Kayode Komolafe
As is their wont, separatists in Nigeria often refer to the breakup of the defunct Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia as perfect examples of forced unions that were bound to disintegrate. They summon these inappropriate historical parallels as they prophesy that the 1914 amalgamation of Nigeria by Lord Lugard would also one day end up in dismemberment as a union of incompatibles.
Indeed, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, as countries, are no more on the world map. So the wrong impression is often given that what happened to the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the events in Yugoslavia between June 1991 and April 1992 were models of smooth separation of multi-ethnic countries.
Russia is the largest of the 15 countries that emerged from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Ukraine, a nation at the crossroads of Russia and Europe, is the second largest. The other independent nations that emerged from the collapse of USSR are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The current crisis in Ukraine is another sobering reminder that separation may not be the end of tensions among ethnic groups that once belonged to the same country. This is more so in countries defined by complex ethnic mix as it is the case in Nigeria. Separatists often ignore the dynamics of history. This could be sometimes dangerous.
There are some elements with otherwise legitimate separatist aspirations who peddle the myth of USSR and Yugoslavia as exemplars of bloodless separation. They are historically incorrect. The situation in Ukraine today is another proof of their error.
Yes! The 15 nations making up the USSR went their different ways, but not as watertight compartments of ethnic groups.
Similarly, the ethnic tensions that followed the disintegration of Yugoslavia turned out to be bloody among the Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, Kosovo Albanians and, of course, Croats. The bloodletting in the Balkans in the wake of the separation of Yugoslavia was of such magnitude that that the term “ethnic cleansing” was first used to describe the horrific happenings in parts of the region in the 1990s. It is a specific type of genocide propelled by prejudice against other racial, cultural or religious groups. The aim of the aggressor is to annihilate the others based on hate and falsehood. The notorious Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was the spirit of this crime against humanity.
It is, therefore, clearly wrong-footed to see the collapse of Yugoslavia as a model.
For clarity, the agitation of separatists is supported by international laws and conventions on a peaceful basis. The nations that once belonged to the USSR and Yugoslavia exercised their rights to self-determination on the basis of this international legal and moral framework.
However, the socio-political consequences of the contradictions arising from the process of separation are practical questions for each emergent nation to find practical answers after separation.
In the current crisis, Russia has massed tens of troops at the eastern border with Ukraine, a nation that has been turned into a geo-political playground by Russia and the West. The West has warned Russia of the “consequences” of such an action. There is the palpable fear that Russia may invade Ukraine to deter the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), a military alliance that is a hangover of the cold war.
Meanwhile, NATO is expanding years after the dissolution of its opposite number, the Warsaw Pact between the USSR and eastern bloc countries.
The strategic location of Ukraine has , therefore, brought to the fore the geo-political dimension of the crisis. The story presented by the western media is simply that of an aggressive President Vladimir Putin of Russia who is bent on dominating another nation, Ukraine. From this perspective, the worrisome development in Ukraine is simply the return of Russian Empire. That line is amplified in Africa.
It is little remembered that the current crisis coincides with the 30th year anniversary of the collapse of USSR, which Putin, , once described as a “catastrophe.” Western pundits still celebrate what they call the “collapse of communism;” but they forget that nothing has ever happened to Russian nationalism. Putin is a strong Russian nationalist. He is far from being a communist.
Beyond the portrayal of Putin as the bogeyman in the dispute, the root of the problem should be located in the aftermath of the collapse of Soviet Union.
As an independent nation in over three decades, Ukraine has grappled with its own serious internal division which is the basis of the geo-political rivalry between the West and Russia.
The western part of the country is Ukrainian-speaking and has been the epicentre of the pro- Europe, pro-NATO protests. That portion of Ukraine wants a greater integration with Europe and is more western oriented. The eastern part of Ukraine is mainly Russian-speaking. The Russian-Ukrainians, of course, want closer ties between Ukraine and Russia. Russia proclaims an obligation to these Russians who are nationals of Ukraine. Ukraine is politically separated from Russia, but this ethnic overlapping exists in the relationship between the two sovereign countries.
