|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
THE
LEGAL AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF KOSOVO INDEPENDENCE
(part 2) |
|
|
3. PRESSURE ON SERBIA
Unfortunately we have seen in the case of
Kosovo in 1999 and more recently with the invasion of
Iraq that the countries of NATO and the United States
are prepared to violate international law when they
consider it in their interests to do so. Furthermore the
NATO countries are able to use their economic and
political power as leverage to force smaller countries
to comply with their demands. The promise of membership
in the new Europe can be an offer difficult to refuse
even when acceptance means a humiliating loss of self
respect if not the loss of territory as well. |
|
|
 |
|
| In June 2005 the
European Council set out the criteria to be met by any decision
on the final status for Kosovo. The solution according to the
Council had to be fully compatible with European values and
norms, comply with international legal instruments and
obligations and the United Nations Charter and contribute to
realizing the European prospects of Kosovo and the region.
However the Council also stressed that any agreement must ensure
that Kosovo does not return to the pre-March, 1999 situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
What the European Council
seems to be saying is that any decision about Kosovo must be
legal but since it can't be legal without Serbia's consent the
Council holds out the possibility of admittance to the European
Community in exchange. If Serbia gives up Kosovo its reward will
be eventual acceptance into the European Community. The European
Council describes this as a satisfactory solution. Others might
describe it as blackmail. In any event what is clear is that
both the United States and the European Community want a
solution to what they interpret as an intractable and festering
problem in the heart of Europe. The Europeans may be fussier
about the legalities than are the Americans but the final
outcome desired is the same |
|
|
|
|
| If Serbia is willing
to accept this deal then there are the usual promises that the
new Kosovo would be multi-ethnic, would respect human and
minority rights, would guarantee the safe return of the evicted
population, that the Christian religious sites would be
safeguarded and that crime, corruption and terror would be
eliminated. All of the guarantees sound good. The problem is all
of them have been promised before and expressed in United
Nations resolution 1244. We know how faithfully the guarantees
in that resolution have been enforced in Kosovo during the past
seven years. |
|
|
|
|
| Casting a dark and
foreboding shadow over the Kosovo talks is the reality that if
the incentive of joining the new Europe does not work and Serbia
refuses to consent to the loss of its Kosovo territory then
punishment rather than incentives can be used. Serbia has
already had its grim share of what this can entail. Loss of IMF
and World Bank loans, discouragement of Western investment,
ostracism from international institutions, threats from the
International Criminal Tribunal of more indictments,
manipulation of elections and a host of other penalties designed
to force conformity to the will of the United States led NATO
powers. |
|
|
|
|
| Nevertheless it would be a
mistake for the United States and the Europeans to assume that
the decision about Kosovo independence will solve all the
problems in the Balkans. Kosovo independence is a Pandora's Box
and once opened there is every likelihood of further Albanian
demands in the region. Furthermore as the United Nations special
envoy, Kai Eide has reported, Kosovo is simply not ready for
independence. Quite apart from its questionable economic
viability, its record of ethnic cleansing, violence and
intolerance of minorities should disqualify it from becoming an
independent country. Wide spread crime and corruption and its
dominance of the European drug trade give sufficient evidence by
any standard that it is not ready to join the ranks of
independent states. |
|
|
|
|
| A further mistake is to
believe that a decision to grant Kosovo independence
will not become a precedent or that it will not be seen
as an example for others who might be striving for self
determination. There have been statements from US
officials suggesting that Kosovo is unique and therefore
cannot be used as a precedent. This is wishful thinking
and it is dangerous thinking. A decision to grant Kosovo
independence will have far reaching implications. It
will serve as an example and encouragement to other
independent movements around the world. It could become
a symbol and template for secessionists everywhere. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4. A
PRECEDENT FOR RUSSIA ?
Not withstanding the
attempts by US officials to pretend that independence for Kosovo
would not be a precedent, the President of Russia, Vladimir
Putin, on January 30, 2006 declared that the decision on Kosovo
if it is to be considered legal should be of a
"universal
nature" and applicable to post – Soviet territory. The Russian
President based his statement on the fact that, UN Resolution
1244 has affirmed that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. He
added that, "Our starting point is that United Nations Security
Council's decisions are not of a decorative nature, do not
depend on the political circumstances, but are adopted in order
to be fulfilled." |
|
|
|
|
|
President Putin was
referring to the unrecognized regions of the former Soviet
Union that desire independence: Abkhasia that broke away
from Georgia in 1992 and successfully defeated Georgian
military attempts to prevent secession. It has not been
recognized as an independent state. South Ossetia declared
its independence from Georgia in 1991 following armed
conflict with Georgian troops but its independence has not
been recognized. Transnistria declared unilateral
independence from Moldova in 1991 and with the assistance of
Russian and Ukrainian troops resisted attempts by Moldova to
prevent secession. Its independence has not been recognized. |
|
|
|
|
| In response to
President Putin's intervention in the Kosovo process the U.S.
Deputy Secretary of State for European Affairs, Rosemary di
Carlo has stated that the Kosovo situation and the region itself
is a unique phenomenon and that the Kosovo model would not apply
to the unrecognized regions of the former Soviet Union. She also
pointed out there were no UN resolutions relating to them. What
she did not say of course was that the UN resolution relating to
Kosovo explicitly reaffirmed it as part of Serbia. |
|
|
|
|
| It is difficult to say if
President Putin's remarks are a warning that Russia, as a member
of the Contact Group, will insist that the criteria and
standards used to decide on Kosovo independence will have
universal application and especially to the unrecognized regions
of the former Soviet Union. If it is a warning is it to be taken
seriously? Or, is it simply a move designed to be used by Russia
as a future bargaining chip in negotiations with the Western
powers? Previous experience has shown it is unlikely Russia will
risk openly defying the United States and Europe over the issue
of Kosovo independence. At any rate this remains to be seen.
Whatever the motives, however, President Putin's intervention
serves to highlight the reality that, despite protests to the
contrary, a decision to grant independence to Kosovo will stand
as a precedent. |
|
|
|
|
| 5. A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
There are currently 191 member
states of the United Nations but an estimated five thousand
ethnic groups scattered across the globe. Many of these ethnic
groups are desirous of attaining statehood and becoming members
of the United Nations. Many have much stronger claims for
independence than does Kosovo. The Kurds for example number
close to thirty million people and have maintained a distinctive
culture for three thousand years despite being dispersed in
Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. They were promised a separate
state by the allies after world war one but this promise was
thwarted by the Turkish dominance of the region under Kemal
Ataturk. The leaders of the Kurdish independence movement will
not overlook what happens in Kosovo. The American insistence on
maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq at the expense of
the Kurdish wish for independence will ring hollow to the Kurds
of north eastern Iraq. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taiwan with its
prosperous economy and high standard of living has
enjoyed de facto independence since being expelled from
the United Nations in 1971 and yet it has not been
recognized by the international community as an
independent state. Tibet, Chechnya, Nagorno- Karabakh ,
Tamil Eelam, Kashmir, the Philippines, Thailand, - the
list is a long one. In Western Europe itself there are
serious demands for independence from Basques,
Corsicans, and Montenegrins.
(
next page ) |
|
 |
|
|
