The Hindu Business Line : Challenges posed by Kosovo’s declaration of independence

Ethnically diverse but unified states are confronted with the challenge of how to deal with the unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovo region of Serbia. The differences over Kosovo also reflect tensions between Russia, on the one hand, and the EU and the US on the other, over access to the former Soviet Union’s oil resources, says G. PARTHASARATHY

Pluralistic states, still grappling with problems of strengthening national unity, while recognising and cherishing religious, ethnic and cultural diversities, are now confronted with the challenge of how to deal with the unilateral declaration of independence of the Muslim majority Kosovo region of Serbia.

Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia since the 12th century, with the invading Ottomans defeating the outnumbered Serbs in the epic battle of Kosovo in 1389, before Kosovo was eventually incorporated in the Ottoman Empire in 1455. Ottoman rule, which was finally ended in 1912, resulted in a steady influx of Albanian Muslims, with the Muslims ultimately becoming a majority in the 19th century.

Following the Nazi depredations of World War II, Kosovo became an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of Serbia, as a member of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. Throughout the 20th century the relationship between the Serbs and the Albanians in Kosovo remained tense and marked by violence.

With the collapse and disintegration of Socialist Yugoslavia in the 1990s, tensions in the Balkans rose and the Clinton Administration joined the European Union in “demonising’ Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, who was dubbed as a “new Hitler”. What followed was 78 days of relentless bombing of Serbia by the US in 1999, following which Kosovo was placed under a transitional UN Administration, under UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

NATO-EU protectorate

The UN Resolution reaffirmed “the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, of which the Federal Republic of Serbia was the Successor State. It also established a requirement that the post conflict constitutional process must take full account of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Serbia.

In practical terms, however, Kosovo became a NATO-EU protectorate with the deployment of NATO forces and EU administrators to run the region. The dangers of appointing European politicians, especially from monolithic Scandinavian countries, with no experience of problems of reconciling the imperatives of national unity with the demands of minorities became evident yet again, when the UN appointed Mediator and former President of Finland, Mr Marti Ahtissari delivered a draft proposal to the UN, for “supervised independence” for Kosovo, in total disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This plan was referred to a three member group comprising former US Envoy to India Frank Wisner, Russian Representative Alexander Khuchenko and EU Envoy Wolfgang Ischinger.

This “Troika” failed to agree on the future status of Kosovo, with the Russians refusing to countenance any end of Serbian sovereignty. More seriously, the Russians believe, not without good reason, that the Americans and their NATO allies see developments in Kosovo as a part of larger strategy of “containment” of Russia, through the expansion of NATO all along Russia’s borders and even by tacitly backing separatism in Chechnya and elsewhere in Russia.

In a larger perspective, differences over Kosovo also reflect tensions between Russia, on the one hand, and the EU and the US on the other, over access to the oil resources of the former Soviet Union.

US interests

Despite its so-called declaration of independence, Kosovo is set to remain a protectorate of the European Union, administered by over 2000 EU officials and its security ensured by a large NATO troop presence. This is perhaps what Mr Ahtisarri envisaged, when he spoke of “supervised independence”. It has been noted that such “independence” enables the Americans to maintain a strategic military base at “Camp Bondsteel’ in the breakaway region- the largest American military base to come up in Europe over the last generation.

Moreover, the Americans appear to have plans through “AMBO” — the Albania, Macedonia, Bulgarian Oil Corporation registered in the US — to build a trans-Balkans oil pipeline. This pipeline, bypassing Russia, will bring oil from the Caspian Sea to terminals in Georgia and then by tanker through the Black Sea to the Bulgarian port of Burgas and then relay it through Macedonia to the Albanian port of Vlora, for shipment to refineries in Rotterdam and the US West Coast.

An astute observer recently noted: “Clinton’s war against Yugoslavia and pro-Albania (stance) was thus crucial to secure Vlora’s strategic location”. Both Clinton’s Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly have longstanding links with the company that prepared the AMBO feasibility study for the oil transport corridor.

While the original feasibility study of the oil transportation corridor was prepared by Brown and Root Energy Services, a British subsidiary of American company Halliburton, the construction of “Camp Bondsteel” was undertaken by anther subsidiary of Halliburton Kellogg, Brown and Root.

Response of other states

Despite the haste with which the US and its major NATO allies UK, Germany and France have recognised the new separatist entry, there are serious differences within the EU about according recognition.

Countries like Spain, Cyprus, Greece and Rumania have expressed reservations about what has transpired. Individual EU countries have, therefore, been given the freedom to choose their own course of action.

Similarly, even though the Organisation of Islamic Conference has welcomed the declaration of independence, only a few Islamic countries like Albania and Turkey have thus far recognised the separatist entity.

In Africa where separatism is frowned upon, South Africa has called for further negotiations for a settlement acceptable to both Serbs and Albanians.

While Bangladesh has been cautious, Pakistan “supports the legitimate aspirations of the Kosovars” without yet according formal recognition. With the LTTE describing developments in Kosovo as a precedent for a “Tamil Eelam,” Sri Lanka has made it clear that it would not recognise the separatist entity. Within Asean, with the exception of Malaysia, other members have varying degrees of concern about developments in Kosovo, with Vietnam categorically opposing recognition.

Both India and China have reservations about events in Kosovo. New Delhi has spoken of the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States and expressed the belief that the issue should have been resolved through consultations and dialogue between the concerned parties. Dr Manmohan Singh’s Government seems to disregard the implications of such diplomatic obfuscation.

Separatists in Jammu and Kashmir are overjoyed, with Shabir Shah hailing “Kosovo’s Independence Struggle” and asserting that the day is “not far of when Kashmir will be free.” His compatriot Yasin Malik appeals to the “world community, especially the EU’ to play a “Kosovo like role to get the dispute in Kashmir settled”.

The Head of the US based, so called “Khalistan Affairs Centre”, Dr Amarjit Singh welcomes developments in Kosovo and proclaims that India’s views are coloured by the “aspirations of a number of ‘nations’ like Kashmir, Assam and Nagalim, in general, and Khalistan in particular”.

India is a pluralistic, secular country, which barely a generation ago faced the trauma of Partition, driven by religion. It has no option but to join Russia and other like-minded countries in denying legitimacy to separatism in Kosovo.

Warning the US about the consequences of what has happened in Kosovo, President Putin observed: “The Americans have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face”.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

More Stories on : Politics | Foreign Relations

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
SAARC: Pruning the negatives

Loan waiver: Cheer without fear

Impact of SAM on the auditor

Pyramid structure frowned upon

Challenges posed by Kosovo’s declaration of independence

Unfortunately, FRBM is not a fiscal transparency Act

Financial infrastructure + debt waiver = financial inclusion?

Loan waiver scheme