According to the United States and other western powers, the ambiguous status of Kosovo is unsustainable and necessitates a more enduring solution. While dominated by an ethnic Albanian population, Kosovo is considered by Serbs to be their ancestral homeland, often drawing comparisons to the importance of Jerusalem to the Jews.
Although United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly reaffirms the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia, the great powers have decided to undermine the principles of Westphalia and international law by entertaining the possibility that Kosovo may in fact become an independent country.
In addition to local repercussions for the Balkans, the coerced severance of Kosovo from Serbia will also set dangerous precedents with regards to self-determination and secessionist movements around the world.
"We don't see any borders changing. It's dangerous to change borders, especially in a region like the Balkan region." Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the State Department, has repeated this statement several times since Kofi Annan announced the commencement of the Kosovo talks on Oct. 24 of last year.
At first glance, few would find any ambiguity or vagueness in Secretary Burns' statement. Nevertheless, the United States has simultaneously reaffirmed its position that all options, with regard to Kosovo, are on the table.
What, then, can we conclude from such contradictory assertions? It's difficult to say, since U.S. policy in the Balkans has been marked by an evident degree of inconsistency.
At first unprepared and confused by the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the U.S. was reluctant to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. Ultimately, influenced by Germany's unilateral decision to do so, the United States accepted the inevitable secession of these two republics and the fragmentation of Yugoslavia.
However, the U.S. was unwilling to recognize the independence of the Serb-dominated Krajina region of Croatia, Republika Srpska and the Croatian entity of Bosnia, while ignoring the issue of Kosovo altogether.
After the ethnic cleansing and forced expulsion of nearly 250,000 Serbs from Krajina, the region remained part of Croatia. Republika Srpska and the Croatian entity of Bosnia, under the auspices of the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord, remained part of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
According to U.S. and European officials, their primary objective was to end violence and bring about a resolution to the conflict. They argued that if Serbs were granted independence in Krajina and Republika Srpska and Croats were allowed to secede from Bosnia, this would trigger other minorities scattered throughout the Balkans to make similar demands. Fine.
However, the United States and various European countries have failed to implement this very logic regarding Kosovo. The principles of the Bosnia solution must hold true for Kosovo. How can one argue against the ethnic partition of Bosnia while supporting the ethnic partition of Serbia - that is, the independence of Kosovo?
Kosovo must remain a multiethnic and highly autonomous province within Serbia for several important reasons. Although many argue that Kosovo should be given independence as compensation for the crimes committed by Serbia's former dictator Slobodan Milosevic, this line of reasoning may seem odd to anyone even remotely familiar with the history of Kosovo and the events of Mar. 17, 2004.
On this day, Albanian militants and rioters in Kosovo killed dozens of local Serbs, destroyed thousands of Serb homes and burned over 100 sacred Orthodox Christian Churches, some of them nearly 1,000 years old.
By granting Kosovo independence, the international community will be rewarding the Kosovo Albanians for the death of 2,500 Serbs and the expulsion of nearly 300,000 others since 1999.
The consolidation of democracy in Serbia has been unsteady since the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. Although most institutions, including the government and the presidency, remain in the hands of pro-Western politicians favoring EU and NATO integration, their grip on power is insecure and their popularity seems to be declining. The Serbian Radical Party is now the largest party in the country.
Many Serbs, already distraught by the difficulties of transition, are declaring that if their historical and religious homeland of Kosovo is formally seized they will lose faith in the pro-Western parties, turning to the Radicals in the process.
This would be extremely detrimental to not only peace and democracy in Serbia, but peace in the Balkans as a whole. The Serbian Radical Party is openly aggressive in nature, refusing to recognize both Croatia and Bosnia, and is willing to take up arms in its struggle to annex Republika Srpska and Krajina.
Apart from Serb minorities in both Croatia and Bosnia, significant minorities of other peoples exist in several other Balkan countries. Albanians are the most obvious example. In addition to numbering 1.8 million in Kosovo, nearly two million ethnic Albanians are present in northern Greece, southern Montenegro and Macedonia.
Hungarians are a large minority in Serbia's northern province of Vojvodina and in Romanian's Transylvania region. In Bulgaria, it is estimated that there are several hundred thousand Turks left over from the days of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, if Kosovo is granted independence, should the same right to self-determination be extended to each of these groups as well?
Peace, democracy and the future stability of the entire Balkan region are all contingent upon the successful resolution of the Kosovo question. My knowledge and understanding of the Balkans, coupled with my frequent visits to the former Yugoslavia, lead me to the conclusion that Kosovo must remain a multiethnic province within a democratic Serbia.
In addition to Balkan conflict and volatility, the implications of an independent Kosovo extent far beyond the borders of Southeastern Europe. Under such principles, Kurdistan, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kashmir, Chechnya and dozens of other territories around the globe should be granted independence.
The forceful severance of Kosovo from Serbia would violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, rendering the United Nations and international law useless and avoidable.
In an era of globalization and at a time when the EU has declared its inevitable enlargement into the Balkans, why create yet another border in a "borderless Europe?" Little or no experience with democratic institutions and self-rule, an inability or unwillingness to protect a dwindling Serb minority, a per capita GDP comparable to that of Haiti, 70 percent unemployment and the lawlessness posed by local mafia drug lords make the prospect of Kosovo becoming a failed state in the heart of Europe quite high.
To ensure peace and maintain a consistent and equitable policy in the Balkans, the international community must find a solution for Kosovo within the confines of its own precedents.
