Dividing Divided States. Gregory F. Treverton

have frequently been used as political capital to establish or maintain a majority population in an area where political clout falls along ethnic lines. To combat this, durable solutions for the displaced must be viewed first in humanitarian terms.⁷²

      The protection of displaced persons’ right to return should not be construed by policy makers as a mandate to enforce their return. The freedom of movement—and therefore local integration in a new area—must simultaneously be respected.

      Even activities to ensure the protection of human rights will be construed as political. The UNHCR protected Bosnian Muslims fleeing their homes and so was later accused of being an accomplice to ethnic cleansing. When the UNHCR protected communities that remained in their place of residence, it was criticized for sparing neighboring countries from receiving floods of refugees.⁷³

      Without peace and security, and without the establishment of power-sharing politics that defend the rights of minority communities, return is not a durable solution, regardless of the humanitarian aid that is provided. As one UNHCR report put it, “Providing material aid while ignoring the fact that the displaced are being beaten, raped or killed too often leads to the tragic description of the victims as the ‘well-fed dead.’”⁷⁴ Premature resettlement of the displaced in BiH and other conflict-affected areas has led to the reemergence of violence even after the ceasefire takes effect. Addressing the root cause of the conflict that caused displacement is essential.

      The contrast with the Russian case underscores the point. While Russians in the other NIS were subject to various forms of discrimination and while Russian regions varied is their eagerness to host returnees, the ethnic tensions between Russians and other groups in the FSU were mild by comparison to tensions in Georgia and Bosnia. Politicians in many of the NIS sought to increase the weight of their titular nationality, but none resorted to violence and ethnic cleansing.

      CHAPTER 3

      Pastoralists

      The third of the people issues in secessions—how to deal with pastoralist populations who migrate seasonally in search of pasture and water but who, with secession, will now have to cross international borders—probably will be an issue only in African secessions. But it is likely to be an issue there, all the more so as global warming and desertification increase the length of seasonal migrations. It was crucial issue for Sudan. Indeed, the cycle of the civil war often turned on the migration cycle: when the pastoralists, especially the Misseriyya, were in the south, there was no war, and war came only after they returned with their cattle to the north. However, other secession cases will also have to deal with migration cycles, internal to the original state but international once secession occurs.

      This chapter is slightly different from the others. It draws on cases—the Sámi people in the Nordic region, and Native Americans who migrate across both the U.S.-Canada border and the U.S.-Mexico border—where people move but the borders do not. These are not cases of secession involving poor or shattered states but of migration involving relatively prosperous ones; they are cases that shed light on issues posed by secession, not cases of secession itself.

      Those best documented cases about how to handle pastoralists deal with wealthy, stable countries and perhaps are not easily adaptable to other, poorer contexts. Nonetheless, some useful lessons and ideas can be identified on key elements of any potential mechanism. These include questions of citizenship, taxation, and administration. Because published information is in short supply, the chapter’s policy suggestions also draw on conversations and correspondence with a number of specialists and on a review of what experience has been recorded, especially in dealing with pastoralist issues in other regions that bear some resemblance to Sudan.

       Policy Suggestions

      Sámi of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia

      The Sámi (aka Saami, Lapps, Sápmi) are an indigenous reindeer-herding people living in Scandinavia. The 1751 Lapp Codicil, signed between Dano-Norway and Sweden, officially recognized the need for the Sámi to retain access to land and their right to cross borders during seasonal migrations. It gave them citizenship rights in one home country, where they also pay taxes. Thus cross-border rights are granted without extending new citizenship rights, and Sámi are taxed only once by their home country. Problems have emerged in modern times, as the divergence between modern state practice and traditional livelihoods has grown. The Sámi concept of territoriality is essentially communal, and has been difficult to account for or incorporate into law. Today there are Sámi Parliaments in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which hold administrative powers and seem largely concerned with issues of cultural preservation. However, they do provide a valuable voice for incorporating Sámi perspectives into state policy.

      Native American Tribes of the United States and Canada

      The 1794 Jay Treaty between the United States and Britain (later Canada) allowed for Native American indigenous peoples living along the border free passage across the U.S.-Canada border without paying duties on personal goods and granted the right to engage in commerce. U.S. and Canadian Native Indians are given government-issued identification cards that are used for cross-border movements. However, Washington and Ottawa disagree over aspects of the legal interpretation of the agreement, differences that have caused continuous problems with implementation.

      In addition, the two governments hold different legal interpretations of who is covered by the treaty, and what rights and responsibilities accrue to visiting indigenous peoples. For example, the United States recognizes all Indian tribes in Canada and provides public benefits—for instance, health care, food stamps, and disability insurance. The Canadian government requires that U.S.-based Indian groups prove they descend from persons the Canadian government recognizes as members of an Indian tribe in Canada. If they do, they receive grants equal to those of a Canadian citizen. Ottawa has generally held a higher threshold to grant claims to free passage than has Washington.

      Native Americans of the United States and Mexico

      Two tribes, the Tohono O’odham and the Texas band of Kickapoo Indians, reside in Mexico yet retain the right of free passage into the United States. The U.S.-Mexico border was set by a series of treaties and agreements in the 1800s, and it cut through the land of the tribes. The O’odham traditionally moved across the border frequently and with ease, but growing U.S. security concerns since the 1980s have made this more difficult. Traditional crossing points have not meshed easily with the new international border, making the process for crossing burdensome for the O’odham. Efforts to grant the O’odham U.S. citizenship have not yet succeeded.

      The Kickapoo fled south from the northeastern United States as a result of colonization, with some resettling in Mexico. Beginning in the 1940s, Kickapoo began migrating to the United States as seasonal labor, a practice that has become solidified over time. In 1983, U.S. legislation granted Kickapoos the right to enter and work in the United States using government-issued tribal membership cards. It also granted Kickapoos the option of gaining U.S. citizenship and receiving permanent border crossing rights.

      The lack of much formal experience in dealing with migratory populations across international borders is striking. As one expert summed up tersely, “If the migrating group is strong enough, or the recipient state weak enough, it simply moves across the border; if it isn’t, it doesn’t.” This chapter is based on the proposition that this terse guidance cannot be the last word. What is striking about such accounts of experience as have been documented is how varied the responses to pastoral populations have been—from nonresponse, basically letting local dynamics take their course, to the use of considerable force to coerce or repress pastoral populations

      The cases, along with experience in Africa, suggest a few touchstones for policy:

      Sponsor Face-to-Face Talks

      This may not be as easy as it sounds, for the questions of how and among whom arise. In the words of one recent study of Sudan, “Traditional mechanisms for conflict resolution can no longer be relied upon in negotiating with the Dinka for access to