然而，歐洲共同體忘記了實際邊邊界劃分只能透過衝突和戰爭所達成，導致波斯尼亞主權被分裂成三個民族宗教相同的社區，最終爆發波斯尼亞戰爭。作者Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić認為，相同民族宗教國家主義由最初的管治人口和地區穩定目的，轉變到後期只為穩定地緣政治而存在，同時對計劃過份理想化。
The following content is provided by IFIMES
(Author: Prof. Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić )
陳浩坤/編輯摘要
巴爾幹地區一直存在不同民族和宗教，各民族在鄂圖曼和哈布斯堡帝國管治下一直和平共處。直至19世紀初民族主義流入塞爾維亞和希臘地區，令塞爾維亞民族爭取獨立並成立了塞爾維亞王國。到1912-1913年巴爾幹戰爭和第一次世界大戰後，塞爾維亞族和鄰近其他民族合併，創立了南斯拉夫國。然而，南斯拉夫的成立並沒有為巴爾幹地區帶來永久的和平，反而各民族因不同宗教背景，民族主義，文化傳統等原因衝突不斷。1991年起，南斯拉夫各民族開始爭取獨立，歐洲共同體（European Community）希望籍此機會建立四個民族宗教背景相同的國家包括：「大塞爾維亞」（Greater Serbia）、「大克羅地亞」（Greater Croatia）、「大阿爾巴尼亞」（Greater Albania）和「大保加利亞」（Greater Bulgaria）。在1992年歐洲共同體舉辦會議，希望透過非戰爭方式解決巴爾幹地區問題。當中委託英國和葡萄牙外交官就波斯尼亞與黑塞哥維那（Bosnia-Herzegovina）地區制定合適的民族宗教分治計劃，期望將波斯尼亞地區以民族和宗教背景進行區分成不同社區並安置到民族宗教背景相同的國家。
然而，歐洲共同體忘記了實際邊邊界劃分只能透過衝突和戰爭所達成，導致波斯尼亞主權被分裂成三個民族宗教相同的社區，最終爆發波斯尼亞戰爭。作者Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić認為，相同民族宗教國家主義由最初的管治人口和地區穩定目的，轉變到後期只為穩定地緣政治而存在，同時對計劃過份理想化。而歐盟為建立民族宗教相同國家，導致不同宗教民族的國家如波斯尼亞（Bosnia）和馬其頓（Macedonia）消失。因此，支持不同民族宗教國家建立會是唯一有效抗衡歐盟國家支持的民族宗教同質主義政策的方法。
From Partition Studies to Partition Interventions: Brief History of a Lasting Yugoslav Misery
Prior to the 1992-1995 Balkan war, the European Community delegated the British and Portugese diplomats, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, to design a suitable scheme for ethno-religious partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in February 1992 they launched the Lisbon Conference, with the aim of separating Bosnian ethno-religious communities and isolating them into distinct territories. This was the initiation of the process of partition, adopted in all subsequent plans to end the war in Bosnia. However, such a concept was stipulated by Carrington and Cutileiro as the only available when there was no war to end, indeed, no war in sight; and, curiously, it has remained the only concept that the European Community, and then the European Union, has ever tried to apply to Bosnia.
Contrary to the foundations of political theory, sovereignty of the Bosnian state was thus divided, and its parts were transferred to the three ethno-religious communities. The Carrington-Cutileiro maps were tailored to determine the territorial reach of each of these communities. What remained to be done afterwards was their actual physical separation, and that could only be performed by ethnic cleansing, that is, by war and genocide. For, ethno-religiously homogenous territories, as envisaged by Carrington and Cutileiro, could only be created by a mass slaughter and mass expulsion of those who did not fit the prescribed model of ethno-religious homogeneity. The European Community thus created a recipe for the war in Bosnia and for the perpetual post-war instability in the Balkans. Yet, ever since the war broke out, the European diplomatic circles have never ceased claiming that this ‘chaos’ was created by ‘the wild Balkan tribes’, who ‘had always slaughtered each other’. There was also an alternative narrative, disseminated from the same sources, that Russia promoted the programme of ‘Greater Serbia’, which eventually produced the bloodshed in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Facts on the ground, however, do not support either of these narratives. All these ‘tribes’ had peacefully lived for centuries under the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, until nationalist ideas were imported into Serbia and Greece at the beginning of the 19th century. On the other hand, Russia’s influence in the Balkans could never compete with the influence of the Anglo-French axis. The latter’s influence was originally implemented through the channels of Serbian and Greek nationalisms, constructed on the anti-Ottoman/anti-Islamic and anti-Habsburg/anti-Catholic grounds, in accordance with strategic interests of the two West European powers to dismantle the declining empires and transform them into a number of puppet nation-states. In these geopolitical shifts, nationalist ideologies in the Balkans utilized religious identities as the most efficient tool for mobilization of the targeted populations and creation of mutually exclusive and implacable national identities.
The pivotal among these nationalist ideologies has been the Serb one, built on the grounds of Orthodox Christianity, with its permanent anti-Islamic and anti-Catholic agenda. The existence and expansion of Serbia was always explicitly backed by London and Paris – from a semi-autonomous principality within the Ottoman territory in the 1830s and the creation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882, through the 1912-13 Balkan wars and World War I, to its expansion into other South Slavic territories in the form of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), promoted at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919.
Eventually, the Serbian elites – supported by the Anglo-French axis, again – used the dissolution of the communist Yugoslavia as an opportunity for implementation of the 19th-century ‘Greater Serbia’ programme, that is, Serbia’s expansion in all the Yugoslav territories populated by the Orthodox Christians. However, this time ‘Greater Serbia’ was used as a catalyst in a bigger geopolicial reshuffling advocated by the UK and France – the simultaneous implementation of four ethnnically homogenous greater-state projects, including ‘Greater Serbia’ (transferring the Orthodox-populated parts of Bosnia, plus Montenegro and the northern part of Kosovo, to Serbia), ‘Greater Croatia’ (transferring the Catholic-populated parts of Bosnia to Croatia), ‘Greater Albania’ (transferring the Albanian-populated parts of Kosovo and Macedonia to Albania) and ‘Greater Bulgaria’ (transferring the Slavic parts of Macedonia to Bulgaria).
Since 1990s, ethno-religious nationalisms in the Balkans have served only this geopolitical purpose – creation of ethno-religiously homogenous ‘greater’ states, including the disappearance of Bosnia and Macedonia, whose multi-religious and multi-ethnic structure has been labelled by the British foreign policy elites as “the last remnant of the Ottoman Empire“ that needs to be eliminated for good. The only major foreign power that has opposed these geopolitical redesigns is the US, which has advocated the policy of inviolability of the former Yugoslav republics’ borders. Yet, the US has never adopted a consistent policy of nation-building for Bosnia and Macedonia, which would be the only one that could efficiently counter the doctrine of ethno-religious homogeneity promoted by the UK and France and supported by most EU countries.
About the author:
Prof. Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić is the founder and director of the Center for Nationalism Studies, in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (www.nationalismstudies.org).
假如對以上有興趣，你可能會希望知道更多：
歐盟和跨大西洋關係與南半球 The EU trans-Atlantic relations and the global South
維也納進程：重振赫爾辛基協議精神與地中海地區 Vienna Process: Reinvigorating the Spirit of Helsinki for Mediterranean