The Kosovo Crisis (Part One), Introduction

I intend to post an eight part series on the recent break of Kosovo from Serbia. Throughout this series I will discuss issues of tribalism and globalism, religion and multi-culturalism, order and liberty. But at the heart of this discussion will be the notion of sovereignty. This will raise two questions that I will do my best to answer: what legitimates a state and what are the effects of undermining a sovereign state by means of 'humanitarian,' international intervention? Below is the first part of this series.

The nation state is dead. Multinational corporations and international organizations are the primary actors in today’s global system. The nation state is dead because it is no longer needed. The European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the United Nations (UN) have filled the function that the nation state used to perform.

People everywhere are fundamentally the same. We are all consumers of the same products: we all drink Pepsi, eat pizza, wear Levi’s, and listen to U2. These shared desires lead to shared norms and values. Because we share the same norms and values we can coexist under the same global governing institutions.

This is the story of globalization that we are told. And to a great degree it is true, especially as it pertains to the west. When I travel to Western Europe or Australia I am no longer surprised that members of my generation eat the same foods, listen to the same music, watch the same movies, wear the same clothes, and in turn share many of the same values. I am not even surprised to hear that we watched the same cartoons growing up and played with many of the same toys. And really why should this be surprising? America, Western and Central Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: the area commonly known as the west came out of a common culture (the Roman Empire, its German successors, and their colonies). This commonwealth shared a language (Latin), values (Christian), literature, artistic heritage, education system, and progressed through the same schools of philosophical thought. Because of these shared values and history, the growing interconnectedness of globalization within the west should come as little surprise and with few complications. In a world of shared values boundaries and distinctions are not necessary.

But what of Eastern Europe? What of the Balkan region? Their history is different than that of the west. They did not grow out of a common culture. Being at the crossroads of east and west they were constantly fought over, conquered, and divided in various ways by succeeding kingdoms and empires. There was no unifying religion. Instead the natives were subjugated and enslaved by a foreign religion.

In a region that lacks shared values and history globalization takes on different forms. It does not create unity; rather it reawakens and strengthens tribal identities. Nationalism unites differing tribes into a greater whole, while tribalism rips the nation state apart into warring sub-factions.

No where is tribalism more apparent today than in the Balkan region. With the breakdown of communism in the region the diverging tribes have broken away from Yugoslavia into new states formed along ethnic majoritarian lines. The west has ratified this movement in the name of simple majoritarian rule, or as they call it, democracy. The most recent example of this is the declaration of independence by the Albanian Muslims of the Kosovo region from Serbia. Analysis of this schism will be the topic of this paper.

The recognition of this rogue state by the west was an unmitigated mistake. Simple majority opinion should not be the legitimator of a state. Rather, legitimacy should be grounded in historical rights of a state over a region. And all states should have the power to maintain the integrity of those boarders.

There are two reasons why legitimacy should be grounded in historical rights and not the rights of a constantly fluctuating majority. First, the traditional nation state has a better record of protecting individual rights than any other institution man has devised. Second, nation states as they have developed since 1648 are far greater defenders of order than the rule of the simply majority of a region. And order is necessary for liberty to flourish. Because a paper of this length, by necessity, must be limited in scope, I will restrict my analysis to the latter reason.

My goal in this paper is to question the seemingly unquestionable. I will not take for granted the values that are taken for granted. I will have a bias, like Howard Zinn has in A People’s History of the United States, if only to restore a sense of balance. At the core of this paper will be the notion that what we take to be our common understanding lacks understanding.

Popular opinion assumes that the Serbs are the ones to blame in this conflict. I say that they are in the right and the Albanians are to blame. It is common to assume that religion is dead. I say it is alive and the main motivator for many. Many assume that simple majoritarian based democracy is the legitimator of the state. I say it can undermine our freedom by allowing the spread of terrorism and that it at times is so manipulated as to have no value at all. The unquestioned goal of the west, lead by the United States is to spread freedom. I say order creates liberty and that liberty cannot create order nor can it be sustained without it. In view of this truth our objective should be to create global order and not liberty. We assume we are free of our history, makers of our destiny. I say history plays a far greater role in our lives than we often recognize. The common understanding of the Serbian-Albanian conflict is that there was genocide against the Albanians by the Serbs. I say this was a masterpiece of manipulation and propaganda and in fact the only genocide in the region was carried out (and is continuing to be carried out) against the Serbs by the Albanians. Finally it is nearly an uncontested fact that it was good for the west to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990’s just as it is good that the west supports Kosovo’s recent bid for independence. I say that intervention made the situation far worse and our continued support will have unforeseen and devastating consequences.

To put the current crisis in conflict, I will begin with a general historical overview of the Kosovo region. Recognizing the central importance of the NATO campaign of 1999 to situation as it stands today, I will next proceed to consider in more detail the civil war of the 1990’s and NATO’s involvement in the conflict, as well as the consequences of intervention. I will then look specifically at the 2008 split of Serbia and consider its effects on the global order in general and then particularly for the United States. Finally, I will conclude by showing why western intervention in the area was misguided and why historical rights and not majoritarian rights should constitute the legitimacy of the state.