Who Needs Greater-State Projects in the Balkans?

The International Institute for Middle Eastern and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) from Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly analyzes events in the Middle East and the Balkans. Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić, a member of the IFIMES International Institute, writes in his article "Who Needs Greater-State Projects in the Balkans?" about the revival of greater-state projects in the Balkans and the affirmation of the thesis about the alleged dysfunctionality of multi-ethnic states, Patria reports.

Recently, the reputable American magazine Foreign Affairs published an article titled "Dysfunction in the Balkans," authored by Timothy Less. In it, the author advises the new American administration to abandon support for the territorial integrity of the states formed by the breakup of former Yugoslavia. Less advocates for a new redrawing of borders in the Balkans, presenting a rather dubious thesis that multi-ethnic states (such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia) have proven dysfunctional, while ethnically homogeneous states (such as Croatia, Albania, and Serbia) have allegedly proven prosperous. Furthermore, the author claims that the peoples of the Balkans no longer desire any multi-ethnic status quo, but rather mostly advocate for the final realization of mono-ethnic greater-state projects – Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, and Greater Albania.

According to Less's plan, a conceived Greater Serbia should include Republika Srpska, as well as Montenegro; Greater Croatia should include the future 'Croatian entity' within Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Greater Albania should include Kosovo and the western part of Macedonia. All this redrawing, Less claims, would ultimately lead to lasting peace. How well-founded are these proposals in the geopolitical reality of the Balkans, or does Less appear as a spokesperson for certain interests that only care about realizing their geopolitical projects, regardless of the price the inhabitants of the Balkans themselves have to pay?           

First of all, let's look at who the author of this article is. According to official biographies, Timothy Less headed the British Consulate in Banja Luka and was also the political secretary at the British Embassy in Skopje. He now runs a so-called consulting agency called Nova Europa and has officially left diplomatic service. What certainly stands out is that he operated precisely in the countries that, according to his 'analysis,' would be most desirable for disintegration – Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. It should be recalled that British foreign policy, since 1990, has intermittently but quite unequivocally advocated for the creation of conceived ethnic 'greater states' – Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, and Greater Albania – as supposed paths to 'lasting stability' in the Balkans. 

Inciting and Advocating War in the Balkans

In this context, it is difficult to escape the impression that the diplomat in question in Banja Luka and Skopje likely acted as an informal advisor to precisely those political forces, such as Serbian and Albanian separatists, who are expected to act most strongly towards the realization of such greater-state projects. And since officially leaving diplomatic service, Timothy Less regularly publishes articles in which he 'predicts,' that is, incites, new ethnic wars and ethnic divisions in the Balkans. In his article in Foreign Affairs, he now seeks to convince the new American administration that it should also adopt the policy of realizing greater-state projects in the Balkans. Ironically, Less is now doing this in order to supposedly prevent all those numerous wars that he himself has been announcing, that is, inciting and advocating for years. Clearly, both the incitement of ethnic conflicts for the purpose of realizing greater-state projects in the Balkans, and then advocating for the completion of these projects to supposedly restore stability in the region, represent pure geopolitical projections of a part of the British foreign policy establishment, with 'independent experts' like Less playing the role of convincing the world that these projections are the 'only reasonable solution.'

However, to the extent that he himself is 'independent,' his 'solutions' are also 'reasonable.' For example, Less claims that 'unresolved national issues' are the main obstacle to stability in the Balkans. However, it is clear at first glance that this is a simple reversal of cause and effect. The very idea of creating consolidated ethno-national states is an idea that has always led only to instability everywhere in the world, because consolidated ethno-national territories cannot be created without the use of the worst physical violence, i.e., without wars. The strategy of 'resolving the national question' in the Balkans, as well as elsewhere in the world, has always led only to permanent instability, and certainly not to final stability. What is particularly interesting is that the victors of World War I, at the Peace Conference in Versailles, according to the 'principle of national self-determination' promoted at the time, advocated for the creation of a unified 'South Slav national state.' Some seventy years later, the same powers accepted, and sometimes advocated for, the breakup of that same South Slav state in the name of independence and self-determination of other national states, given that the former Yugoslav republics, with the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were essentially constituted as national states. And now their spokespersons, like Less, advocate for the breakup of most of these states, in the name of consolidating ethnically pure greater-state projects – of course, again in the name of 'national self-determination.' Thus, the 'national question' is clearly a completely arbitrary category, variable depending on current geopolitical interests.

Of course, the interests of the powerful, not the interests of the small whose 'national question' is supposedly being 'resolved.'      

Awaiting New Ethnic Conflicts in the Balkans?

However, before we dismiss Less's 'analysis' as a mere list of the author's wishes, let's ask ourselves how significant Foreign Affairs is in international political circles, and how much this article can truly influence the actions of the new American administration. Foreign Affairs is the organ of a body called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and its membership has always included the most prominent politicians, secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, professors, lawyers, and leading media figures. This body was conceived in 1921 as a joint Anglo-American project, embodying the so-called 'special relationship' between the US and Great Britain, which was created during World War I and has endured to this day. In this regard, it is hard to find a magazine in the world with greater political influence, comparable only to the influence of the CFR itself. Therefore, the geopolitical manifesto signed by Timothy Less must be taken with the utmost seriousness, as it certainly reflects the interests of certain influential circles within the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment.

Given the amount of public support that Hillary Clinton enjoyed during her presidential campaign from people associated with Foreign Affairs magazine, it is reasonable to assume that she would most likely have accepted Less's 'well-intentioned' advice without hesitation. Let us hope, however, that the newly elected US President Donald Trump, who did not enjoy the slightest support from the aforementioned group of people, will not be naive and accept the strategy of consolidating greater-state projects presented in Foreign Affairs as his own strategy, and as a vision that can contribute to peace in any part of the world. Because, if that were to happen, we would face not only new ethnic conflicts in the Balkans but also lasting instability in the rest of the world.