Le Banat, région transfrontalière sensible ? Interroger les rapports aux frontières en Europe du Sud-Est
Résumé
Is Banat a sensitive cross-border region?
Examining relations at the borders in South-East Europe
Politically, the end of the transition period, which started after the breakdown of the Communist regime, was marked by the accession of many Central and South-East European states to the European Union (EU). One of the worries at that time were the “risky” areas situated on the states’ borders of South-East Europe and which were felt as having been “imposed” from outside, such as the Banat.
The sensitive feature of borders - or of border regions – is based in particular on a distance criterion, whether physical or imagined, at the border. It can be illustrated here using the example of the Danube-Kris-Mures-Tisza (DKMT) Euroregion which reunites the territory of the historic region of Banat: the increased distance makes the border less tangible. Is the border perceived to be unbridgeable from this territory?
The Banat Region represents a space within which it is difficult to envisage any form of interaction across the border, for an hour’s drive is needed to meet each other and there are hardly any shared interests in cooperating.
The regional area of Banat is sensitive because of its history, the overlapping of ethno-cultural and/or confessional groups, as well as due to the territorial and administrative divisions resulting from the grouping together of states within the EU and NATO. This text describes a complex situation, from which emanate initiatives which could solve potential risks at the borders through cooperation between the inhabitants of these border areas. The local level leads to more effective cooperation.
The fact is that sensitivities connected to history persist: Hungary and Serbia have still not resolved their conflict which resulted from interethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia; Romania and Hungary are sensitive to any position taken by their neighbour on issues that the authorities of the other country consider to be part of their internal affairs. Even if, little by little, the border becomes a shared space, it will never be shared in the same way by each citizen as each has different capacities for connecting to the border through their activities, through mobility, or through their linguistic and cultural knowledge.
On this basis, new sensitivities can come to the surface, but cross-border networks can also be formed.
(extrait de l'introduction)
Au sens défini par la géographie durant la décennie 1990, l’Europe du Sud-Est et à travers elle ses États, pouvaient être lus, ainsi que l’ensemble de l’Europe centrale, comme une Europe « entre-deux »[1]. Cette expression souligne la relative incertitude du moment quant au devenir géopolitique et socio-économique de cet espace en transition. Elle sous-entend une situation ou position intermédiaire entre deux constructions politiques territoriales, entre deux horizons, deux temps...
Ce qui inquiète à l’époque est, entre autres, le devenir des espaces « à risques » que constituent des frontières d’États qui sont lues le plus souvent comme ayant été imposées depuis l’extérieur, principalement à l’issue de la Première Guerre mondiale, et qui sont longtemps restées closes à la mobilité du plus grand nombre des citoyens de ces États, y compris des résidents des espaces frontaliers. La remise en cause de certains tracés frontaliers ou de la légitimité d’autrui à résider au sein de l’espace découpé par les frontières sera malheureusement confirmée et illustrée par les conflits yougoslaves ainsi que par de multiples refontes territoriales, ayant eu cours ailleurs, dans l’Europe postcommuniste. Mais ces horizons semblent aujourd’hui dépassés...
[1] REY, V., « L’Europe centre orientale, un entre-deux », dans BAILLY, A., FERRAS, R., PUMAIN, D., (dir.), Encyclopédie de géographie, Paris, 1992, pp.813-826.