Territorial division poses dangers of new conflicts

In the academic world, articles have been written on whether ethnic division can help end the war and reduce the risks of its return. One of the academics is Jonah Schulhofer-Wohl.

Deutsche Welle: The territorial division dispute as a solution to the conflict between Kosovo and Serbia is politically very relevant. Parting has dangers and benefits. What are the dangers, and what are the benefits?

In a study we've done for civil wars with Nicholas Sambani, we've found no evidence to say that separation can help lower the odds of conflict coming back. In addition, separation carries risks to new internal conflicts in separate parts or conflict between the two separate parts. And, we must not forget that throughout history the division has been associated with great humanitarian costs, including the destruction of communities and death.

Deutsche Welle: What effects does the proposed territorial division have?

If you refer to the Serbian proposal to make Kosovo's north part of Serbia, it has two main risks. This <x0-ethnic division” would bring uncertainty to the Serb community that would continue to stay in Kosovo. And it would create the possibility for further efforts for future ethnic division, which would be based on the precedent set.

Deutsche Welle: In your article, you say that separation can function under certain conditions. What are these conditions?

We have said that we cannot take into account all the theoretical possibilities that say partition can help achieve certain goals if very strict preconditions are met. But in practice, some preconditions, such as the lack of what are called pockets of minority minorities in the territories of two countries after division, are impossible to achieve.

As for the proposals now discussed on Kosovo and Serbia, it is important to ask, what are the problems that are supposed to be solved? And can you expect territorial change to solve them? The proposals are made in the context of Kosovo and Serbia, which want to normalise relations so that they can achieve membership in the European Union. The two states apparently possess other mechanisms for normalising relations, besides efforts for territorial change.

Deutsche Welle: A part of the international community supports partition, and a part rejects it. Why?

I don't know if there's any segment of the international community supporting the divide in this case. But unfortunately it seems that we are dealing with the case, that either because of the lack of Trump's administration experience, instability, or simply inadequacy in foreign policy, Kosovo and Serbia were not given a very clear message of opposition to the United States to territorial changes. Giving a message is necessary to reduce tensions and risks of miscalculation.

Deutsche Welle: In your article you talk about division after the civil war. Kosovo and Serbia are not at war. But they are not at peace either. Is the division the solution to conflict chains in Yugoslavia? 

Our study has shown that separation is not a solution to civil war. If it can solve political problems in a post-conflict environment, it is another issue, but also factors that prevent division from being able to prevent civil war return undermine its ability to solve the political problems of the post-conflict. More than would solve an existing problem, separation would create another problem by fuelling new conflicts of identity - based distribution or conflict. Those who defend the idea of partition seem to be surprisingly ignoring the fact that power is at the core of politics. See ethnic division. If two groups were perfectly divided from one division, would it be possible that there were no new power wars in any of the ethnic groups, or would it exclude any possibility of conflict between them?

The study this interview refers to was written by Nicholas Sambanis and Jonah Schulhofer-Wohl.