Aasmund Andersen

This paper is written for presentation at the regional meeting for the SouthWest / Texas Popular Culture Association and American Culture Associations in New Mexico 14.02.02. Revised edition.  Any comments or enquiries should be directed to aasmund@aasmundandersen.net

Transforming Ethnic Nationalism in Kosovo[1] - The potential of the ‘Kosovar’ identity

Ethnic nationalism and politics dominated by ethno-nationalistic aspirations tends to contradict the ideal of inter-ethnic tolerance and respect for human rights. This is often the case in societies that have experienced weak state governance and inequality such as has been the case in Kosovo in the 1990s. This article the circumstances under which ‘Kosovar’ identity can develop into a supra-ethnic identity that de-emphasises ethnicity and ethno-nationalistic sentiments as organising principles of society. What is the criteria for a successful transitional process that transforms the current ethno-nationalistic political discourse in Kosovo into one based on the ‘kosovar’ identity?

 

The theoretical framework for this discussion will be based on Ernest Gellner’s work and his definition of nationalism - a principle that guards the balance of the homogenous character of the nation. The nation gives its members an expectation of a shared and homogenous high culture and the impression that this high culture is represented by the state. Its implementation phase, what Gellner calls ‘early nationalism’, is therefore critical - its citizens have egalitarian expectations confronted with a non-egalitarian reality; cultural homogeneity has not yet been reached (Gellner 1983:73ff). We know from many areas of the world throughout history, that in periods of change and inequality, political movements based upon ethnicity might rise (Llobera 1994:104, Bowman 1994, Eriksen 1993:100). This has also been the case with the Yugoslav federation. Influenced by the political development throughout Eastern Europe, the state became weaker and weaker in the late 80s. From this theoretical perspective, we can say that Kosovo, a province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia currently under UN jurisdiction, experienced a political culture based on ethno-nationalistic sentiments in the transition from the Yugoslav nation-state to what could be a new (Kosovo) nation-state[2]. In other words, a state of limbo with regard to identity politics - the state does not manage to meet the expectations of its citizens and ethnicity becomes the organising principle in society. This is unfortunately still the case, three years after international military intervention[3] and the set-up of an interim government led by the United Nations operating on the authority given by the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244. It is in this context that the ‘Kosovar’ term has emerged as a reference to the whole population of Kosovo as a supra-ethnic category that disregards ethnicity. It is a territorial form of identity. The category ‘Kosovar’ first appeared in the early 1990s. The term derives from Albanian and means ‘person from kosovo’, just as ‘Gjakovar’ means ‘person from Gjakova’ (city in Western Kosovo) or ‘Shqiptar’ means ‘person from Shqiperia’ (Albania). The US State Department is referred to as the first among international agencies that used the term ‘Kosovars’ about the population of Kosovo.

 

This article looks at three aspects of the ‘Kosovar’ identity that are critical to its development. First, the relation between Kosovo-Albanians and Albania, aimed at indicating the strength of Albanian ethno-nationalistic sentiments; second, how the Kosovo-Serbs and other minorities relate to the ‘Kosovar’ identity; third, the international community and how the UN administration relates to the ‘Kosovar’ identity.

 

Kosovar Identity and Albania

Economy is of immense importance in international relations and in creating perception of ‘the others’. John Rex claims, that what he call ‘economic’ nationalism can lead to separatist movements and successful nationalism (Rex 1997), as was the case with Slovenia and the Czech Republic.  Therefore, we can assume that the relationship between Kosovo and Albania also depends very much on economic development. Even though the communist Albanian state has not been without economical achievements (i.e. on industry and education in the 1970s), all its engagements have suffered from hopeless, ineffective management and state co-ordination, poor technological development, corruption, as well as several collapses and revolts (1991 and 1997). The living standards, that had not been visible because of the closed borders, became a shocking experience for the 400,000 Kosovars who fled to Albania during the NATO bombing campaign[4]. This has given the Kosovo population, either by personal experience or by the experience of friends and family, an insight in the poor condition of Albania and its lack of effective state organisation and political stalemate. In my opinion, this concrete experience has had a significant impact on the Kosovars and their perception of Albanian ethnographic diversity. As the International Crisis Group (2000) concludes in a report on the issue:

“The overwhelming majority of all Albanians agree that the different historical paths taken by the people of Albania as distinct from those from the former Yugoslavia, mean that a certain amount of time has to pass before either group is ready for the difficulties that they themselves, let alone their neighbours, would have to face in trying to unite geographically all the Albanians of the Balkans. Nevertheless, a new political and national identity is still in the process of formation” (International Crisis Group 2000).

