KOSOVO’S INDEPENDENCE - February 23, 2008

Perhaps the best way to describe what happened in Kosovo last weekend is to say that the dispute over 11 thousand square kilometers of land divided the Earth in a very dangerous manner. The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, the Western superpowers, rushed to recognize the new state. While Russia fiercely objected and Serbian Parliament annulled the Kosovars’ declaration. So who won this diplomatic battle? Is the American diplomacy victorious and Russian’s defeated? The statistics say that presently approximately 80 countries around the world recognized Kosovo’s sovereignty and only 15 refused. Therefore many say that the majority of the international community supports Kosovo’s sovereignty. But is it really so? Just take a look at who said no: China with 20% of world’s population, India with 17% of world’s population, Indonesia with 3,5%, Brazil with 2,8% and Russia with 2,2% are just a few among those who objected. So unfortunately the conclusion is quite solemn: the majority of the world said no. What is also more disturbing is that the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) collectively and independently refused to recognize the new state and actively opposed West’s diplomacy, which aimed at Kosovo’s immediate recognition. If the underlying rationale for granting Kosovo sovereignty was to promote freedom and democracy as a principle, then the United States once again failed to assume global leadership in this matter. The outcome may be an accelerated emergence of a world order in which the United States, and the West in general, finds itself seriously challenged not only by terrorist threats but also by very assertive and countering diplomacy of newly emerging superpowers.

There are several negative implications in recognition of Kosovo’s independence for the United States and for the European Union. Firstly, it deeply divided the international community therefore Western powers will now find it a lot more difficult to multilaterally solve urgent international crises, for example, the Iranian nuclear program. This argument especially relates to cooperation with Russia. Secondly, the West will be once again accused of utilizing double standards and of hypocrisy. The United States agrees that 5,5 million Albanians posses two independent states, while it strongly objects that 20 million Kurds finally have their own country, which they deserve. As a matter of fact, there are far stronger arguments for recognizing Kurds’ independence than that of Kosovo. Thirdly, the Kosovo’s recognition clearly contradicts history, political tradition and legal theory of the Western civilization. In 1861 when Confederate States of America declared independence, Abraham Lincoln sent U.S. Army to defend the Constitution and restore the Union. He is now revered as an extraordinary statesman and American. Undoubtedly, secession of Kosovo is for Serbia, what the Civil War was for America, therefore the U.S.’s recognition of Kosovo is contradictory and unparalleled with the American political and historical model. One may expect that it will be used to further support an often-heard argument that foreign policy of the United States has become very erratic and unpredictable. Finally, the demographic projections say that in a few decades Southwest America will be inhabited by the Latin (mainly Mexican) population, which will constitute ethnical majority in said region. The dominant language and culture in that part of the States will be Hispanic and many political scientists, including Samuel Huntington, have been predicting that it could lead to creation of another Quebec with deep sentiments for independence. If ethnicity was the main, underlying justification for Kosovo’s recognition, then the United States just created a legal basis for another potential secession on its own territory.

The argument expressed by former U.S. officials, mainly Gen. Wesley Clark and Amb. Richard Holbrooke, that Kosovo’s independence is a natural consequence of Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnical cleansing in the region, is somewhat ununderstandable. It apparently sounds like if the West wished to punish the whole nation for what one autocrat did a decade ago. Then, Kosovo’s sentiments for independence preceded Milosevic’s criminal actions, therefore they are not purely the outcome of the ethnical cleansing.

             
The implications for the European Union are serious as well. Did we gain Kosovo or lose Serbia? Recent official statements by Serbia’s Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic, who said, that Serbia is going to break off diplomatic relations with all countries, which recognized Kosovo or will do so, show that those relations will considerably deteriorate. Did Kosovo’s independence establish a peaceful environment in the Balkans or create another cause of friction in the region? Last week, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a special UN Envoy in BiH in 1992, expressed his deep worries that Kosovos’s recognition and potential secession of Republika Srpska will spark another military conflict in the region. If you consider that Bosnian Serbs, encouraged by Kosovo’s example, have been already debating and expressing their willingness to secede from Bosnia-Herzegovina, then apparently there is a big possibility that the Pandora’s box has been already opened. Finally, recognition of the new state boosted nationalist sentiments in Serbia and weakened the standing of pro-European politicians like President Boris Tadic. The likely result will be preservation of nationalistic trends, which the West strived to eliminate following the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Despite honest endeavors of President Tadic to bring Serbia closer to the European Union, there is now a big probability that the Serbs themselves will decide in a national referendum to reject EU membership, what would be a failure not only for Serbia but also for the European Union. Political instability in the Balkans would only continue.

Anyway, the milk is already spilt. Despite their enthusiasm, the Kosovars will have a hard time in the future to sustain their country and will be fully dependent on international economic and military help for many decades to come. The question for the European Union is: what to do to rebuilt stability and prosperity in the whole region. Following the World War II, the Marshal Plan was proposed to the Western states, including those who started the war. Similar plan should be offered to the Balkans as well and as soon as possible. The European Union needs to encourage foreign investments in the region and offer far reaching economic incentives. So far it has not done so effectively. The unemployment rate in Kosovo reaches almost 60%, with GDP per capita roughly 1,600 euros; while unemployment in Serbia reaches 20% and in Bosnia-Herzegovina almost 40%. It is a high time for a bold EU-sponsored economic initiative in the region because otherwise instability and uncertainty in the Balkans will continue and will haunt the whole Europe.

Sebastian Aulich

-------------------------------

Author of the article holds Master of Laws degree in EU and Polish law from Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw, Poland.

-------------------------------