The Global Sociology Blog

Kosovo is now an independent nation, already recognized by the major European powers and the United States. However, this case has been far from uncontroversial and perfectly illustrates issues of global governance and the status of the nation-state in the global context.

In the Guardian, Paul Laughland argues that the independence of Kosovo is a legal fiction with consequences but also that it does not matter.

“Whatever legal trickery the west uses to override UN security council resolution 1244 – which kept Kosovo in Serbia – the proclamation of the new state will have incalculable long-term consequences: on secessionist movements from Belgium to the Black Sea via Bosnia, on relations with China and Russia, and on the international system as a whole. They are also relevant because the last thing the new state proclaimed in Pristina on Sunday will be is independent. Instead, what has now emerged south of the Ibar river is a postmodern state, an entity that may be sovereign in name but is a US-EU protectorate in practice.”

Indeed, the EU is scheduled to take over from the UN (which had been in charge of Kosovo ever since the 1999 Nato intervention) with a international envoy endowed with far-reaching powers. Moreover, the 16,000 Nato troops will stay in charge of internal and external security. Such colonization (as Laughland puts it) will do nothing, he argues, against the rampant corruption present in Kosovo. It should be noted, however, that Laughland has been a critic of US/EU policy in the Balkans.

More optimistic, also in the Guardian is Kin Bytyci’s assessment.

“(Independence) is the promise of security: that no “new Milosevic” will one day force them to close their schools and universities or ban all media in their language. A guarantee that no army or paramilitaries using the state as a cover will make unlawful demands upon them, take their belongings, brand them terrorists, strip them of any identity papers and drive them out of their homes.

It is a final green light from the international community to restart their lives free from state-controlled order, fear and intimidation. It is an act that will pave the way for a speedier stabilisation of the entire region.”

Independence, then, is the final nail in the Yugoslav coffin. It closes that chapter the Balkans’ history that started in 1989 and the initial tremors in that region, with the end of communism. Bytyci also refutes the precedent argument (that any independent-minded territory will now use Kosovo’s example to claim its own independence): what people would want to go through what Kosovo endured in the name of self-determination when there are more peaceful examples around (like Scotland)? If anything, the message sent, Bytyci argues, is that oppressing an ethnic or national minority in Europe is now a risky proposition. There is no better way for a country to lose territory.

However, and somewhat ironically, Bytyci argues against giving the Serbs of Kosovo their independence. However, shouldn’t the same reasoning apply here. The argument Bytyci advances is that with EU troops, they are safe, but would they be if there weren’t EU troops? Aren’t they entitled to their own self-determination? Bytyci does warn against the domino effect of such a move, but again, there certainly is irony here. Which ethnic and national minority, then, are worthy of their own territory and which are not?

Indeed, Kosovo’s Serbs reactions were quick to come, as stated by the BBC:

“Bosnian Serb protesters have thrown stones at Western consulates, in a further display of anger at Kosovo’s declaration of independence.Thousands of people took to the streets of Banja Luka in the Bosnian Serb republic, chanting “Kosovo is Serbian!”"

Neighboring republics, such as Montenegro, Bosnia and Croatia, which have significant Serb populations, are on a wait-and-see mode. But the Serbs of Kosovo are certainly not pleased by the move, even though the newly-formed republic defines itself as democratic and multi-ethnic with attention to minority rights.

Of course, the main source of tensions is between Kosovo and Serbia, whose political leaders have vowed never to recognize the new nation, with the backing of Russia. As stated in the Guardian:

“Russia last night called for an emergency UN security council meeting, demanding annulment. A Russian foreign ministry statement warned of “an escalation of tension and inter-ethnic violence in the province and new conflict in the Balkans”. “

However, no agreement came out of the meeting, so, EU countries and the US have already started to recognize Kosovo. Even Serbian president Tadic’s plea to the UN has gone unheard, according to Le Monde. This episode presents an interesting illustration of multi-layered governance, with all levels of political power involving a multiplicity of actors:

• The Serb minority in Kosovo
• Nations such as Serbia and now Kosovo
• Regional organizations such as Nato and the EU
• Global institutions such as the UN Security Council

And we can see all these different actors competing with each other and trying to gain advantages of playing politics at the levels at which they think they have an advantage. Kosovo obviously considers the EU its main ally whereas Serbia is counting on the support of its main protector, UN Security Council permanent member, Russia. At the same time, the other members of the Security Council, the US, UK and France, especially, clearly were more comfortable with sticking to the existing resolution and letting the matter be decided at the regional level.

At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of the current UN resolution in place, resolution 1244, adopted in 1999, which forces Nato and EU missions in Kosovo to annul any proclamation of Kosovo independence. However, according to another article in Le Monde, EU countries contest such an interpretation and that since the situation had evolved since 1999, this provision no longer applied. Moreover, the seven countries of the Security Council that supported recognizing Kosovo’s independence declared the case a sui generis reality, unlikely to become a precedent for other national minorities. At the same time UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reiterated the maintenance of the UN Mission in Kosovo according to Resolution 1244.

So far, China has expressed concern over the issue but has not weighed in. Surely, they must be keeping an eye on Taiwan, who has already indicated support for the independence of Kosovo.

For the Serb minority of Kosovo, independence is a source of worry. They fear being deprived of the support and protection of Serbia and Russia and at the mercy of what they perceive to be a hostile international community. From the Guardian,

“Ahead of the declaration of independence a crowd of men gathered at the symbolic bridge’s northern side, separated from the celebrating ethnic Albanians by police and French soldiers in a glum and largely silent protest. Among them was Caslav Milisavljevic, director of the local radio station.

“They are just following the orders of the major powers,” he said, leaning against a car and staring at the red banners on the river’s other side. “No one cares to listen to the Serbian case. We lost the media war a long time ago.”"

For now, it seems that everything is in limbo. What happens next will depend, again, on the behavior of the various players mentioned above: will Russia and Serbia continue to press their case with the UN? Will China enter the fray? How will Kosovo govern its national minority? How strong is the resentment against the Serbs in Kosovo? How would Russia and Serbia react to violence? And will Kosovo really be just a sui generis case or a precedent for all ethnic and national minorities across Europe? Whether Kosovo’s independence turns out to be a Pandora’s box or a story of self-determination with a happy ending remains to be seen.

Photo Source: Le Monde, REUTERS/KEITH BEDFORD