By recognizing an independent Kosovo the Western powers have validated separatist movements, legitimized the use of terror as a means of achieving independence, legitimized ethnic cleansing, and subverted true democracy in the name of radical, majoritarian democracy. These things, taken together, have done much to undermine domestic and international order. Liberty cannot stand without order and it may be lost if disorder continues to grow unchecked.
The recent decision by the Western powers to recognize Kosovo will serve to delegitimize the international order and create more internal conflicts of this sort. In fact regions with aspirations of independence of their own are already using the Kosovo declaration as a potential precedent for them.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commenting on the dissolution of Serbia said, “We are talking here of the disruption of all the basic fundamentals of international law in Europe.” According to Lavrov “this disruption will undermine the basics of security in Europe and will inevitably result in a chain reaction in many parts of the world, including Europe and elsewhere.” That chain reaction is already apparent.
South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoyty has said: "Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have more political and legal grounds for their independence than Kosovo... we can clearly see a policy of double standards."
Mehmet Ali Talat too, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, said “I salute the independence of Kosovo. No people can be forced to live under the rule of another.”
A spokesman for the Basque regional government said Kosovo serves a good lesson and Yevgeny Shevchuk, the chairman of the breakaway Transdniester region of Moldova declared that “a new era started and a new system of international relations was formed the moment part of a country decided to live independently” and successfully gained recognition. Many worry that the Palestinians will follow the Kosovo example and promptly declare an independent Palestinian state.
Shlomo Avineri contradicts this theory. Writing from Jerusalem, she states many of these analogies go too far. She writes that every movement is unique and doesn’t think many separatists, including the Palestinians, can successfully use the Kosovo precedent. She does, however, find one group that is in the exact same situation, the Kurds. She says they are an ethnic minority with a distinct culture that has suffered under brutal Arab regimes. So close are the situations between the two groups that she concludes that it is “difficult, on moral and political grounds, to support the independence of Kosovo while opposing the same rights for Iraqi Kurdistan.”
The Russian foreign minister correctly predicted what effect Kosovo’s independence would have on worldwide separatist movements: it encourages them and serves as model for them. But the legitimation of separatist movements undermines global order.
It is a basic tenant of law that law must be predictable so that actors may know to what code of norms they must conform their behavior. If violent separatist movements are not recognized there is no reason why others would imitate their behavior. If however, a group like the Albanian Kosovars are recognized, every separatist movement has reason to try to violently rebel in the hope that the great powers will decide they are in the right and legitimize (and protect) their independence. Delegitimating the nation-state by preventing it from maintaining its sovereign boarders legitimizes rebellion and encourages disorder. Liberty cannot flourish in disorder. By recognizing the Kosovo bid for independence the world has not only imperiled its safety by encouraging violent rebellion, but in undermining order it has undermined liberty.
It is true, as Shevchuk said, we have entered a new era. But this is not a good thing. By entering this new era we have undermined an international order that has brought unprecedented prosperity to the world since 1945. The binding principles of this system are the sovereign equality of states, the respect for their territorial integrity, and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders. We are exchanging a tried and true model for prosperity for a chaotic, untested model.
Recognizing the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia legitimizes the doctrine of imposing solutions to ethnic conflicts. It legitimizes the act of unilateral secession by a provincial or other non-state actor. It transforms the right to self-determination into an avowed right to independence. It legitimizes the forced partition of internationally recognized, sovereign states. This taken together violates the commitment to the peaceful and consensual resolution of disputes in Europe and it supplies any ethnic or religious group that has a grievance against its capital with a playbook on how to achieve its ends. Instead of consensus building, the EU is imposing solutions that leave many dissatisfied. This does nothing to legitimize the international system and an illegitimate system is an unstable system.
In an area where ethnic, religious, and tribal identities are strong and violent, is it such a good idea to legitimate these feelings and create a new nation based on those lines? What if Albanians from neighboring nations demand the right to succeed and join their kinsmen in Kosovo? On what grounds do we oppose them? The inviolability of boarders? What if enclaves of the Serbian majority in Kosovo secede and call on Serbia to protect them? Would the West go to war against Serbia to maintain the territorial integrity of Kosovo after they destroyed the territorial integrity of Serbia? Already the autonomous Serb Republic of Srpska in the Bosnia is talking secession and unification with Serbia. On what grounds would we deny them? This region, to say nothing of other global separatist movements, is rife with confusion and disorder. We have created a precedent of which others may imitate. Their imitation will create further confusion and disorder.
Groups in Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, southern Thailand, and northern Sri Lanka, like the Albanians of Kosovo, use terrorism in their demands for independence. Terrorism cannot be rewarded with an independent state. For in rewarding terrorists we legitimate their methods. Legitimating violence only encourages the use of further violence in order to attain one’s demands. The effects of increased terrorism are obvious enough.
Further, every action has an equal counter reaction. Increased terrorism and its recognition is what brought Vladimir Putin to power in Russia. The involvement of NATO in the Serbian civil war legitimated the notion that brute force alone decides secession struggles. This led the Russians to desire a forceful leader. Neither terrorism nor its response is conducive to liberty and order.
The solution to the Kosovo crisis further undermines order by giving victory to the forces of ethnic cleansing. It is true that the Serbs were not perfect, but the Kosovars started the killing in their revolt against a sovereign country and drove out between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs. In the past eight years 1,248 non-Albanians have been killed, with many more kidnapped, now presumed dead. 151 spiritual and cultural monuments in Kosovo have been destroyed by Albanians and 213 mosques built with money from Saudi Arabia. Eighty per cent of graveyards have been destroyed or desecrated, with no response from the international community. The Albanians have turned Christian graveyards into car parks, playgrounds and rubbish dumps. Anything relating to Serbia or Christianity libraries, public records, books, names of places and even towns have been wiped out. This behavior is unacceptable and we legitimate it at our own peril.
The West’s involvement in Kosovo undermined order by making people less trustful of outside actors. Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post sees Kosovo as a stark warning for Israel. She criticizes the 2004 road map for empowering the US, EU, Russia, and the UN to serve as the judges of Israel. In the event of a conflict, what is to stop these powers from intervening, as they did in Serbia, and prevent Israel from exercising sovereignty over its territory? For NATO did not seek to prevent violence, but rather simply enable Kosovo to gain independence. What is to stop something similar from happening in Israel? That is why Israel should not trust these powers. The international order has been deeply delegitimated.
Having an ethnic majority in a region is not sufficient to disintegrate a country by force. This principle, which seems to be a main principle behind the West’s recognition of Kosovo, would too lead to the destruction of global order. If that was the case, what would stop areas of the south-west United States that contain Latino majorities from seceding? Or what would stop continual Muslim immigration into London and Paris from gaining a majority and declaring themselves to be an independent state? This radical democracy cannot serve as the basis for sovereignty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment