In March 2002 the United States and Uzbekistan signed a Declaration of Strategic Partnership. This document marked a qualitative break in the international relations of Uzbekistan and, to some degree, the United States' relations with Central Asia. Uzbekistan had sought closer relations with the United States since its independence in September 1991. But the course of U.S.-Uzbek relations was not smooth. Various obstacles hindered Tashkent's progress in making a positive impression on successive U.S. administrations in the last decade of the twentieth century. Tashkent's abysmal human rights record and the snail's pace of democratic reforms made the notion of closer ties with Uzbekistan unsavoury for U.S. policy makers. At the same time, Washington was more concerned with developments in Russia. Other former Soviet republics, especially the five Central Asian states, were relegated to the periphery of the U.S. strategic outlook. But the dramatic events of September 11 and the subsequent U.S.-led “war on terror” changed the geopolitical landscape of Central Asia. The consequent development of ties between Tashkent and Washington was beyond the wildest dreams of Uzbek foreign policy makers. Virtually overnight, Uzbek leaders found themselves in a position to pursue an ambitious foreign policy without being slowed by domestic considerations.

The drastic changes in the Balkans in the 1990s and the disintegration of Yugoslavia in particular have resulted in a large number of publications attempting to explain the break-up of this country and the political developments in the Balkans. Some of these publications deal partly with the local Muslims who were engaged in the Balkan conflicts but, with some exceptions, they are focused mainly on recent developments, with less attention paid to the historical contexts in which the Muslim nationalist movements were shaped.

This article is about national identity, political interest and the creation of international human rights regimes. Geographically, it is focused on Western Europe and the very recent process of establishing the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Both national identity and political interest are seen as important determinants of this process, defining its discourse and outcome. The relationship between the two is complex and recursive. They influence each other to an extent that warrants seeing them as mutually constitutive. On one hand, the social, political and economic projects elites engage in have to resonate positively with dearly held elements of national identity but have also the power to modify them. Being a psychological phenomenon, on the other hand, national identity is a dynamic concept that employs common historically defined memories, traditions and customs but is also subject to the influence of the political context within which it operates.

Ethnic issues have a paramount impact on the security of Southeastern Europe. The most recent proof of that has been NATO's involvement in the conflict between the Serbian government and the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Only NATO's involvement could reverse the highly destabilizing effect of the expulsion of over a million of the Kosovar Albanians by the Serb army and paramilitary forces beyond Kosovo's borders.

For nearly a century, the contrast between a cultural and a political form of nationalism has been upheld. In the early twentieth century, Fredrich Meinecke made a distinction between the political nation, or Staatsnation, based on a common political history and a shared constitution, and the cultural nation, Kulturnation, based on a shared cultural heritage. The most important distinction between the two is that while membership in the former is voluntary, membership in the cultural nation is a matter not of choice, but of common objective identity. Meinecke maintained that political nationalism derived from the spirit of 1789, i.e. from the idea of the self-determination and sovereignty of the nation. Cultural nationalism, in contrast, was a striving for national individuality, characteristic of anti-Enlightenment German thought.

“Tell a man today to go and build a state,” Samuel Finer once stated, “and he will try to establish a definite and defensible boundary and compel those who live inside it to obey him.” While at best an oversimplification, Finer's insight illuminates an interesting aspect of state-society relations. Who is it that builds the state? How and where do they establish territorial boundaries, and how are those who live within that territory compelled to obey? Generally speaking, these are the questions that will be addressed here. Of more immediate concern is the fate of peoples located in regions where arbitrary land boundaries fall. Are they made loyal to the state through coercion or by their own compulsions? More importantly, how are their identities shaped by the efforts of the state to differentiate them from their compatriots on the other side of the borders? How is the shift from ethnic to national identities undertaken? A parallel elaboration of the national histories of the populations of Karelia and Moldova will shed light on these questions. The histories of each group are marked by a myriad of attempts to differentiate the identity of each ethnic community from their compatriots beyond the state's borders. The results of such overt, state-initiated efforts to differentiate borderland populations by encouraging a national identity at the expense of the ethnic, has ranged from the mundane to the tragic—from uneventful assimilation to persecution and even genocide. As an illustration of the range of possibilities and processes, I maintain that the tragedies of Karelia and Moldova are not exceptional, but rather are a consequence of their geographical straddling of arbitrary borders, and the need for the state to promote a distinctive national identity for these populations to differentiate them socially from their compatriots beyond the frontier.

Let us now have a closer look at the Kharkiv-Belgorod (potential) cross-border region as a case study of Ukrainian-Russian cross-border cooperation. Not only is the case of Kharkiv-Belgorod special because of the historical and cultural specificity of the region, which provides additional symbolic resources for its “reinvention” as a borderland (this will be discussed in the last section of the paper); it also represents an interesting combination of (remaining) cultural closeness and (growing) social and economic differences between the two bordering territories; significantly, these two administrative units became the initiators of the cross-border cooperation between Ukraine and Russia and see themselves as pioneers whose experience can be used for the other parts of the border.