Tweet
QUESTIONS ON KOSOVO
by Nikolas K. Gvosdev
The National Interest Online, DC
March 21 2007
We need a honest, open and reasoned debate on the future status
of Kosovo.
No solution or proposal should escape detailed and close scrutiny. We
need no repeats of the run-up to the Iraq War, with its rosy
predictions about cakewalks and being greeted as liberators and how
Iraqi oil income would pay for reconstruction.
We know the many drawbacks of plans which fall short of granting the
province full independence-with one of the major objections being the
right of self-determination. Fair enough. None of the plans for any
sort of confederal state, maximum autonomy or even something along
the model of the Aland Islands are cost free, particularly because
they would have to be imposed on a population that wants independence.
But those who argue for independence must also answer a few hard
questions.
The first is to explain why they are so confident why a local
government that under UN and NATO supervision has been unable to crack
down on crime and human trafficking or to provide adequate guarantees
for the ethnic minorities of the province will somehow be much more
effective if independence is granted. I don't buy the argument that
the province's "undefined status" prevents effective governance. Case
in point: Taiwan.
"Standards before status" was a good policy to have adopted and should
still remain the guiding principle. And as we have seen in East Timor,
granting independence is not a panacea and does not in and of itself
guarantee stability.
"Conditional" independence is problematic because once granted I don't
see the EU or NATO going back in to retake control should things not
work out. So I think we have a right to see something more concrete
than statements about how things will get better if only independence
is to be granted.
The second is why Kosovo sets no precedent. Forget whether or not the
Russians are going to recognize Abkhazia or Ossetia in retaliation. I
can't see the U.S. government-particularly the Congress-prepared
to extend the formal guarantees to other countries (and separatist
regions) about Kosovo not setting any precedent. Already the first
rumblings among some conservatives has begun about Taiwan not really
being a part of China, Shanghai communique be damned! Can a U.S.
president send a letter to Hu Jintao that publicly affirms no Kosovo
precedent for Taiwan? A similar resolution about Nagorno-Karabakh
getting past Speaker Nancy Pelosi? (By the way, the official
representation office of the unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh Republic
has this to say on its website:
Since its decade-old independence, NKR has enjoyed all attributes
and institutions of statehood. Indeed, Karabakh's de facto statehood
fully satisfies the requirements of conventional and customary
international laws for de-jure recognition. Since its decade-old
independence, NKR has enjoyed all attributes and institutions of
statehood. Indeed, Karabakh's de facto statehood fully satisfies the
requirements of conventional and customary international laws for
de-jure recognition. . . .
The Nagorno Karabakh Republic appeals to the U.S. Congress to formally
recognize the right of its people to live free of external threats
and be masters of our own destiny. . . . We ask the United States to
welcome a new nation that truly embraces and stands unequivocally for
such universal values as freedom, democracy and equal justice under
law for all.
Because it will promote stability, peace and economic prosperity
for all peoples of the South Caucasus, formal recognition of the
independent Republic of Nagorno Karabakh is in interest of the
international community.
These arguments sound familiar, don't they?
Saying that Kosovo sets no precedent is not like a magic phrase that
if repeated three times (and accompanied by a clicking of the heels)
means that it is so. The Regnum News Agency is quoting unnamed sources
that a number of Middle Eastern countries in light of the Kosovo
precedent are preparing to recognize the Turkish Republic of North
Cyprus and that even the U.S. State Department may be considering such
a step by the end of 2007. On that latter point, I hope that that is
Levantian hot air and not seriously being considered at Foggy Bottom.
I understand the desire of many here in Washington to get Kosovo
"off" the agenda. Independence may end up being the best course of
action. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there is
an easy, cost-free solution.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article .aspx?id=13876
by Nikolas K. Gvosdev
The National Interest Online, DC
March 21 2007
We need a honest, open and reasoned debate on the future status
of Kosovo.
No solution or proposal should escape detailed and close scrutiny. We
need no repeats of the run-up to the Iraq War, with its rosy
predictions about cakewalks and being greeted as liberators and how
Iraqi oil income would pay for reconstruction.
We know the many drawbacks of plans which fall short of granting the
province full independence-with one of the major objections being the
right of self-determination. Fair enough. None of the plans for any
sort of confederal state, maximum autonomy or even something along
the model of the Aland Islands are cost free, particularly because
they would have to be imposed on a population that wants independence.
But those who argue for independence must also answer a few hard
questions.
The first is to explain why they are so confident why a local
government that under UN and NATO supervision has been unable to crack
down on crime and human trafficking or to provide adequate guarantees
for the ethnic minorities of the province will somehow be much more
effective if independence is granted. I don't buy the argument that
the province's "undefined status" prevents effective governance. Case
in point: Taiwan.
"Standards before status" was a good policy to have adopted and should
still remain the guiding principle. And as we have seen in East Timor,
granting independence is not a panacea and does not in and of itself
guarantee stability.
"Conditional" independence is problematic because once granted I don't
see the EU or NATO going back in to retake control should things not
work out. So I think we have a right to see something more concrete
than statements about how things will get better if only independence
is to be granted.
The second is why Kosovo sets no precedent. Forget whether or not the
Russians are going to recognize Abkhazia or Ossetia in retaliation. I
can't see the U.S. government-particularly the Congress-prepared
to extend the formal guarantees to other countries (and separatist
regions) about Kosovo not setting any precedent. Already the first
rumblings among some conservatives has begun about Taiwan not really
being a part of China, Shanghai communique be damned! Can a U.S.
president send a letter to Hu Jintao that publicly affirms no Kosovo
precedent for Taiwan? A similar resolution about Nagorno-Karabakh
getting past Speaker Nancy Pelosi? (By the way, the official
representation office of the unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh Republic
has this to say on its website:
Since its decade-old independence, NKR has enjoyed all attributes
and institutions of statehood. Indeed, Karabakh's de facto statehood
fully satisfies the requirements of conventional and customary
international laws for de-jure recognition. Since its decade-old
independence, NKR has enjoyed all attributes and institutions of
statehood. Indeed, Karabakh's de facto statehood fully satisfies the
requirements of conventional and customary international laws for
de-jure recognition. . . .
The Nagorno Karabakh Republic appeals to the U.S. Congress to formally
recognize the right of its people to live free of external threats
and be masters of our own destiny. . . . We ask the United States to
welcome a new nation that truly embraces and stands unequivocally for
such universal values as freedom, democracy and equal justice under
law for all.
Because it will promote stability, peace and economic prosperity
for all peoples of the South Caucasus, formal recognition of the
independent Republic of Nagorno Karabakh is in interest of the
international community.
These arguments sound familiar, don't they?
Saying that Kosovo sets no precedent is not like a magic phrase that
if repeated three times (and accompanied by a clicking of the heels)
means that it is so. The Regnum News Agency is quoting unnamed sources
that a number of Middle Eastern countries in light of the Kosovo
precedent are preparing to recognize the Turkish Republic of North
Cyprus and that even the U.S. State Department may be considering such
a step by the end of 2007. On that latter point, I hope that that is
Levantian hot air and not seriously being considered at Foggy Bottom.
I understand the desire of many here in Washington to get Kosovo
"off" the agenda. Independence may end up being the best course of
action. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there is
an easy, cost-free solution.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article .aspx?id=13876