/ kosovo / mess /
The
International Crisis Group has
published a report (the full report can be found
here [pdf document]) describing the situation in Kosovo and proposing some recommendations as to the developments that should follow. Given the reputation and
the board members of the ICG, it wouldn't be too much speculation to consider this as something that is being seriously considered and rather likely to be implemented (or attempted to be implemented anyway).
The proposal suggests that the push to reach "final status" in Kosovo (meaning independence) should start ASAP - and actually offers a timeline for its materialization. This, the report recommends, should proceed even if some won't play along:
It has to be contemplated that Serbia -- and perhaps Russia as well -- will refuse to cooperate with part or all of this. But the proposed process should not be held hostage to that eventuality: the situation on the ground in Kosovo is too fragile, and the status quo too unsustainable in too many ways, for the international community to allow its future status to be put on indefinite hold. While legitimate Serbian concerns should be taken fully into account, particularly about the status of Kosovo's Serb minority, Belgrade should be cautioned from the outset that "the train is leaving, with or without you", and encouraged to participate fully in achieving the best possible terms of settlement.
(I would hasten to note that this would create serious problems in Greece too and even if the Greek government went along with this plan, the consequences could be politically damaging for the Conservatives.)
Yet this proposal is, IMHO, dangerous and would, if implemented, create an even more unstable Western Balkans (and beyond?)... It would potentially spread further the destabilization that NATO's bombing disaster has inflicted in an already unstable area. This because it would legitimize nationalist violence and make it attractive to all sorts of secessionist movements, since the successful example of the Kosovo's violent secessionists, would be a guiding light to a variety of extreme nationalist elements in the broader region - with (part of) the Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia surely next in line.
The substantial arguments in support of Kosovo's independence are related to the containment of an already existing problem. However, should Kosovo be granted independence based on its majority's desires, it's hard to see on what grounds one can deny the will of , say, a majority (apparently - I'd be happy to stand corrected) of Bosnia's population and artificially keep a federation that these majorities do not desire... Bear in mind that I'm not talking about problems that will appear today or next year. This precedent will haunt the area for years to come and could contribute to conflagrations at any time - and you really never know when that time might come, as the example of the FRY shows clearly. The future is inherently uncertain - but creating extra sources of volatility, in an area that has a history of violently erupting tensions, is IMHO criminally idiotic - and I say this as someone who lives in the likely to be affected area and has no intention of fighting, or sending my children to fight, wars over anyone's nationalist autism.
The other problem for Kosovo, not addressed in the proposed "solution" is economic - and it concerns the fact that Kosovo has never been economically self-supporting and is not likely to become so anytime soon. Thus (given the fact that unification with Albania is explicitly rejected in the report) it appears that Kosovo will have to be sustained by the "international community" (whatever that means). Is this the sort of statelet/protectorate that the area needs?
OK, I'll try to avoid dwelling on the huge mess the NATO bombardments created (and my opinion, as has been stated here many times, is that, besides being criminal and illegal, the bombings made a bad situation worse at the time when realistic options existed that could have significantly improved it)... and try to be (uncharacteristically) constructive: What now then? Is there a solution that does not perpetuate and export the problem?
I never expected to be proposing this, but a possible way that, in my admittedly limited understanding, the Kosovo question can be now resolved is through a Regional Conference that will discuss the issue of borders, states and minorities in the region as a whole, and will arrive at an general solution for all of ex-Yugoslavia and conceivably beyond. This should be convened under the auspices of the UN and the EU, and should involve all affected and/or interested parties. The whole process will involve national trade-offs, but should conclude with an across the table deal, accepted and signed by all (major) parties. This comprehensive charter for the Balkan peninsula, would, in all probability include, for example, the eventual accession of (all or most of) Kosovo to Albania, in exchange for extensive autonomy / secession rights for Kosovar Serbs (and a possible redrawing of the map in Bosnia?)
P.S. I'd like to point out two things about the International Crisis Group:
- First, that having a group that includes Wesley Clark in its board, propose a solution for Kosovo, should be as attractive an idea for Serbs as having the hitman that shot at you among the medical team that will undertake the surgery.
- This is a very *ideological* outfit, really, as evidenced from their reports about Iraq, most glaringly in reporting the events leading to the war on Iraq. This report on whether
there is an alternative to war in Iraq [pdf file], written a little before the invasion, provides for amusing reading today, especially in regard to Iraq's containment and weapons threat. Interestingly and characteristically when listing the possible rationales for going to war they name the following:
International consensus on whether there is a case for waging war against Iraq is hindered by disagreement about what such a war would be for, i.e. for which one or more of the three objectives outlined at the outset a war is to be fought:
External threat: Is it a war to remove a threat to international peace and security?
Disarmament: Is it a war to enforce Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and previous resolutions demanding that Iraq disarm itself of all remaining weapons of mass destruction?
Internal Threat: Is it a war to overthrow an Iraqi regime that has behaved monstrously toward its own people?
The possibilty that the war might not be waged at all for these (rather ludicrous in realistic terms) benign motives, but rather it might involve (ah, the horror!) more mundane and materialistic strategies and benefits, is not at all considered. This is either an impressive show of Stalinesque indoctrination, or a statement about the honesty and the agenda of the group. You decide.
link via balkan-scissors
balkania