The cultural difference between Kosovo and Albania is partly based upon a different perception of the state and its governance – the Yugoslavian state system differed greatly from the Albanian, and Kosovo-Albanians have also had their own parallel state system running throughout the 1990s.Though the Albanian people in Kosovo might feel that they are now getting closer and closer to the Albanian people in Albania, compared to the closed border of Tito’s Yugoslavia and Hoxha’s Albania, the cultural difference between the two is also more and more acknowledged and stressed by Kosovo-Albanians.

 

An indicator of the strength of the relation between Albanians in Kosovo and the Albanian state is the Albanian common language convention, referred to as ‘gjuha letrare’. Gjuha Letrare was created at a Grammar Conference in Tirana in 1972, and is predominantly based on the ‘Tosk’ dialect of Southern Albania. This language convention is both oral and written. In formal interaction, letrare is used. After the war in Kosovo, letrare was introduced as first language in all TV and radio broadcasters based in Pristina. People acknowledge that proper speaking is intertwined with social status and represents a sort of symbolic capital in which people are perceived as closer to proper Albanian high culture based in Tirana (earlier it was the Serbian language that provided a perception of closeness to Serbian high culture based in Belgrade). Because Albanians in Kosovo speak the Gheg dialect, they have to learn have to speak ‘properly’. Like X and Y who just after participating on a TV program gave compliments to each others ability to speak letrare – “I didn’t know you spoke so good letrare. It was very proper and correct!” Y responded “No, actually I did some mistakes. I said [half of Gheg word] and then I quickly corrected my self”. One of the most prominent TV reporter is from Albania. X says about him that; “he speaks so beautiful. It is very difficult for us to speak in such a way”. In late 2001, there were 24 Albanian employees from Albania working in TV and radio stations, newspapers and publishing houses in Kosovo very much for this reason. They are proof reading and correcting the language that Kosovo-Albanians produce. To discuss the issue is however very sensitive, as the conformity towards the ‘Albanian Nation’ and the ‘National Question’ is very strong. Anyone that does not follow such conventions will immediately be publicly known. One linguist is well known for just this. Even before the war he publicly sang in Gheg dialect with his music band. In 2001 he got a column in one of the daily newspapers, but it was too provoking and the editor felt obliged to stop it. The linguist was very disappointed, but managed to find funding to publish his own magazine discussing the language and related identity issues in the Gheg dialect. A Professor in the Northern Albanian town of Shkodra proof read the texts. The first issues of the magazine got immediately sold out, which indicates a public interest in discussing the identity relation between Kosovo and Albania.

 

The language debate in Kosovo also indicates that Albanians in Kosovo can identify themselves with an official language slightly different from their daily speech as long as there is a reason for it. For example if there is an external threat, like the Serbian regime and the subsequent mobilisation of the ‘National Question’. As Kosovo has its own governmental institutions out of reach for Belgrade and these institutions seem more functional, the basis for the strong conformity to stress ethnic ties to the ‘mother land’ (as opposed to the threatening ‘colonising’ Serbia) seems to fall apart. As many anthropological studies have concluded: the less threatening ‘they’ are, the less unification will exist among ‘us’. This mechanism of segmentary opposition has been a classical observation since Evans-Pritchard’s study ‘The Nuer’ in 1940 (Evans-Pritchard 19??).

