The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World
The drained observer who has followed the Yugoslav calamity from the early confrontation over Slovenia through the Serbo-Croatian conflict to the Bosnian war may not want to know that there is more. But farther to the south, another corner of the former Yugoslavia offers its own invitation to trouble. Macedonia, the marbled ethnic terrain that Tito formed into a republic, not only contains potential conflict within, but passionate detractors like the Greeks without. The argument is not about contested borders, the wrongs of war, or precious resources, but who has the right to call themselves Macedonian and what people can claim the name Macedonia for their nationhood. It's an old argument, but suddenly again fanned nearly to flame.
Danforth, an anthropologist, takes one through the ferociously juxtaposed claims and counterclaims, and he explains why the issues set people off with such intensity by fitting the case into modern anthropological thought about national identity, ethnic nationalism, and the role of culture. To this he adds some interesting reflections on the role played by distant diasporas, having studied in-depth the impact of the important Macedonian and Greek communities in Australia and Canada. Danforth struggles mightily to maintain his scholarly detachment amid one of the more explosive topics in the universe, and for the most part he succeeds. Still, one gets the impression that he has less tolerance for the extremist claims of Greek nationalists than for the other side, perhaps not least because Greece's treatment of its own Macedonians has over the years been less than admirable.
Related
The Dayton accord reached in November 1995 was something historically familiar: a partition agreement. As in Bosnia today, partition has usually arisen not as a means of national self-determination but as a way for great powers to "divide and quit." Often described as the only workable solution to ethnic feuding, partitions have in fact generally fomented violence and required further international intervention. Similar conditions ensure that Bosnia will turn into a policy of divide and be forced to stay. Had outside powers worked from the beginning to reintegrate the fractured country, Bosnia, the Balkans, and Europe might have had a more durable resolution. The Dayton agreement should evoke memories not of Munich but of Cyprus.
Liberated from the Cold War, European nationalism ran rampant in 1992. The absence of a compelling strategic interest in war-torn Yugoslavia precluded foreign intervention, and "an absurd replay of yesteryear's battles" found newly unified Germany on the side of the former Hapsburg states, with Britain, France and the United States tacitly backing Serbia. To attract the capital for east German reconstruction, Germany chose to raise its interest rates, scuttling the powerless European Monetary System. A rise in fascist street-fighting and widespread hypernationaliism inspired mass demonstrations of German tolerance and liberalism.
The recent emergence of nationalist and populist forces in eastern Europe, coupled with the rise of Russia, now threatens to derail efforts toward further EU integration, weaken NATO, erode the continent's stability, and damage U.S. interests. Washington must ensure that the region's new politics do not damage the European project, for a strong and cohesive EU is in everyone's interest.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.