A bad-looking model
25 April 2007
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
Ilana Bet-El
Despite what US and EU officials claim, an independent Kosovo would set a precedent in many ways - and an exceedingly dangerous one at that.
US and EU officials have been clocking up a lot of soundbites lately, explaining how independence for Kosovo would not set an international precedent. They are wrong: an independent Kosovo would be a precedent in many ways - theoretical, political, moral, to name a few - and an exceedingly dangerous one at that.
Separatist movements around the globe could and probably would seek to redraw maps based on the Kosovo model, not least in the already strife-ridden Iraq, where the three main ethnic groups - the Sunni and Shia Muslims, and the Kurds - could each or all use the precedent to demand independence. And especially with regard to the Kurds, this could have exceedingly negative implications on both regional and global stability.
There are at least four reasons for this act being a precedent.
First, there is the diplomatic precedent. The problem at stake is not whether Kosovo should go independent - a people's right to self-determination should not be debated - but rather in the way it is achieved. At present, the process is being driven as a sort of crusade, to culminate in an imposed solution rather than a negotiated one between the sides. It is this imposition, a de facto annexation of part of a sovereign state, which would be the precedent - not the resulting state.
Second, it would be a theoretical precedent: it would put the principal of self-determination above the principal of territorial integrity, which has been the bedrock of international affairs since the end of the second world war. Since then the international community has systematically stuck with this principal, effectively upholding the rights of the sovereign state above those of groups of peoples or individuals within them. What's more, all the previous settlements in the Balkans, from the early 1990s onwards, were created upon this basis - as underlined in every security council resolution (SCR) from 1991 onwards.
To gloss over this reality, senior officials of the state department and the EU claim this is but the last element of the break up of Yugoslavia, a neglected issue which the international community allowed to fester while focusing on other parts of the Balkans. As such the Kosovars are "owed" independence, in line with the other warring parties of the 1990s.
This reasoning poses the third precedent, in two ways. First, it is effectively a recasting of history. The break-up of Yugoslavia always referred to its six constituent republics, and it was their territorial integrity that was respected. Kosovo is a province in Serbia, a constituent republic, and referred to as such in every SCR on the province since 1993. Suggesting its ills were part of the break up is therefore a retroactive enhancing, indeed redefinition, of its status.
In addition, the moral reasoning of "owing" the Kosovars must set a precedent for every oppressed people in the world. Upon this basis, and currently in Africa alone, the international community owes it to the people of Darfur to grant them independence from Sudan, which has aided and abetted in having them displaced, murdered and raped; or to the people of Zimbabwe to remove their bizarre dictator Robert Mugabe who has led them to famine and destruction.
The fourth precedent already exists: it is the reality of Kosovo today - which in itself is based upon the precedent of the 1999 Nato bombing campaign, undertaken without security council authorisation. The International Independent Commission on Kosovo convened in 2000 defined it as "illegal but legitimate" due to the dire humanitarian circumstances. It also defined the post-bombing institutional arrangements "a unique institutional hybrid, a UN protectorate with unlimited power whose purpose is to prepare the province for autonomy and self-government - but in the framework of FRY [Serbia]". In other words, a precedent - but one which upholds the territorial integrity of Serbia above the rights of Kosovar self-determination.
Regardless of whether Kosovo deserves independence or not therefore, this move would be a precedent for every separatist group in every sovereign state - a fact which has already led several EU member states to not back the drive for independence.
Beyond Europe, independence for Kosovo could and probably would set the theoretical precedent for the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, for example, while the moral precedent could serve to give Chechnya independence from Russia. These could definitely cause a raucous in the Caucuses. However, it would be as nothing to the mess that would result from the creation of independent Sunni and Shia states, which could break away from Iraq - or an independent Kurdistan.
This latter would not only be totally unacceptable to Turkey, but to Iran, Syria and Armenia too, all of which have restive Kurdish minorities. However, more than most other minorities the Kurds could claim parallelism with Kosovo: they have been an oppressed minority for decades, especially in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, when they were gassed and murdered in their thousands. No one then (or since, in reality) did anything to help them - and yet they have an ethnic majority in Iraqi Kurdistan, and also in their provinces in the other states. Moreover, and taking the parallel to its logical conclusion, they too have achieved a degree of autonomy under international supervision due to an invasion unauthorised by the UN security council.
On the back of this, if Kosovo were to go independent due to an imposed solution rather than one negotiated between Serbia and the Kosovar leadership, there could be little to stop the Kurds demanding - or declaring - an independent Kurdistan. This move would undoubtedly provoke Turkey into invading the province into order to forestall its own Kurds from joining with the independent Kurdistan - a move that could then also provoke Iran and Syria, not to mention the rest of the Iraqis.
In a region that is already on the edge of wide conflict, such a scenario could easily tip it over - with devastating implications. Keeping this in mind, independence granted to Kosovo unilaterally by the international community would be a dangerous, destabilising precedent. A just resolution must be found to the status of the province, possibly one of partition - but it must be one negotiated and agreed by the sides, not one imposed.
