Warning light on Kosovo
Washington Times - January 31, 2008
By John Bolton, Lawrence Eagleburger and Peter Rodman
The Bush administration has indicated its readiness to recognize a unilateral
declaration of independence by ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, a province of the
Republic of Serbia that since 1999 has been under United Nations administration
and NATO military control.
Such a declaration may take place as early as February. American recognition
would be over Serbia's objections, without a negotiated solution between Serbia
and Kosovo's Albanians, and without modification by the United Nations Security
Council of Resolution 1244, which reaffirms Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo while
providing for the province's "substantial autonomy." U.S. recognition may be
joined by that of some members of the European Union, which has been under heavy
diplomatic pressure from Washington, though several EU states and a number of
countries outside Europe have said they would reject such action.
Attempting to impose a settlement on Serbia would be a direct challenge to the
Russian Federation, which opposes any Kosovo settlement not accepted by
Belgrade.
We believe an imposed settlement of the Kosovo question and seeking to partition
Serbia's sovereign territory without its consent is not in the interest of the
United States. The blithe assumption of American policy — that the mere passage
of nine years of relative quiet would be enough to lull Serbia and Russia into
reversing their positions on a conflict that goes back centuries — has proven to
be naive in the extreme.
We believe U.S. policy on Kosovo must be re-examined without delay, and we urge
the Bush administration to make it clear that pending the results of such
re-examination it would withhold recognition of a Kosovo independence
declaration and discourage Kosovo's Albanians from taking that step.
Current U.S. policy relies on the unconvincing claim that Kosovo is "unique" and
would set no precedent for other troublespots. Of course every conflict has
unique characteristics. However, ethnic and religious minorities in other
countries already are signaling their intention to follow a Kosovo example. This
includes sizeable Albanian communities in adjoining areas of southern Serbia,
Montenegro, and especially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as well as
the Serbian portion of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Recognition of Kosovo's independence without Serbia's consent would set a
precedent with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for many other
regions of the world. The Kosovo model already has been cited by supporters of
the Basque separatist movement in Spain and the Turkish-controlled area of
northern Cyprus. Neither the Security Council nor any other international body
has the power or authority to impose a change of any country's borders.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current policy is the dismissive
attitude displayed toward Russia's objections. Whatever disagreements the United
States may have with Moscow on other issues, and there are many, the United
States should not prompt an unnecessary crisis in U.S.-Russia relations. There
are urgent matters regarding which the United States must work with Russia,
including Iran's nuclear intentions and North Korea's nuclear capability. Such
cooperation would be undercut by American action to neutralize Moscow's
legitimate concerns regarding Kosovo.
If the U.S. moves forward with recognizing Kosovo, Moscow's passivity cannot be
taken for granted. It may have been one thing in 1999 for the United States and
NATO to take action against Yugoslavia over the objections of a weak Russia.
Today, it would be unwise to dismiss Russia's willingness and ability to assist
Serbia. On an issue of minor importance to the United States, is this a useful
expenditure of significant political capital with Russia?
Our Kosovo policy is hardly less problematic for our friends and allies in
Europe. While some European countries, notably members of the EU, may feel
themselves obligated to join us in recognizing Kosovo's independence, a number
of those countries would do so reluctantly because of Washington's inflexibility
and insistence. No more than the United States, Europe would not benefit from an
avoidable confrontation with Russia.
Even if Kosovo declared itself an independent state, it would be a dysfunctional
one and a ward of the international community for the indefinite future.
Corruption and organized crime are rampant. The economy, aside from
international largesse and criminal activities, is nonviable. Law enforcement,
integrity of the courts, protection of persons and property, and other
prerequisites for statehood are practically nonexistent. While these failures
are often blamed on Kosovo's uncertain status, a unilateral declaration of
independence recognized by some countries and rejected by many others would
hardly remedy that fact.
The result would be a new "frozen conflict," with Kosovo's status still
unresolved. The risk of renewed violence would further impede Kosovo's
development. Moreover, heightened tensions might require reinforcing the U.S.
presence in Kosovo when we can least afford it due to other commitments.
Serbia has made great strides in democratic development and economic
revitalization since the fall of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. Current
policy with respect to Kosovo risks complete reversal of these gains. Faced with
a choice between Western partnership and defense of their sovereign territory
and constitution, there is little doubt what Serbia would decide.
The current positive trend could falter in the face of political radicalization
and possible internal destabilization. Serbia's relations with countries that
had recognized Kosovo would be impaired. Serbia would inevitably move closer to
Russia as its only protector.
We do not underestimate the difficulty and complexity of the Kosovo question nor
do we suggest the status quo can endure indefinitely. As with thorny questions
elsewhere, viable and enduring settlements should result from negotiation and
compromise. Such an outcome has been undermined by a U.S. promise to the Kosovo
Albanians that their demands will be satisfied if they remain adamant and no
agreement is reached with Belgrade. Such a promise cannot be justified by the
claim, often heard from proponents of independence, that the Albanians'
"patience" is running out, so independence must be granted without delay. This
is nothing less than appeasing a threat of violence.
A reassessment of America's Kosovo policy is long overdue. We hope a policy that
would set a very dangerous international precedent can still be averted if that
reassessment begins now. In the meantime, it is imperative that no unwarranted
or hasty action be taken that would turn what is now a relatively small problem
into a large one.
John Bolton is former permanent U.S. representative to the United Nations.
Lawrence Eagleburger is former U.S. secretary of state. Peter Rodman is former
assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.
Posted for Fair Use only.