 

Kosovar Identity and the Minorities

The recognised ethnic groups in Kosovo are Albanian, Serb, Turk, Roma, Ashkalja, Egyptian, Bosniac and Gorani. Kosovo is more or less divided into two territories – one Albanian and one Serbian, depending on which group is in a dominant position. The Serbian areas are the North of Mitrovica and the areas bordering Serbia, as well as small pockets often referred to as ‘enclaves’ elsewhere in Central and Eastern Kosovo. The other ethnic groups seek acceptance from the dominant group in their area. The demographical division in Kosovo mirrors the political division that follows the same ethnic boundary. Albanians and minorities in their territory seek independence, while the Serbian areas seek re-integration with Serbia and FR Yugoslavia.

 

Though many Kosovo-Serbs acknowledge that their community is also part of the category ‘Kosovar’ or ‘Kosovas’ (in Serbian), some of their leaders have indicated that they will not support the development of a Kosovo territorial identity, as they fear that this will support the Kosovo-Albanian claims for independence. A prominent Kosovo-Serbian religious leader is for example quoted to have said “There is no such thing as Kosovars, only Albanians and Serbs”.

 

During the elections preparations when Serb participation in the Provincial elections were still a big question mark, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) chose not to use terms as ‘minority’, ‘kosovar’ and ethnic groups. Rather the OSCE would use ‘community’ for any village and then refer to it according to which ethnic group is dominant. It would also refer to Kosovars as ‘habitual residents’. The Civil Administration pillar of the UN did however not hesitate to use the term ‘minorities’[5]. The OSCE was more sensitive to criticism because they were responsible for arranging the elections and promote the participation of all ethnic groups[6]. The discrepancy in the usage of these terms shows that there is a need for a term that refers to the whole population. The term currently in use, ‘habitual resident’, do not have any other than technical connotations.

 

Of concern is also the split in political affiliation among the representatives from the Coalition Return. The Candidate List is said to reflect the struggle between the Yugoslav federation, with President Kostunica and the Serbian state government and Prime Minister Djindjic. Some have expressed concern that the first group is definitely more negative to support the self-government institutions than the latter. Critical for this process is whether the Serb population finally feel that their interests are represented and that the self-government institutions service them on equal basis with Albanians. This again relies on a functional Provincial Assembly. Political Officers in the UN administration is convinced that they will approve symbols of representation (like flag, emblems and even national anthem) as long as it is based on consensus in the Provincial Assembly, meaning that it is approved by the Serb community and other minorities.

 

The International Community and the UNSCR 1244 Political Stalemate

The international employees working in the UN are split between those who have sympathy for the Serbs and those who have sympathy for the Albanians (often changing according to which group is perceived as suffering the most).  The split between Serbian and Albanian sympaties does to some extent reflect the citizenship of the employee. This is particulary true in OSCE, where all international employees with few exceptions are seconded by their respective states. Kosovo-Albanians will often refer to the French as Serbian-friendly, while Americans are seen as more sympathetic to the Albanian cause. The UNSCR 1244 is however a platform that international employees are committed to, keeping Kosovo as a province of FR Yugoslavia. The prevailing scepticism among international employees for granting independence to Kosovo has however not prevented the development of Kosovo-unique symbols of representation. The municipalities, the different UN governmental institutions, the Kosovo Police Service, the Kosovo Protection Corps (established out of the now disbanded KLA guerrilla organisation), and the different political parties all have made their own emblems and flags that are based on a simple sketch of the Kosovo territory. There is no strategy or thinking behind the making of these symbols and what changes the UN administration imposes in this respect. In the current phase, where authority is handed over to democratically elected representatives of the people of Kosovo, the main concern for internationals seems to be primarily the technical aspect of regulations and the proper functioning of the governmental institutions. A Political Officer in the OSCE said that there was even an internal censorship with regards to any discussion about the impact of the UN administration with regards to the identity of the people it governs. Any discussion about this will end in the political stalemate imposed by the UNSCR 1244 and the issue of the final status of Kosovo.

