The Kosovo Crisis (Part Five), What Happened

In violation of international law, on February 15th, 2008 Kosovo made its final break with Serbia, declaring itself to be an independent, sovereign nation. This has opened the door for bold experimentation in nation building. But as support for independence was ratified by only a few and these few alone will rebuild Kosovo, the question of who constitutes the international community arises.

In response to this the European Union has sent in an army of technocrats to transform this new country root-and branch. They are dedicated to a sustained, long term commitment to “nation-building.” This is truly a bold endeavor, to build a model European democracy, almost from scratch.

The question must be asked, is this nothing more than colonialism under a new guise? Will Kosovo become a more convenient place for the cheap labor and goods that the West lives off of? And what will happen to Kosovo if the people resist this movement?

The EU will have sweeping executive powers over Kosovo. It will have the right to veto the elected government if it deviates from the Brussels-approved reform path. And it will have the power to intervene directly in Kosovo's internal affairs. Of course no one should worry that this power will be misused. According to one official "Our executive power will be put in a box. The box will be locked, it will be put in a safe and the safe will be locked. The EU mission's executive power to intervene in Kosovo will be used only as a last resort."

Yet our recent history is full of misguided, benevolent, and often condescending involvement by the Western powers in the internal affairs of other nations, always, of course, for the good of these other nations. Consider how the United States, after winning the Spanish-American War, took it upon itself to guide Cuba. They drafted a constitution for Cuba and forced the Cuban government to accept and sign it under the watch of its military. This constitution allowed the United States to intervene in Cuba’s government on behalf of the people of Cuba. This power, it was said, would of course probably never be used, but it had to be reserved for emergencies. The basic idea underlying this right to intervene was that the United States government and not the Cuban government knew what was best for the Cuban people. It was out of pure goodness that the United States must take it upon itself to intervene in the internal affairs of Cuba, for who else would protect the Cubans from themselves?

The United States did use this right on a number of occasions, and even when they did not use it, the mere threat of it did in fact modify Cuban behavior. Contrary to what they said, the US did not intervene on behalf of the Cuban people, but time and again on behalf of Western business interests. This led to great popular resentment against the United States that culminated in the Castro revolution.

Intervention has unintended consequences. The European Union may have good intentions (as, perhaps, the United States had at one point as well). However the fact that one has good intentions does not mean they will be perceived as such. And the pressure by corporations to protect Western interests in the region may corrupt the good intentions of the EU. Often the pressure to take a certain course of actions is so great that one, feeling they have no other choice, deludes themselves into thinking that what they are doing is good and really on the behalf of another, when really the good is strictly for oneself.

Is this involvement designed to free an area from Russian influence and open it up for the investment of Western capital? Will this become a source of cheap goods produced by Western controlled factories to compete with, and to some degree, offset the power of China? Is this in fact neo-colonialism? Only time will tell. The EU may have truly humanitarian intentions for involvement but it will be difficult to hold unto these ideals when corporations pressure them to open up the region. And even if they maintain these good motives, the people of Kosovo may not perceive them as such and in fact quickly tire of Western meddling in their affairs. Despite themselves the EU may create a hostile power at their doorstep just as the United States has done with Cuba.

It is said that this declaration of independence and the nation building that will now follow was done with the backing of the international community. But Russia, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Romania, Spain, India, and much of Africa have refused to recognize Kosovo. If countries that refuse to recognize it more than double those that have, this begs the question, what is the international community? Is it merely the US and parts of the EU? Why were these select nations so quick to recognize Kosovo? Could it be that they did so because they believe it to be in their best interest? This new state owes its existence to the West and will be built to a great degree by the west; doesn’t this too raise the specter of neo-colonialism? How can the West resist creating a state in its own interest? The West did not earn this power, it was not invited to help mold a new state. Rather they forced themselves in through their brutal bombing raids of 1999.

A select group of nations intervened in a domestic dispute in the Balkans. This select group of nations allowed Kosovo to break free of Serbian control and in turn ratified this independence. This group says the new state is legitimate because it has the support of the international community, but they themselves, the original interventionalists constitute the international community. How can this community claim to have any legitimacy? Or is the fact of the matter that it needs no legitimacy because it wields greater power than its foes?

The fact is that Kosovo’s independence was declared in direct defiance to of prevailing international law. In The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Chart of the United Nations, the General Assembly in 1970 adopted by consensus the following elaboration on the Charter:

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs or any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Without the backing of the Western powers Kosovo could not have broken away from Serbia. The Western powers intervened first in 1999 in the bombing of Serbia and again now in 2008 in their support of Kosovo’s actions. In both cases they intervened directly in the internal affairs of a state in violation of international law. Yet, they claim legitimacy because they have the backing of the international community. It must be asked what type of rule of law we have for the international system if simple, temporal select opinion can undermine order and law and bring about radical change.

Next, UN Security Council Resolution 1244 recognizes Kosovo as a sovereign part of Serbia. Russian opposition ensures that this resolution is not going to change any time soon. Not only was general international law disregarded, but this specific law as well.

Finally, in bombing Serbia in 1999 (the occurrence of which is a significant factor in Serbia’s acceptance of Kosovo’s independence) NATO violated its own charter. NATO was founded to be defensive, not offensive and no member states were under threat. All the fighting took place in Serbia. Yet for the first time in its fifty year history NATO used its power offensively against the Serbs.

There is a way to change laws. If we disregard laws we cannot change lawfully, what is the point of having law at all? Laws are created to bring about order. If they cannot bring order, something else must fill that void. The so called international order has pushed aside the law and replaced the law with itself as the keeper of international order. But as was shown before, their involvement in Kosovo thus far has done far more to destroy order than to create it.