KOSOVO
Squaring off for the wrong fight http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif By <http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=By%20Humphrey%20Hawksley&sort=publicationdate&submit=Search> Humphrey Hawksley Published: November 8, 2007 http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif <http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/08/opinion/edhumph.php> PRISTINA, Kosovo: It's almost nine years since NATO air strikes freed Kosovar Albanians from Serbian control, yet the official status of the province is still undecided. A deadline of Dec. 10 has been set for the diplomatic process to deliver. It's expected to fail, after which Kosovo's semi-autonomous government says it will make a unilateral declaration of independence. While Kosovo was a defining issue of post-Cold War global leadership, there is now a gaping silence from all global powers - except Russia - on an acceptable way forward. Kosovo's two million citizens interpret this as a signal that the United States and much of Europe would support its independence. Kosovo, therefore, is in danger of falling victim to the type of opaque diplomacy that has been behind some of the gravest global conflicts. One of the more recent is Saddam Hussein's belief that the United States would not object to Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Too much is at stake for international policy to be misread again. The West must declare clearly what it will or will not do if Kosovo declares independence, and it must avoid enveloping Kosovo in a clash with Russia Since the NATO intervention in 1999, the United Nations has administered Kosovo. Stability remains underwritten by a 16,000-strong international force, and apart from a surge of anti-Serb unrest in 2004 and sporadic ethnic attacks, Kosovo is seen as an intervention success story. In January, the UN special envoy, Martti Ahtisaari, put forward proposals that would allow Kosovo official separation from Serbia. He deliberately avoided using words such as "independence" or "sovereignty." The new nation would be monitored by the European Union and the international military force would stay. In many respects, it would be similar to the status quo. Serbia rejected the proposals, saying it would never accept Kosovo's separation. Russia gave this its full support. Serbia insists that it should not be punished for the atrocities of a former dictator. The brutality of the 1990s was carried out under the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, they say; Serbia is now a democracy and the issue should end there. Russia's blunt declaration, however, has taken the question of Kosovo's status to a higher level. What began as a humanitarian mission to stop ethnic-cleansing has become part of a new balance of power in Europe. Kosovo's future is linked to the Czech and Polish missile defense-shield dispute, energy supplies, and a basket of issues on which a revitalized Kremlin is testing the will of the European Union and the United States. Should Kosovo declare independence, it would almost certainly not be recognized by the UN because of a veto by Russia in the Security Council. The entire EU is unlikely to accept Kosovo's independence because of opposition from governments in Greece, Cyprus, Romania and others. Without UN or EU recognition, the new Kosovo might have less legitimacy than the present one. Opinion polls have found that more and more Serbs are questioning where their future lies. At present, they are split 50-50 between Russia and the EU. But, increasingly, Moscow is seen to be delivering more than Brussels, particularly by way of security and a sense of belonging. A new illegal Serb militia group is reported to be mobilizing to protect Kosovo's 100,000 Serbs, should independence be declared. It calls itself Tsar Lazar after the hero of an epic Serbian poem about reclaiming Kosovo. In Kosovo itself, the banned Albanian National Army recruits members to fight the Serb militia. What's new is that one of these insurgent groups believes their ultimate backer is Moscow, and the other Washington. Ironically though, both Kosovo and Serbia are embryonic democracies, with an immediate goal to join the EU. That alone would make sovereignty increasingly irrelevant. Kosovo's argument that it cannot clear the litter and fix the roads without independence is nonsense. It is, in essence, facing the choice of whether it wants to resemble the bloodied Palestinian territories or glittering Taiwan. Serbia, too, must decide whether it wants to end up as a client state of an authoritarian Russia or sign on to the democratic values entrenched within the European Union. It is time for politicians in both Serbia and Kosovo to lead their people away from the contentious issue of independence. The West must also send an unequivocal message that the way forward is to deliver not nationalistic symbolism but good governance. The legitimacy of both Serbia and Kosovo will come not from their ability to protect historical legends, but to provide health, education and a thriving economy for their citizens. Humphrey Hawksley is a BBC correspondent and the author, most recently, of "The History Book." Reprinted with permission from YaleGlobal. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/08/opinion/edhumph.php
<<image001.gif>>
