http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=97797
TURKISH DAILY NEWS OPINION The Kosovo dilemma Saturday, March 1, 2008 If widely applied, the principle of self-determination would lead to the fragmentation of countries, leading to many more countries than are on the current list of 200 Andrew VORKINK The saying "What goes around, comes around" sums up the dilemma the international community faces from Kosovo's declaration of independence. While many countries are sympathetic to the Kosovars because of the atrocities they suffered under Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 and before, the core of the issue is whether this sympathy should translate into the creation of a new state or instead into a degree of autonomy while still remaining part of Serbia.One of the great tensions in international law and relations is between two fundamental principles - self-determination for ethnic, religious or national peoples versus territorial integrity. Self-determination as a concept stemmed from United States President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, announced near the end of World War I as a basis for international relations after the war. Self-determination vs. stable borders: Although originally aimed at colonial peoples, the concept was abused between the World Wars, including by Hitler in annexing territory in other countries where the population was largely Germanic. As a result, at the birth of the United Nations at the end of World War II, self-determination was affirmed for colonial peoples but the principle of territorial integrity, or stable borders, was firmly enshrined as a main way to assure world peace and security in the future. The tension between self-determination and stable borders has been most evident in the past sixty years related to secessionist movements within countries claiming self-determination is an international principle that supports the independence of a province, minority or area within a larger country. As there are very few countries that do not have minority groups within them, if widely applied, self-determination would lead to the fragmentation of countries into many more nations than are on the current list of 200. Thus, self-determination outside of the independence of former colonies has very rarely led to the creation of new states since the founding of the U.N. The alternative has usually been to interpret the principle as allowing minorities to have a greater voice and autonomy within the larger state in which they exist, but not to permit independence. Kosovo's declaration of independence, recognized by several large members of the EU such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as well as the U.S. and Turkey, tests the current practice of not allowing the creation of new states other than in very exceptional circumstances. Other than Bangladesh, which split from Pakistan, and Eritrea, which separated from Ethiopia, the break-up of Yugoslavia is one of the few examples of new nations being accepted internationally as a result of gains on the battlefield (the break-up of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia being voluntary dissolutions). Does Kosovo represent another exception to international law, or does it create a new precedent? This is no small issue, as international law thrives on practice and if there is enough practice on an issue, practice can turn into a new custom and thus a new rule of international law. If Kosovo's independence is a new precedent, the implications could be alarming for world peace, ironically, especially for those countries that have recognized Kosovo as a new state - the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq is an example. That is why those countries that have opposed recognizing Kosovo such as Spain, Russia and China are nervous. Think of independence claims by Basques, Chechens and Tibetans in those countries. The argument for Kosovo being an exception to international practice stems from the special character of Kosovo under a U.N. administration leftover from the break-up of the Yugoslav republics and rests on humanitarian grounds to prevent ethnic cleansing forever against the Kosovars. It is contended that once the U.N. Security Council permitted the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to administer Kosovo pending a political solution, independence was a foreseeable option and thus implicitly accepted by U.N. members due to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis caused by Yugoslavia in Kosovo and the need for peace and security in the area. Contradicting this line of reason is the clear statement in the 1999 Security Council Resolution created by UNMIK that reaffirmed the commitment of all U.N. members to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. A precedent or an exception?: How Kosovo's independence is finally resolved has enormous implications for international relations well beyond the Kosovo conflict itself. If Kosovo is seen as an expansion of the concept of self-determination, it could destabilize many countries by encouraging separationist movements within them. Even if Kosovo is ultimately viewed as an exception on humanitarian grounds and as a unique follow-up to the break-up of Yugoslavia and the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, one unsettled question still remains. If the minority Serbs within Kosovo, who largely live near the border with Serbia, ask for secession from Kosovo and merge with Serbia, can they be denied on humanitarian grounds? Andrew Vorkink is a visiting professor at Bogaziçi University, Istanbul.
