http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/irina_filatova/2008/02/the_kosovo_preced ent.html
GUARDIAN (UK) COMMENT IS FREE The Kosovo precedent Irina Filatova The claim being made by many Russians and Serbians that the independence of Kosovo will explode the EU or even Europe itself, appear overblown to most in the west. But the intensity of opposition to Kosovo's independence in Serbia and Russia is such that it would be a mistake to ignore it. This opposition among the Russians is practically unanimous. From the nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky to the communist Gennady Ziuganov to even Nikita Belykh, leader of the Union of Right Forces, a crumbling but consistent defender of liberal values in Russia - all support the official line of Putin's government. The Russian foreign ministry states that Kosovo's independence could lead to a new conflict on the Balkans; that the way it has been introduced violates a host of international laws, the statutes and the resolutions of the UN and of its security council; and that it could result in many serious consequences for international stability. What is it that unites Russians, from left to right, behind this stand? Russian political commentators believe that the "unilateral" proclamation of Kosovo's independence and its immediate recognition by the US and by the heavyweights of the EU create a precedent for many separatist movements all over the world, from the Basques in Spain to the Uighurs in China, and that multiple conflicts could flare up with new vigour, having received such an impetus. Many think that Russia would use this situation to recognise the break-away Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and perhaps even Transdnistria, a break-away part of Moldova. Many Russians warn that the creation of a Muslim state in the middle of Europe will strengthen the position of Muslim minorities and of Islam in Europe generally. They also point to the role of Kosovars - even under Nato control - in drug and people trafficking in Europe. The Americans and Europeans may think that they will be able to cope with this problem better in an independent Kosovo, but the Russians do not believe this. For many Russians, the issue is hugely emotional: Russia, which stood intransigently for Serbia's integrity has been simply ignored, yet again, despite its growing economic strength and role in the world. This increases nostalgia for the Soviet era and the belief that Putin is right: Russia is under siege. If Serbia, an independent state whose status and territorial integrity is supposed to be guaranteed by UN resolutions and international agreements, can be partitioned like this, flagrantly against its will, who and what can guarantee that Russia - or any other state, for that matter - will not suffer the same fate if the US decides that it doesn't like its internal policy and if it cannot not defend itself? Even if one accepts that Serbia committed abominable atrocities in Kosovo - which few Russians do - this happened under Milosevic. How can Serbia, which became a democratic country headed by a pro-western government, be held responsible for that? What pains the Serbs most, of course, is the fact that Kosovo has never been a colony, or a conquered country. It was, indeed, the territory where Serbian statehood came into existence and developed and which was then lost to what originally was an Albanian minority. The Russians support this sentiment: how would the British feel if in 20 or 30 years Windsor, for example, proclaimed its independence on the grounds that the majority of its population was now Muslim and if the US decided to support this claim? The Americans say that Kosovo is not a precedent, that it is a once-off exception. It is difficult to believe this. If a nation wants to secede and to create it own statehood, there is little what any government can do, except keep it by force. As we know, using force to keep secessionists at bay can go on for centuries, as long as outside major powers do not intervene, and such an intervention seems unlikely elsewhere in Europe at present. The independence of Kosovo is useful to the US in order to show the world that America is not anti-Muslim, merely anti-rogue states, some of which happen to be Muslim - and because it thinks that Nato and its peacekeepers would control the situation in an independent Kosovo better than it could until now. But they would not support the Basques or the Walloons, or the Kurds, let alone the Transdnestrians. Nor would they support the Abkhasians and the South Ossetians, of course. On the other hand, if Russia decided to recognise these break-away republics, and if Georgia decided to oppose this (which it would) then the Americans would, of course, support Georgia, and Russia might, indeed, face a conflict with the west. Kosovo's independence is not going to explode Europe, but it has already exploded many of the assumptions on which our modern system of international relations is based. It could create major problems for the UN security council or simply make it redundant. And it is likely to make Russia re-examine with fresh determination its military strength vis à vis the US, at least in specific regional contexts. This would be a very dangerous development, indeed, first and foremost for Russia itself. [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:letters%40guardian.co.uk> __._,_.___
