The relation between identity and security: a comparative study on Kosovo and Macedonia.

• Author: Yorulmaz, Murat
• Position: Report

Introduction

Throughout history humans have formed a vast variety of different groups based on countless different criteria, which are used to distinguish ourselves from one-another. We have the natural tendency to divide ourselves into "us" and "them" often on characteristics conditioned by space and time. These characteristics and distinctions that divide us constitute our different identities. Among many other characteristics, ethnicity and nationality are prominent parts of identity. They are often forged through history and are quite closely related to territory. In Grosbys' words: "The nation is a territorial relation of collective self-consciousness of actual and imagined duration" (1) In fact ethnicity and nationality are so closely related to the territory they inhabit that most people share simultaneously the same name with it. It is hard to say whether the names stem from the people or the territory but what is important to us is that people are perceived and perceive themselves accordingly. For example we have Japan the territory and Japanese its people, Germany-Germans, Egypt-Egyptians, Brazil-Brazilian, Canada-Canadian, etc. (2) In Kosovo and Macedonia this special relation between territory and identity has posed serious security concerns in the recent past.

The term "ethnicity" is usually used to define a group of persons sharing a common cultural heritage. The latter is made by common history, environment, territory, language, customs, habits, beliefs, in short, by a common way of life. Undoubtedly, religion is an important component of any cultural heritage. In some cases it is even presented as the most crucial factor in the formation of an ethnicity and consequently of a nation.

As individuals we have many characteristics that contribute to our self-image and which overlap at all times; these characteristics that constitute our identity play different roles in our behavior without generally conflicting with each-other. Here we refer to identity, or more accurately to social identity, as the feeling and identification of individuals as part of a group based on real or perceived characteristics. On the contrary other characteristics like being a member of a monotheistic religion, our sexual identity, racial identity and of course ethno-national identity play much greater roles in general in regard to our behavior and towards that of the group. This is especially important when it comes to ethno-national characteristics since they usually prevail over others and push us into conflict with other groups with which we would otherwise identify ourselves. (3) Due to the tendency of humanity to form societies with special relation to a territory, ethno-national characteristics have a more central role compared to others. (4)

Identity it is not an easy concept to define and neither are ethnicity and nationality; hence we find ourselves obliged to explore these concepts as well, not least because they are critical to our analysis.

Sometimes these concepts are used interchangeably by social scientists and common people alike as Francisco Gil-White explains in his paper titled: "The Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism Needs Better Categories: Clearing up the Confusions that Result From Blurring Analytic and Lay Concepts." (5) Here the author tries to shed some light on the confusion that exists within the academic community when defining concepts relating to ethnicity and nationalism while making an effort to create better categories. Needless to say, when such confusion exists between academics, the tendency of common people to descend into even more confusion is quite understandable. Gil-White in turn coins the term "ethnie" instead of the more largely used "ethnic group" and argues that it must fulfill three elements in order to be called such. An ethnie must have: (1) An ideology of membership by descent, (2) The perception of a unique and homogenous culture (typically, associated with a particular territory), (3) Category-based normative endogamy. (6) Therefore he defines an ethnie as "a collection of people who, at a minimum, represent themselves as a self-sufficiently and vertically reproducing historical unit implying cultural peoplehood." (7) The author makes a plausible definition of ethnicity, while drawing from a considerable pool of statements by other nationalism scholars which resemble his definition. (8)

One can anticipate that other scholars partly disagree. Walker Connor for example is in the same mind when he notes that the terms nation and nationalism have a slipshod use and this constitutes a rule rather than an exception. However he also tries to define the nation by saying that it, "... connotes a group of people who believe they are ancestrally related." And that "Nationalism connotes identification with and loyalty to one's nation as just defined. It doesn't refer to loyalty to one's country." (9)

Philip Spencer and Howard Wollman again assert the difficulty in defining these concepts and express that: "... the central focus of nationalist attention and energy, the nation, is a slippery and elusive object." (10)

What can be understood from the examples given above, by different scholars of nationalism, is that there is no universal definition or agreement in how to define these concepts but rather strong similarities and few substantial contradictions. The term nationalism is perhaps less debated and is defined by all in nearly the same way i.e. the idea or action to transform or keep the nation or ethnic group into a political formation like the state. (11) Despite the disagreements on the "nation," we are obliged to choose and use this concept much like the authors who view it as useful and define it similarly to each-other. This is because the term is quite beneficial for analytical purposes but also because we need a term for societies which are multiethnic and simultaneously a nation. For example in the U.S., people consider themselves a nation even though they are racially, and ethnically different, the same applies arguably to many other countries like Belgium, Afghanistan, South Africa, India, Switzerland, etc. where the nation as a characteristic and part of identity is above the ethnic or racial or linguistic identity. Smith and Grosby among others assert exactly this. (12)

Another reason for our choice is that the academic debate is not of a primary concern. What is indeed important is how people in general, and the people of the Western Balkans (WB) in particular, view the nation. They believe and think that the nation is as real as it can be, as Walker Connor notes, "... it is not what is, but what people believe is that has behavioral consequences." (13)

Furthermore a social construction, like the nation, is not perceived as such; on the contrary as Alexander Motyl explains, people are not conscious that they construct these realities, they are not conscious that they engage in social construction and as a result they take for granted a socially constructed reality. (14) It is real to the people in the WB, since we are interested in how these perceptions of the 'self' as an ethnic group and nation (i.e. Serbs, Albanians, Macedonians, Bosnians, and Croatians) impacts security in the region. We are obliged to use concepts of ethnicity and nationality in much the same way.

At this point it is important to explain that beside ethnicity and nationality the term 'ethno-nationality' will be used. This is largely due to perceptions that the people of Kosovo and Macedonia have about these concepts, for them the ethnic group is also the nation. However, in the case of Kosovo and Macedonia (like in many other parts of the world) it is a reality that ethnicity and nationality overlap extensively.

Before this relationship is viewed, some light shall be shed on the concepts of "security" and "ethno-national conflict." Security in this paper is meant in the traditional way i.e. it has at its center the traditional level where the focus is on the international and national/domestic level as opposed to the nontraditional level where the focus is on the individual. The paper uses the term specifically to portray state or national security, regional security (like in Kosovo and Macedonia) and the implications that a breach of it may have on neighbors and the wider geographical scale. (15)

For the other very important concept, namely "ethno-national conflict" this paper acquires the definition that Stefan Wolff so eloquently employs. He defines an ethno-national conflict as one in which the goals of at least one party to the conflict are defined in (exclusively) ethno-national terms, and in which the primary fault line of confrontation is one of ethno-national distinctions. Thus, ethno-national conflicts are a form of group conflict in which one of the parties involved interprets the conflict, its causes, and potential remedies along an actually existing or perceived discriminating ethno-national divide.

Having an understanding of the concepts presented above clears the way to pursue and fathom the relation between ethno-nationality and security. Wolf comes once again to our help when he notes, "Ethno-national conflicts are among the most intractable, violent, and destructive forms of conflict that society, states, and the international community have experienced and continue to face" (16) On the contrary ideological intrastate wars seem to be less so precisely because loyalties are less passionate and rigid compared to conflicts or wars with an ethnic background. (17) Ethno-national conflicts are not only very violent but they are also more frequent. Since the Cold War ended to the mid 1990s, more than fifty ethnic conflicts have been fought around the world, out of which thirteen have caused more than 100,000 deaths each. (18) One such conflict that quickly springs to mind is the ethnic conflict in Rwanda between Hutus and Tutsis where in a very short time period of...