and devolving sovereign powers both upward and downward. So news like this (thru Peter Schramm), about the way Kosovo has fueled the amazing staying power of Europe's movements to reunite nation with state, suggests Daniel's fears are justified and my relative fearlessness might be misplaced. But on the other hand I never suggested that Kosovo won't fuel interest in particulate nation-statehood -- only that nothing really would come of it.
After ruminating on Daniel's latest post, I have decided that this means that I have placed my trust in the ability of the US, China, Russia, and the EU to control the situation, i.e. prevent small populations seeking Kosovo-like recognition from securing it from sympathetic countries in the region or around the world. And I must say, I'm okay with this. Not blithely, but okay. Because especially as far as Europe is concerned, the training wheels must come off, and the sooner the better, when it comes to mastering nationalism. It should be emphasized incidentally that the US stepped into Kosovo in the first place because Europe couldn't or wouldn't on its own. Imagine how better off everyone would be if Europe could handle these sorts of problems all by itself -- or, indeed, prevent them!
UPDATE: Daniel elaborates:
Perhaps I have been lecturing on the Balkan Wars too much over the past few months, but when I see autonomist and separatist movements gaining momentum I am fairly confident that these movements will reach a point where the Great Powers cannot stop them from taking action. The Powers ultimately have two means at their disposal, force and incentives, and nationalists tend to reject the latter and resent the former. James’ confidence in a new concert of Powers also does not take into account the possibility that one or more of them will blunder or deliberately stoke a separatist cause for short-term gain (as the West just did in Kosovo, except that we didn’t gain anything from it). Currently, Russia and China are playing the role of guardians of the existing international state system against the Western states that want to throw wrenches into it, and this is a very, very bad arrangement for rather obvious reasons.
Even if I do take Great-Power blunders or meddling into account -- and this is a problem -- my confidence remains intact. With Bush's NATO adventure effectively rebuffed and his tenure in office headed finally for an end, the era of separatist errors may be finished too, or at least on hiatus. There will always be partisan agitators, but Western policy looks to my eyes likely to freeze, especially in the short-to-medium term, when it comes to support for separatists. (The serious challenge to this idea is a revolt in Tibet. I'll take my chances.) But Daniel is dead on that it's unfortunate for Russia and China to be the great defenders of the sovereign state system. Any lone superpower is a pretty bad candidate as well, and Europe needs desperately to in fact overcome that system. So in that sense it's only natural that the Asian Powers are playing classic geopolitics, as Henry Kissinger has just underscored. Still, sovereignty works very well in places where ethnonationalism has been pacified, defanged, or rendered meaningless. As that state of affairs still can't quite win out in Europe, Europe is well advised to hurry along toward consolidated integration (not state centralization), and the US to content itself with a bullet dodged in Kosovo, and a policy that never should have had to become necessary fulfilled. This being the prudent thing to do I may be excused as a conservative for retaining some hope that it'll happen.
Comments