Irredentism Revisited

Stephen M. Saideman, R. William Ayres. For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism, and War. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. xi + 288 pp. $35.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-231-14479-7. Reviewed by Anna Batta Published on H-War (August, 2016) Commissioned by Margaret Sankey (Air University) After the end of the Yugoslav wars in 1995, it the cases which “did bark.” This edition of the appeared that violent irredentist efforts, during book includes a well-written new introduction which groups wanted to reclaim lost ethnic kin, that highlights the changes that took place over has become less frequent and less important, at time and the authors provide a convincing expla‐ least in Europe. However, Russia’s annexation of nation as to why the Russian case has become vio‐ the Crimea in 2014 and its support of separatist lent, even though it was dormant for many years. rebels in eastern Ukraine has brought the impor‐ Irredentist efforts can escalate into wars and tance of this topic back into the forefront of politi‐ such conflicts can be some of the most intractable cal discussions. Indeed, the above incidents high‐ and long-lasting struggles in world politics. In lighted that irredentism is far from extinct and a fact, both world wars started as irredentist wars. determined leader can use a minority as a pretext Serb intentions to create a Greater Serbia led to to destabilize Europe on its eastern border. the outbreak of World War I, and Hitler’s plan to Stephen M. Saideman and R. William Ayres’s reunite lost German folk in Sudetenland contrib‐ book, For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, National‐ uted to the start of World War II. Other hot spots ism, and War, provides a clear and concise ac‐ of irredentism include Kosovo, the Kashmir dis‐ count of why some countries use aggressive poli‐ pute between India and Pakistan, problems over cies towards their neighbors to protect their mi‐ the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions, as well norities, while others do not. The book was origi‐ as Iraq, especially as partition as a solution to end nally published in 2008 and at that time the cases the war once again is on the table. that “did not bark” included Russia, Hungary, and Irredentism can partially be explained by the Romania. At the same time, Croatia, Serbia, and power of nationalism and the ability of rulers to Armenia have engaged in violent irredentist poli‐ capitalize on ancient primordial hatreds that are cies in the past. In other words, these constituted H-Net Reviews kept alive by the community over the years. How‐ kin in order to create their own ethnic empires, ever, the authors’ theoretical explanation is more resulting in displacement and severe violence, complex than that, as it is articulated in the “Irre‐ and to the detriment of various ethnic groups. dentism and its Absence” chapter. If reuniting Both Slobodan Milosevic, president of Serbia, and ethnic kin is costly and the actors will most likely Franjo Tudjman, leader of Croatia, were able to upset host states, then why do it? It appears that stay in power longer than other Eastern European the explanation has more to do with domestic fac‐ leaders of the time because they were harnessing tors than international ones. While international the rhetoric of nationalism. Ultimately Bosnia was norms are important and the advantages that caught in the middle of two competing irredentist come with joining international organizations struggles and paid a hefty price as a result. (such as the EU, NATO, etc.) can be quite promis‐ In 1991, at the collapse of communism, the ing, in the end, it is the domestic elite that deter‐ world leadership was anxiously watching as one mines the outcome. And if going to war over the by one former republics of the Soviet Union be‐ ethnic kin is advantageous for politicians and it gan to break away. Rogers Brubaker, among other will keep them in office, than they will most likely scholars, has seen parallels to the Weimar Repub‐ choose that outcome, even though this might not lic, and a violent breakup was anticipated. Yet, necessarily be what is best for the country. Hence Russian irredentism was not forthcoming, which the fitting title of the book: “For Kin or Country.” constitutes an important puzzle in the book. While the authors do an excellent job defin‐ Saideman and Ayres argue that some explanation ing the significance of the topic and the book is for the lack of violence at that time has to do with clearly written and well organized, I would have the lack of interest of the Russian minority to join liked to see a little more discussion on the Russia, with the exception of the Crimea, as well methodology applied and perhaps even some nar‐ as domestic conditions within Russia, such as ratives from the feld. Specifically, interviews, weak nationalist politics and a lack of cohesion evaluations by scholars, and surveys were used to regarding Russian identity. test the hypotheses. How were those carried out; The cases of Hungary and Romania fall into what are the details? The descriptions regarding the category of restraint and nonviolence with re‐ measurement and operationalizing the variables, spect to irredentism. This is interesting in a cou‐ such as identification with kin and tolerance ver‐ ple of ways. As the authors state, in 1990 over fve sus xenophobia, are somewhat vague as well. million Hungarians lived outside of the country, I think that the strongest parts of this book whereas the population within Hungary was ten are the individual case studies of Croatia and Ser‐ million. In addition, the Hungarian minority in bia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Hungary, Romania, and Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia has experienced the Russian minority. I especially liked the “Duel‐ much discrimination at the hands of the respec‐ ing Irredentism” chapter on Greater Croatia and tive governments. Yet, involvement continuously Greater Serbia, and the “Breaking Up is Hard to remained “short of irredentism” (p. 111). In addi‐ Do” section analyzing the Russians abroad. Much tion, the border between Romania and Moldova of the literature related to the Yugoslav wars is has been “the least legitimate,” and the awaited difficult to read because of the complexity of the reunification between the two countries did not conflict and the long-standing animosities be‐ occur (pp. 141). However, Romania’s foreign poli‐ tween multiple actors. Saideman and Ayres are cy has not been aggressive. able to illuminate and make clear the clash of two Overall, I highly recommend this book to major efforts by Serbia and Croatia to unite ethnic those interested in ethnic politics, irredentism, 2 H-Net Reviews conflict, and nationalism. The book makes a sig‐ nificant contribution to our understanding of world politics through the lens of conflict, or the lack thereof, with respect to national minorities or lost ethnic kin in their respective host states. I believe that both academics and practitioners will find it a clear and excellent book to read on this complex topic. If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-war Citation: Anna Batta. Review of Saideman, Stephen M.; Ayres, R. William. For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism, and War. H-War, H-Net Reviews. August, 2016. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=45654 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 3.

Load more