New Majorities and Minorities in the Changing Balkans - Project on ...

he argued, “when it comes to m<strong>in</strong>orities we must be realistic <strong>and</strong> cannotapply double st<strong>and</strong>ards. There can be cooperation at many levels, but itmust always be transparent <strong>and</strong> based on common <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>and</strong> accord<strong>in</strong>gto common st<strong>and</strong>ards.” He declared that <strong>the</strong> Kosovo government “hasrespected <strong>the</strong> rights of m<strong>in</strong>orities at <strong>the</strong> highest level, <strong>in</strong> all our documents.We want <strong>the</strong>m to participate at all levels, even <strong>in</strong> government, but<strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>tegrative manner, with<strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stitutions, <strong>and</strong> not to createparallel or alternative, autonomous <strong>in</strong>stitutions.”A participant from an EU country declared “it would be better for <strong>the</strong><strong>Balkans</strong> if <strong>the</strong> concept of ‘mo<strong>the</strong>r county’ lost some of <strong>the</strong> politicalweight it now carries, as ‘mo<strong>the</strong>r countries’ have not played entirelyconstructive roles. There are, <strong>and</strong> should be, limits on <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>and</strong>responsibilities of ‘mo<strong>the</strong>r countries’.” Ano<strong>the</strong>r participant declared “itis <strong>the</strong> collective responsibility of European states to protect m<strong>in</strong>orityrights through political <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r means. But this must be done withgreat care.”An <strong>in</strong>ternational participant responded to <strong>the</strong> vigorous discussion bydeclar<strong>in</strong>g “This is a complex issue <strong>and</strong> it is an emotional issue, soemotional that I doubt that even most of <strong>the</strong> researchers would beable to discuss it without emotions.” He expressed concern that “<strong>the</strong>exist<strong>in</strong>g European framework is not sufficient <strong>in</strong> regard to <strong>the</strong>se issues”<strong>and</strong> called for “creat<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>ternational framework on this issue. If weare creat<strong>in</strong>g a European cosmopolitan society, where all rules <strong>and</strong> lawsare universal, <strong>the</strong>re is no need for a mo<strong>the</strong>r state <strong>in</strong> a classic sense as weknew it today, a mo<strong>the</strong>r state that is tak<strong>in</strong>g care of its co-ethnics if <strong>the</strong>irrights are violated. There would be no such need if an overall Europeanconcept is <strong>in</strong> charge. The European Union would become <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rcountry for all. Europe would be <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r for Kosovo, for Albania,for Serbia, <strong>and</strong> for Montenegro. Under <strong>the</strong>se circumstances <strong>the</strong> only rolefor so-called mo<strong>the</strong>r states is <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cultural sphere. In fact, I am not sosure if <strong>the</strong> concept of a mo<strong>the</strong>r state is not dangerous <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 21st century.Because, if taken out of cultural sphere <strong>and</strong> cultural relations, it couldbr<strong>in</strong>g dangerous consequences; as it did <strong>in</strong> Yugoslavia <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1990s, <strong>and</strong>even earlier, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sudetenl<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1930s.CONCLUSIONSParticipants <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> roundtable shared a strong consensus that <strong>the</strong> multiethniccharacter of <strong>the</strong> population must be reflected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stitutions,policies, <strong>and</strong> practices of <strong>the</strong> Balkan states. The participants agreed thatm<strong>in</strong>orities should enjoy <strong>the</strong> same human rights as all o<strong>the</strong>r citizens,as well as extensive cultural rights required to preserve <strong>the</strong>ir identities,however <strong>the</strong>y differed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir views on <strong>the</strong> territorialization of m<strong>in</strong>orityrights. Political equality, reflected <strong>in</strong> equitable representation of ethniccommunities <strong>in</strong> state <strong>in</strong>stitutions <strong>and</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>gful <strong>in</strong>fluence of <strong>the</strong>secommunities over state policies, was seen as a key component <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> establishmentof stable democracies <strong>in</strong> countries with multiethnic populations.Accession to <strong>the</strong> EU was viewed both as a highly desirable goal, <strong>and</strong> as astrong <strong>in</strong>centive for Balkan governments <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir oppositions to cooperate<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> establishment of European norms of democratic governance<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g respect for human <strong>and</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority rights. The role of so-called‘mo<strong>the</strong>r countries’ <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terethnic relations was <strong>the</strong> subject of a vigorousdiscussion that ended without a clear consensus.From left to right: Steven Burg, Alex Grigor’ev, Adrian Sever<strong>in</strong>, Nenad Djurdjevic,<strong>and</strong> Osman Topcagic.2021