I write from Dubrovnik, a historic and heavily touristed city on Croatia’s Adriatic coast. Visiting here and other parts of Croatia and its next-door neighbor Slovenia, I’m reminded that the Balkan countries used to be part of a bigger entity called Yugoslavia.
Before that, some of the Yugoslavian countries were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Venetian empire or the Ottoman Empire. They give rise, then, to thoughts about the nature of nationality. That’s a subject that has taken on surprising relevance in the United States today.
To see why, consider two different kinds of nation. One, the historical norm, is based on common ethnicity, religion, language and cultural tradition. Minority populations are often second-class citizens in these nations – or worse.
The other kind of nation is based on an idea: equal rights for everyone whatever their race or religion. The US has long been the quintessential example. The understanding that our country would include people of different backgrounds and religions goes back to the founding fathers.
George Washington famously wrote a letter assuring the Jews of his day that they were free to practice their religion.
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, which declares the “self-evident” truth that all men – all, not one particular race or religion – are created equal.
Jefferson and James Madison, another founding father, worked to keep a reference to Christianity out of the constitution of their home state of Virginia. Madison argued that mere toleration of other religions wasn’t enough; he insisted on language guaranteeing freedom to practice any religion.
Though not a founder Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our greatest president, summarized it eloquently in his Gettysburg Address. The US, he said, was a “new nation, conceived in libertyand dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Today, however, there has arisen a faction that prefers to think of the US as the first kind of nation. Vice President JD Vance is one of this faction’s leaders.
The faction’s adherents aren’t fans of the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address. To them, we are less a nation committed to an idea, more one defined by being people of a particular “heritage” – European and Christian.
Vance and his fellow believers are egging on factions in Europe that would undo the European Union and encourage the continent to revert to a more nationalistic, less “European” outlook. For these factions on both continents, immigration is a big issue. Vance has warned Europe that its acceptance of Muslim refugees threatens “civilizational erasure.”
Opposition to immigration and nationalism are linked. If your identity is wholly Polish or Italian rather than at least partially European, you’re more likely to be concerned about non-Poles and non-Italians diluting the Polish-ness or Italian-ness of your country’s population.
Here in Dubrovnik, however, the tourist is reminded of a civilizational challenge more troubling than immigration: keeping the peace. This challenge doesn’t get much attention precisely because a united Europe has met it so effectively. EU nations settle their differences in the political and judicial systems, not on the battlefield.
Preventing a replay of World Wars I and II was the original motivation for the various attempts at union that led to the EU. French and German statesmen felt they were less likely to go to war again if they were united as fellow Europeans. The shared prosperity of a low-tariff market would give Europeans a reason to remain at peace.
In a way, Yugoslavia played a similar role suppressing the worst aspects of nationalism. When these countries became independent in the 1990s and beyond, wars broke out – between Croatia and ethnic Serbs backed by Serbia’s president; between ethnic Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia; between Kosovans and Serbia.
Dubrovnik was under siege for eight months. Along the top of Dubrovnik’s famed medieval walls, the tourist can find some relatively new tiles, put there to replace old ones that didn’t survive the bombing.
Mr. Vice President, please note that fixation on “heritage” was the root cause of these wars.
The Yugoslav countries were never ethnically pure. There have, for example, always been Orthodox Serbs living in Croatia (Nikolas Tesla, who gave the world AC electricity, was one) and Catholic Croats living in Serbia.
But rather than regarding minorities as fellow nationals with equal rights – a Nation Two concept – unscrupulous politicians again and again whipped up hatred against them. Nearly genocidal massacres sometimes followed. That’s why when Yugoslavia disappeared, fear, distrust and war were just a step away.
Today, two of these countries – Croatia and Slovenia – are EU members. Others hope to join.
Being part of the EU wouldn’t make these applicants any less Serbian or Bosnian or Montenegrin or Northern Macedonian. It would give them powerful reasons to overlook differences with their neighbors and get along. Here in the Balkans, war poses a far more serious threat of civilizational erasure than immigration.
The factions promoting nationalism say they’re opposed to wars, and that’s commendable. What they forget is the role obsession with “heritage” has historically played in starting wars.
Neither the US nor Europe needs a return to blood-and-soil nationalism.
Former longtime Wall Street Journal Asia correspondent and editor Urban Lehner is editor emeritus of DTN/The Progressive Farmer.
This article, originally published on October 8 by the latter news organization and now republished by Asia Times with permission, is © Copyright 2026 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved. Follow Urban Lehner on Twitter: @urbanize