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
Ilana Bet-El
Despite what US and EU officials claim, an independent Kosovo would set a precedent in many ways - and an exceedingly dangerous one at that.
US and EU officials have been clocking up a lot of soundbites lately, explaining how independence for Kosovo would not set an international precedent. They are wrong: an independent Kosovo would be a precedent in many ways - theoretical, political, moral, to name a few - and an exceedingly dangerous one at that.
Separatist movements around the globe could and probably would seek to redraw maps based on the Kosovo model, not least in the already strife-ridden Iraq, where the three main ethnic groups - the Sunni and Shia Muslims, and the Kurds - could each or all use the precedent to demand independence. And especially with regard to the Kurds, this could have exceedingly negative implications on both regional and global stability.
There are at least four reasons for this act being a precedent.
First, there is the diplomatic precedent. The problem at stake is not whether Kosovo should go independent - a people's right to self-determination should not be debated - but rather in the way it is achieved. At present, the process is being driven as a sort of crusade, to culminate in an imposed solution rather than a negotiated one between the sides. It is this imposition, a de facto annexation of part of a sovereign state, which would be the precedent - not the resulting state.
Second, it would be a theoretical precedent: it would put the principal of self-determination above the principal of territorial integrity, which has been the bedrock of international affairs since the end of the second world war. Since then the international community has systematically stuck with this principal, effectively upholding the rights of the sovereign state above those of groups of peoples or individuals within them. What's more, all the previous settlements in the Balkans, from the early 1990s onwards, were created upon this basis - as underlined in every security council resolution (SCR) from 1991 onwards.
To gloss over this reality, senior officials of the state department and the EU claim this is but the last element of the break up of Yugoslavia, a neglected issue which the international community allowed to fester while focusing on other parts of the Balkans. As such the Kosovars are "owed" independence, in line with the other warring parties of the 1990s.
This reasoning poses the third precedent, in two ways. First, it is effectively a recasting of history. The break-up of Yugoslavia always referred to its six constituent republics, and it was their territorial integrity that was respected. Kosovo is a province in Serbia, a constituent republic, and referred to as such in every SCR on the province since 1993. Suggesting its ills were part of the break up is therefore a retroactive enhancing, indeed redefinition, of its status.
In addition, the moral reasoning of "owing" the Kosovars must set a precedent for every oppressed people in the world. Upon this basis, and currently in Africa alone, the international community owes it to the people of Darfur to grant them independence from Sudan, which has aided and abetted in having them displaced, murdered and raped; or to the people of Zimbabwe to remove their bizarre dictator Robert Mugabe who has led them to famine and destruction.
The fourth precedent already exists: it is the reality of Kosovo today - which in itself is based upon the precedent of the 1999 Nato bombing campaign, undertaken without security council authorisation. The International Independent Commission on Kosovo convened in 2000 defined it as "illegal but legitimate" due to the dire humanitarian circumstances. It also defined the post-bombing institutional arrangements "a unique institutional hybrid, a UN protectorate with unlimited power whose purpose is to prepare the province for autonomy and self-government - but in the framework of FRY [Serbia]". In other words, a precedent - but one which upholds the territorial integrity of Serbia above the rights of Kosovar self-determination.
Regardless of whether Kosovo deserves independence or not therefore, this move would be a precedent for every separatist group in every sovereign state - a fact which has already led several EU member states to not back the drive for independence.
Beyond Europe, independence for Kosovo could and probably would set the theoretical precedent for the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, for example, while the moral precedent could serve to give Chechnya independence from Russia. These could definitely cause a raucous in the Caucuses. However, it would be as nothing to the mess that would result from the creation of independent Sunni and Shia states, which could break away from Iraq - or an independent Kurdistan.
This latter would not only be totally unacceptable to Turkey, but to Iran, Syria and Armenia too, all of which have restive Kurdish minorities. However, more than most other minorities the Kurds could claim parallelism with Kosovo: they have been an oppressed minority for decades, especially in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, when they were gassed and murdered in their thousands. No one then (or since, in reality) did anything to help them - and yet they have an ethnic majority in Iraqi Kurdistan, and also in their provinces in the other states. Moreover, and taking the parallel to its logical conclusion, they too have achieved a degree of autonomy under international supervision due to an invasion unauthorised by the UN security council.
On the back of this, if Kosovo were to go independent due to an imposed solution rather than one negotiated between Serbia and the Kosovar leadership, there could be little to stop the Kurds demanding - or declaring - an independent Kurdistan. This move would undoubtedly provoke Turkey into invading the province into order to forestall its own Kurds from joining with the independent Kurdistan - a move that could then also provoke Iran and Syria, not to mention the rest of the Iraqis.
In a region that is already on the edge of wide conflict, such a scenario could easily tip it over - with devastating implications. Keeping this in mind, independence granted to Kosovo unilaterally by the international community would be a dangerous, destabilising precedent. A just resolution must be found to the status of the province, possibly one of partition - but it must be one negotiated and agreed by the sides, not one imposed.
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Labels: Nagorno Karapakh
posted by Vahe Balabanian at 8:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home