This factor of identity politics in the Ukrainian crisis is deeply rooted in history.
Ukraine has been under Russian hegemony for centuries. The resultant cultural and ethnic mix that have occurred over the centuries is an objective fact. It has been estimated that in actuality one in six Ukrainians is ethnically Russian while about a third is Russian-speaking.
The ties between Russia and Ukraine are by far older than the USSR which existed for only about 70 years. In the 18th Century, a process of “Russification of Ukraine” gathered momentum during the reign of Russian Empress, Catherine the Great. The empress, who ascended the throne after husband, Peter III, was deposed, is remembered in history as having huge territorial ambitions.
In recent times, the deeply rooted contradictions began to play out in March 2014 with the pro-western protests against the Pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych . The protests were brutally suppressed with wanton violation of human rights. At the end Yanukovych fled amidst tremendous pressures.
The divide within the Ukrainian nation was apparently exploited by Putin to invade Crimean Peninsula. The peninsula is of immense strategic importance as it provides access to the Black Sea.
A referendum was forced in the area with Russian troops on guard. Despite the condemnation by the West, Russian has annexed Crimea on the basis of the referendum. According to Putin, by the controversial annexation, “Crimean Tatars have returned to their homeland.” There have been reports in the last few years that some Crimean elements have jeld pro-Russia rallies. Soon after the annexation, a poll even suggested that about 41% of the people in the Peninsula elected to be part of Russia.
In response, some western countries have been imposing economic sanctions against Russia as they insist that the Crimean Peninsula should return to the southern part of Ukraine. Besides, Russia has been providing military support to the pro-Russian separatists that have engaged the Ukrainian army. Since 2014, about 14,000 people have been killed in the conflict, going by the figures released by the United Nations. In fact, apart from the wars in the wake of the breakup of Yugoslavia, the conflict in Ukraine has been the bloodiest in Europe in recent years.
With this bloody background to the presence of tens of Russian troops at the border with Ukraine, it would not be out place to reflect on the efficacy of separatism in resolving ethnic contradictions.
Ironically, the USSR had a clause in constitution in support of self-determination. Perhaps it was never envisaged that this clause would be put into effect one day. In an attempt to engender inclusiveness, Yugoslavia experimented with a presidium in a federalist arrangement. Despite these constitutional attempts at acknowledging diversity, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia experiments at nation-building failed.
The lessons from the foregoing are obvious.
Nation-building could be costly in moral and material terms. It could be time-consuming and sometimes frustrating as a work in progress. This is simply so because unity cannot be decreed into existence objectively. It can only be cultivated at the subjective level.
No matter the magnitude of the costs of nation-building, separation in the Nigerian context might be more expensive. In their otherwise legitimate argument, separatists often take a static view of things. They fail to reckon sufficiently with the sociological dynamics of the country. In terms of ethnic mix, the Nigeria of 2022 is not exactly the same as the Nigeria of 2014. This is the point that should be made clear to those elements episodically issue quit notices to their compatriots in places where grandfathers of the “settlers” made home many years ago. Millions of Nigerians have found homes in parts of the country different from their places of origin. These “settlers” have all their material investments outside their places of origin. Their children and grandchildren do not speak the languages of these places of Nigeria. In the event of a historical accident of a breakup, it would take another ethnic cleansing to uproot millions of Nigeria from the places they have made their homes.
The cheaper option of nation-building should be pursued by the leadership with commitment and honesty of purpose. In order to adequately galvanise the patriotic energies of the people, the process of nation-building should be based on equity and well-defined policies of inclusion. The magnificent edifice of unity should be erected on the solid pillars of social justice.
Hence, a greater attention must be paid to the above stated intangibles and others in the process of governance.
It is the duty of the government and the people to ensure that the politics of ethnic identity is played in a bloodless manner. One of the bitter lessons from the Balkans and the Slavic region of the world is that in the hands of right-wing populists and fascists, the politics of ethnic identity could be bloody.
