nationalinterest.org 
<https://nationalinterest.org/feature/kosovo-precedent-still-haunting-nato-200771>
  


The Kosovo Precedent Is Still Haunting NATO


by Ted Galen Carpenter

7-8 minutes

  _____  

In his February 22, 2022, television address to the nation on the growing 
crisis in Ukraine, President Joe Biden expressed outrage at Russia’s actions. 
The previous day, Vladimir Putin’s government had recognized two secessionist 
regions in Ukraine—Donetsk and Luhansk—as independent states 
<https://www.dw.com/en/russia-recognizes-independence-of-ukraine-separatist-regions/a-60861963>
 . He also announced the deployment of Russian peacekeeping troops to those 
territories. “Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives them the right to 
declare new so-called countries on territory that belong to his neighbors?” 
Biden railed. “This is a flagrant violation of international law.”

It was a valid complaint. However, one must ask: How is Russia’s action 
different from what the United States and its NATO allies did to Serbia in 
1999? In that case, an alliance that was supposedly created for purely 
defensive purposes launched an offensive, seventy-eight-day air war 
<https://www.amazon.com/NATO-Dangerous-Ted-Galen-Carpenter/dp/1948647613/ref=sr_1_1?crid=376IU9KZ9VRBC&keywords=ted+galen+carpenter&qid=1645569085&s=books&sprefix=Ted+Galen+%2Cstripbooks%2C89&sr=1-1>
  against a country that had not even arguably committed an aggressive act 
against any NATO member. At the end of that assault, which killed hundreds of 
Serb civilians and devastated the country’s infrastructure, NATO leaders forced 
Slobodan Milosevic’s government to relinquish control of Serbia’s Kosovo 
province to international control. That transfer was made under a fig-leaf 
resolution the UN Security Council passed despite Moscow’s misgivings and 
reluctance. UN (predominantly NATO) “peacekeepers” moved in to enforce the 
alliance’s diktat—much as Russian “peacekeepers” have now deployed to Donetsk 
and Luhansk to enforce the Kremlin’s orders.

The parallels between the two events should make current Western leaders more 
than a little squeamish. NATO’s violations of international law did not end 
with an aggressive war, the administrative amputation of Kosovo from Serbia, 
and the deployment of occupation forces. Nine years later, Western powers 
engaged in a brazenly cynical maneuver to grant Kosovo full independence. 
Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but such a move 
would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security 
Council (UNSC). Washington and an ad hoc coalition of most European Union 
countries brazenly bypassed the UNSC and approved Pristina’s independence 
declaration. 

Russia’s leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West’s unauthorized 
action established a dangerous, destabilizing precedent in international 
affairs. Washington dismissed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo 
situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. 
Nicholas Burns made that argument explicitly 
<https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/us/rm/2008/100976.htm>  in a February 2008 State 
Department briefing. Because the situation was unique, he insisted, the West’s 
Kosovo policy set no precedent 
<http://edsworld365.blogspot.com/2008/02/kosovo-is-unique-us-state-dept.html>  
regarding other ethnic secessionist situations. Both the hubris and illogic of 
the U.S. position were breathtaking.

The Western powers soon discovered that merely saying their actions in Kosovo 
established no precedent did not make it so. Russia demonstrated that point 
just a few months later. The Kremlin exploited a military clash with Georgia to 
reinforce the secession of two Georgian regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, 
and ratify Russia’s de facto control over both entities. George W. Bush’s 
administration condemned the Kremlin’s actions, as did Washington’s NATO allies 
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia7> . But just as 
Russia was not in a position to do much about NATO’s conduct in Kosovo, the 
Western powers (short of initiating a war against Russia) could do little about 
Moscow’s meddling in Georgia.

The Kosovo precedent haunted the United States again in 2014 when the Kremlin 
boosted its military presence on the Crimea Peninsula and used it to 
“supervise” a referendum in which Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine. That 
step was a prelude to Russia’s annexation of the peninsula. Washington reacted 
with even greater anger than it had following Moscow’s amputation of Georgia’s 
territories. At a press conference, President Barack Obama fumed 
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-west-cannot-allow-russia-redraw-borders-the-barrel-gun>
  that Russia could not be allowed to redraw “the borders of Europe at the 
barrel of a gun.” He did not bother to explain how the United States and NATO 
had not done that with Kosovo, nor did the usual sycophantic members of the 
news media bother to ask. 

Now, with the Kremlin’s moves regarding Donetsk and Luhansk, the Kosovo 
precedent has come back to haunt Washington and its NATO allies a third time. 
Even the argument that Kosovo’s majority Albanian population wanted to separate 
from Serbia and that Belgrade’s heavy-handed treatment of the province 
justified NATO’s intervention puts proponents on a slippery slope. Russian 
officials could use similar rationales to justify their actions in eastern 
Ukraine.

There is little doubt that many (probably most) inhabitants of Donetsk and 
Luhansk resent the pro-Western regime in Kyiv and do not want to live under its 
control. The rebellion that began nearly eight years ago might not have 
survived without Russian military support, but sentiment for the rebellion was 
real and extensive. Ukraine’s eastern region differs from the western portion 
of the country in terms of language, religion, and economics. The primary 
language of the inhabitants in the east is Russian instead of Ukrainian, their 
religion is Eastern Orthodox instead of Roman Catholic, and their economy 
emphasizes heavy industry with extensive trade ties to Russia instead of light 
industry with primary trade ties to Central and Western Europe. 

Those differences were creating serious tensions for years 
<https://www.amazon.com/Frontline-Ukraine-Borderlands-Richard-Sakwa-ebook/dp/B07PBLPJGH/ref=sr_1_4?crid=14KP800WWHVB1&keywords=richard+sakwa&qid=1645569312&s=books&sprefix=%2Cstripbooks%2C82&sr=1-4>
 . It is no coincidence that the two regions were the bastion of political 
support for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russia president elected in 2010. 
Eastern Ukrainians deeply resented the pro-Western demonstrators in Kyiv who 
illegally overthrew his government—with more than a little support from the 
United States and several European Union governments. The ongoing rebellion in 
Donetsk and Luhansk soon followed.

One can make a plausible case that secession (and even a subsequent merger with 
Russia, a la Crimea) is reasonable for those two regions. However, the 
Kremlin’s current moves do further undermine international law and destabilize 
the global system. 

The international community needs to adopt a consistent set of rules for such 
situations. Washington and other NATO capitals cannot insist on rigorous 
respect for the territorial integrity of countries and the sanctity of borders 
when it suits Western policy but embrace the opposite standard whenever that 
position suits Western policy. In their handling of the Kosovo question, the 
NATO powers did exactly that, and the brazen hypocrisy keeps coming back to 
haunt them.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at 
the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the 
author of twelve books and more than 950 articles on international affairs. 

Image 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#/media/File:F16_SCANG_InFlight.jpg>
 : Wikipedia. 

 

-- 
http:www.antic.org
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"SERBIAN NEWS NETWORK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/senet/125301d82bbb%245c774a30%241565de90%24%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to