Partition and its precedents

The Balkan conflicts have re-ignited a debate about whether partition is an effective solution for ethnic conflict. Although Bosnia is the starting point, the arguments in this debate have a broader resonance at a time when the rapid spread of ethnic and communal wars east and south of Bosnia is of increasing concern to the international community. Defenders of partition argue as follows. When an ethnic war is far advanced, partition is probably the most humane form of intervention because it attempts to achieve through negotiation what would otherwise be achieved through fighting; it gets around the conflict and saves lives. It might even save a country from disappearing altogether because an impartial agent will attempt to secure the rights of each contending ethnic group, whereas in war, the stronger groups might win out over the weaker ones. In fact, its advocates say, the ideal strategy for resolving an ethnic conflict is to intervene and take partition to its logical conclusion by dividing a country along its communal battle lines and by helping to make the resulting territories ethnically homogeneous through organized population transfers. It is believed, however, that less thorough partitions can still be a means of lasting containment.