 

Currently the international administration emphasise that Kosovo creates sustainable democratic institutions that operates according to the standards of other European states. This process involves a development were there is congruence between the sentiments of the people and its government(which Gellner defines as the nationalist principle). As long as the limits of self-governance allowed within the UNSCR 1244 framework is not reached, there will be no change in the direction of this development. The report from the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (2001) and its recommendation on granting ‘conditional’ independence to Kosovo is an indication that the limits of what the international community is ready to approve is not yet reached. The final status issue relies on the regional political development and in particular on whether the Yugoslav federation will prevail as it is today. Until now, the general development strengthens the perception that “more independence” will be granted gradually. Subsequently, there is a optimism in the (Albanian-oriented) population with regards to the direction of the final status issue – and therefore more willingness to concession towards the international community, which will strengthen the self-governmental institutions, and thereby the development of Kosovo-unique symbols of representation and the ‘Kosovar’ identity. If this trend turns, however, and the general perception is that the full potential of the self-governance of Kosovo is reached (and it is not independence), the support to pan-Albanian political orientation and ethno-nationalism might increase.

 

Conclusion

The gradual introduction of self-governance is a careful process were the Kosovo-Albanians and Albanian-sympathic minorities are given reason to be optimistic about the progress and their claim for independence, while not contradicting UNSCR 1244 and loosing the participation of the minorities, as the minorities are a crucial part of the development. Success in this act of balancing has started to transform ethnic nationalism into a more civic strive for making the new institutions reflect the culture of the population it services. Essential to the ‘Kosovar’ identity is the success of the international administration in establishing institutions that provides good governance to its population, in a way that its people can identify with. While doing so, congruence between the sentiments of the people and its government is developed, and therefore a ‘Kosovo nationalism’ is promoted. This Kosovo nationalism can be developed into civic nationalistic sentiments for Kosovo and the future of its population, the ‘kosovars’. The Kosovar identity will therefore be strengthened along with the strengthening of the self-governance institutions. The Kosovar identity has thus the potential of transcending the widespread ethno-nationalist politics in Kosovo, first of all among Albanians, but on longer-term also the Serbs. This process is however more or less an unconscious process, as there is an internal censorship within the UN administration about discussing any issues that may alter the UNSCR 1244 interim status of Kosovo.

Literature

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland 1993 Ethnicity and Nationalism, London : Pluto Press

 

Rex, John 1997                                    "The Nature of ethnicity in the Project of Migration", The Ethnicity Reader, eds. Guibernau and Rex, Cambridge: Polity Press

 

Gellner, Ernest 1983                             Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca : Cornell University Press

 

Llobera, Josep, 1994                            “Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Nationalism in Europe. The work of Van Gennep and Mauss”, The Anthropology of Europe, Oxford: Berg

 

Bowman, Glen 1994                             Xenophobia, Fantasy and the Nation: The Logic of Ethnic Violence in Former Yugoslavia, The Anthropology of Europe, Oxford: Berg

 

ICG report 2000                                  "What happened to the KLA", www.crisisweb.org

 

Independent International

Commission on Kosovo, 2001  The Kosovo report, www.kosovocommission.org



[1] This paper derives from my work with a thesis for the Cand.Polit. degree in Social Anthropology at the University of Oslo. The working title of the thesis is “Transforming Ethnic Nationalism – the politics of ethno-nationalistic sentiments among the elite in Kosovo”.

[2] It is not legitimate to refer to Kosovo as a nation-state today, as it is, according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, still a province of FR Yugoslavia, but under UN interim government.

[3] Kosovo is often referred to as the ‘first’ humanitarian intervention, as arguments for international intervention were purely humanitarian and not based on political interests. This is of course a simplified assumption that also indicates a gross misconception of the political interests of the states referred to as the ‘international community’.

[4] The bombing campaign started March 24 1999. The refugee influx to Albania and Macedonia started four days later on March 28.

[5] In a joint operation between the OSCE and UN Civil Administration aiming to register the population and targeting the Serb community in particular into the Civil Registry and the Voter’s List for the elections, the OSCE would call the operation ‘Community Registration’, while the UN called it ‘Minority Registration’.

 

[6] The Kosovo-Serbs boycotted the first Municipal Elections in October 2000.