It is important not to over-emphasize the violence of last night in Belgrade. It is unfortunate that a rioter was killed while burning down the American embassy, but keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people protested peacefully on the streets of Belgrade.
Having said this, however, it is also important to note the dangerous behavior of the increasingly aggressive Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. There are several signs that point to his personal involvement in last night's inexcusable violence: 1) his speech purposefully echoed Milosevic's 1989 Gazimestan speech in which Milosevic promised that Kosovo would always remain Serbian; 2) there was no riot police guarding the American embassy, which seems so obviously pre-planned since the rioters had attempted a few days ago to break through the gates and it took them 45 minutes to get there and by then most of the building was on fire; 3) there are reports that directors of high schools throughout Belgrade let students out to join the protest, a deliberate use of teenager hooligans to stir up violence; 4) and finally, no sign of condemnation by the Serbian Prime Minister.
However, I think it is important for the US not to over-react to this, and I think they have reacted wisely so far. Rice has warned Kostunica if this happens again and Americans are hurt he will be held personally responsible, which of course he is according to international law guarding the safety of diplomatic staff. But at the same time, public anti-Serbian rhetoric will only stir up the nationalist emotions further and push Serbia onto the path of becoming more isolated, as it happened in the 1990s. The US and the EU have to offer carrot to Serbia and open negotiations for the speedy ascension into the EU and NATO. Yes, the war criminals Ratko Mladic and Karadzic have to be extradited to the Hague before the negotiations are concluded, but this is a long process and opening the first few chapters will do a world of good to President Tadic who, wisely, stayed away from the protest while on official visit to Romania and condemned the violence.
I really think this precedent argument is overblown. Kosovo sets the precedent for other states to secede just like Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Macedonia, (and before them, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, etc) set the precedent. You can also look back to the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires and claim that the emergence of nation-states on the ashes of these empires after WWI set the precedent for the age of nation-state. But this doesn't mean that immediately countries will follow like dominoes since there are so many individual local factors in all these regions (Chechnia: the Russian state is too strong for the movement to succeed; in the Basque region, the ETA seems to have lost a considerable amount of public support due to their violent campaign as it was shown by their willingness to agree to a cease-fire, etc).
Also, just because this might somehow set the precedent doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Despite the fact that Kosovo will be run by Eurocrats for years to come (as one of my friends noted in his comment on my last post about this), we cannot underestimate the enthusiasm this independence has injected into the young Albanian population. A German friend of mine has recently come back from his visit to Kosovo and talked to many young Albanians who were thrilled that they would get independence (even if in name only for now). They seemed so eager to help their nascent country and be constructive in the region. We cannot under-estimate how untenable the status quo has become in Kosovo and how impatient the majority of the Albanian population had become. So, despite this situation being murky in terms of international law, for now, it seems to have been the best of the really bad options in the region.
Again, it is important not to over-react to these events as they are still pretty sporadic and localized. Protests are going to happen in the future, in Serbia and Bosnia, but full scale violence is a really distant possibility (I hope this is not wishful thinking on my part).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you on the precedent argument. On the other hand, if we may engage in a little conterfactual masturbation, if it wasn't for Milosevic, the argument for an independent Kosovo wouldn't make any more sense than an independent Transylvania. Not saying they are completely analogous situations, merely that the argument for independence wouldn't get much traction.
I don't think its sets precedent - as said before, its actually a continuation of a very insidious logic.
You are correct that this is the continuation of a precedent set by recognizing Slovenia's independence in contravention of the agreement they had made to end their war with the JNA. But, the situation there was different because the Yugoslav government was in a state of political collapse because the Serbs were boycotting the collective presidency, thus making any mutual resolution of the issue impossible. In contrast, the Serbs were participating in the international negotiations over Kosovo's future and there was a functional Serbian government that could have approved any agreement. The problem was they just weren't willing to commit political suicide and agree to Kosovo's independence.
The other important issue here is that none of the governments that approved the agreement with Serbia to end the war in 1999 can act as honest brokers in any similar conflicts for quite a while. We (the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy) agreed as part of the legal end of hostilities with Serbia that Kosovo would not become independent without Serbia's consent. What government would take our promises at face value today given our complete renunciation of that agreement for our own convenience?
I do appreciate just how difficult the situation in Kosovo was getting. We chose this course because if we had not let the Albanians declare independence (again) they would have started killing UN police and NATO soldiers just as they had killed Serbian police and soldiers starting in 1996. This of course establishes its own bad precedent that we will buckle to the threat of violence rather than abide by our legal commitments.
Pug's point is well taken and gets to the core of this issue. Laws are meant to provide a predictable framework for action and consequences. If we make our like or dislike of an individual a justification for ignoring the law, then the law has no meaning. Justifying this violation of international law by saying "Milosevic was a bad guy" means you really don't believe in international law. The correct response would be to have had the strength to confront Milosevic and force him to abide by international law at the beginning. His ability to flagrantly flaunt international law in Croatia and Bosnia is our failing, not his. Responding to his violations of international law with our own violations just de-legitimize the law even further.
And one final quibble, the Czech-Slovak split is not a precedent because it was a mutually agreed upon re-drawing of borders.
Here's a thought: does globalization enable the phenomena of national break-ups? If an independent Kosovo or Montenegro or Flemingland (it could happen) has the chance of joining the EU that country is assured of the kinds of markets that only larger states/empires could once ensure.
Solitary traveller, your argument is well taken, but the West did not recognize Kosovo because they did not like Milosevic, but because Milosevic's brutal policy have stripped the Serbian state of any legitimacy they might have had over the majority Albanian population.A state can use indiscriminate violence against a population only so much before it loses any right to even legitimate use of violence. This, I believe, is the core of the issue. And as Herzog has suggested, if all of these countries join the EU independence will not really matter all that much. Serbs can be ensured of the contact with their brethren in northern Kosovo and I think the Albanians will bend over backwards to protect their shrines.
Here's Slavenka Drakulic's take on the situation in Kosovo:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080310/drakulic
Post a Comment