The Controversy over Kosovo is all about Bosnia

The current initiative by the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo to 'redraw' the borders and 'swap territories' as a way to resolve a decades-long inter-ethnic conflict between Serbs and Albanians flies in the face ot EU policy of inviolability of borders and contradicts the express position initially taken by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German Government as a whole that any border changes would permanently stall Serbia's and Kosovo's progress towards the EU. At first, German politicians argued that border changes typically served to open new issues about borders elsewhere, while at the same time they never resolved the specific problems they were putatively intended to address. Germany knew.

However, Chancellor Merkel appears to have quickly softened her approach. She is now saying that 'existing borders are a value'. This is very different from claiming the inviolability of borders. If something is 'a value', then there is perhaps a greater value to be attained by sacrificing that value. If borders are 'a value', then one border can be treated as value x, and another border as value y, so one can be changed, and the other will have to remain where it was. In all likelihood this refers to the Kosovo border as value x, and the Bosnian border between Republika Srpska and Serbia as value y. One can be changed, the other one can't. They are 'values'. It is a typical 'political speak' which shows a lack of understanding of what a value actually is, and also a see-through attempt to leave one's room open for manipulations in the future. Chancellor Merkel was correct in initially rejecting any border change. She is not correct in softening that approach.

Any redrawing of the maps along ethnic lines and separation of populations is contrary to civilisational values of modern Europe. The idea of Europe is for people to live together constructively, not to conduct population transfers and errect walls in order to separate themselves from others. The very mentality of separating oneself from others by a border, or a wall, or a guarded structure of any kind, is dangerous and destructive. Politicians who believe that they should wall themselves out of touch with the significant others are hardly representative of what modern Europe stands for. The phenomenon started with the errection of barbed wire fences to stop refugees from the Middle East finding shelter in particular European countries. After initial resentment and comparisons with concentration camps of WWII, the protesting voices were silenced: Europe sunk into one of its historic, revoling slumbers while human lives are wasted. It is now grumpily awakening between two distasteful slumbers, only to tentatively greet a 'solution for Kosovo', while at the same time wandering how it will deal with the real issue, a few pages later in the same story, when Bosnia's borders are challenged. Luckily, like in the 1990s, Europe will not have to decide what to do. There is someone who does it for Europe.

Politicians who believe that the US will allow the Bosnian border to change are either extremely gullible (and I have never met a gullible politician), or extremely immoral because in the latter case they are openly lying to their constituents. There is no realistic prospect for Republika Srpska to secede from Bosnia and join Serbia. Those who really decide global international relations will not allow this. Furthermore, there is no reason for Bosnian Serbs to even desire to secede from Bosnia, much less to join Serbia. The social, moral and even economic situation in Republika Srpska is much better than that in Serbia: there is greater solidarity, greater transparency of power structures, and far less political crime. In addition, whether some politicians in Banja Luka like it or not, Republika Srpska is a part of Bosnia according to the Dayton Peace Agreement, and any changes to that agreement would only be at the detriment of Republika Srpska. In no case will the US allow the Dayton Agreement to be amended so as to go along with any further separation of Republika Srpska from Bosnia.

The difficult nature of inter-ethnic relations within Bosnia is not something that can be denied. There was reason for the division of Bosnia into entities, but there is also reason for the preservation of its sovereignty. The way forward is for politicians in Banja Luka to drop the continued inflammatory rhetoric about secession from Bosnia, to show conciliatory and loyal attitudes towards Sarajevo, and to limit their identity-seeking and domestic political positioning to maintaining the current status of the entities defined by Dayton.

Any joining by Republika Srpska to Serbia would spell disaster for Republika Srpska, even if it were possible. The major difference in the mentalities of Serbs on the two sides of the Drina River, and the differences between their understandings of politics and governance, should never be underestimated.

Bosnia and Herzevina is a key country in the Western Balkans; potentially the key country. Despite all of the ethnic homogenization, it embodies the ideals of Europe which must not be allowed to go down the sink. Bosnia has survived an attempt to be dismembered and has paid dearly for its right to exist. Nobody today has the authority to question that right. Not even by phantasizing about swapping Kosovo for Republika Srpska. Such a project will not happen, and any attempt to pursue it will only add salt to all wounds which need to be healed. Bosnia needs to prosper, and Republika Srpska needs to continue to prosper within Bosnia. Bosnia, including Republika Srpska, is a different country from Serbia. Different, in so many ways.