Kosovo and Sri Lanka: Internal Dissension Leads to External Intervention

March 4th, 2008

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

Former Thomian chaplain Rev.L.J.B. Fernando had a penchant for pithy comments during his short sermons. “Independence means in dependence of God ” was one.

I am reminded of this line as Kosovo made its unilateral declaration of Independence on Feb 17th. Has Kosovo truly gained independence ? or is it in actual terms,” in dependence” of the powerful West?

In short is Kosovo an Independent, sovereign state or a protectorate that is virtually a western puppet?

The finest illustration of Kosovo’s true status lies in the declaration of independence proclamation read out by Kosovan Prime Minister Hacim Thaci.

After announcing “The independence of Kosovo marks the end of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia,” Premier Thaci went on to proclaim that Kosovo was now an “independent and sovereign state” that “reflects the will of our people”

But he qualified this “independence” by saying , that this was in “full accordance with the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement.”

[Martti Ahtisaari-file pic]

What is the Ahtisaari plan for Kosovo?

The Former Finnish president and UN special envoy Martii Ahtisaari had submitted his plan for “supervised” independence for Kosovo in March 2007. This was opposed by Serbia and Russia.

Although Ahtisaari’s proposal was withdrawn, it provided a draft timetable for Kosovo independence . This plan was given pride of place in the independence declaration.

What role did the Ahtisaari plan play in Kosovo independence?

The UN Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999 had ordered the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces and the handing over of Kosovo to the control of the UN Security Council and its military mission, KFOR.

Resolution 1244 made no mention of independence for Kosovo and Article 10 authorises only “substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” and deployment “under United Nations auspices

After engineering the fall of Milosevic in 2000 the US had been pushing for Kosovo independence for its own strategic reasons.

This was outside the scope of the UN resolution.Russia being a permanent member of the UN security council was the fly in the ointment. It blocked independence moves for Kosovo.

The US won the support of Europe’s important states and began using the European Union as an instrument for bypassing the Security Council pushing for limited independence for Kosovo .The terms were to be on the basis of the UN plan drawn up by Martti Ahtisaari.

Against this backdrop it is manifestly clear that the Ahtisaari plan defines the terms of Kosovo independence. Ahtisaari’s name transpires eight times in the twenty - seven paragraph independence declaration.

These include -

* We accept fully the obligations for Kosovo contained in the Ahtisaari Plan, and welcome the framework it proposes to guide Kosovo in the years ahead.

* The Constitution shall incorporate all relevant principles of the Ahtisaari Plan.

* We invite and welcome an international civilian presence to supervise our implementation of the Ahtisaari Plan, and a European Union-led rule of law mission.

* We also invite and welcome the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to retain the leadership role of the international military presence in Kosovo and to implement responsibilities assigned to it under UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Ahtisaari Plan, until such time as Kosovo institutions are capable of assuming these responsibilities

* Kosovo shall have its international borders as set forth in Annex VIII of the Ahtisaari Plan,

The conclusive last paragraph says “We hereby affirm, clearly, specifically, and irrevocably, that Kosovo shall be legally bound to comply with the provisions contained in this Declaration, including, especially, the obligations for it under the Ahtisaari Plan.”

Defining this dependence on the Ahtisaari plan for Kosovar independence is the preamble of Ahtisaari’s plan itself.

The plan stated that it “will take precedence over all other legal provisions in Kosovo” and detailed how a “future international presence” would l enforce them. Many of its provisions are already in force.

The Ahtisaari plan stated that Kosovo will have “an open market economy with free competition” and will “establish with the European Commission, and in close cooperation with the International Monetary Fund, a fiscal surveillance mechanism.”

Ahtisaari’s plan also demanded further privatisation of publicly owned enterprises (POEs) and socially owned enterprises (SOEs) by the Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA).

Already, the KTA has sold off hundreds of POEs and SOEs. Many workers have been fired or laid off , and corruption is rampant in this “privatisation” process.

The Ahtisaari plan also outlined the structure of Kosovo institutions, where members of the “international community” would be “active” participants.sitting in them.

There will be a 21-member Commission to draft a constitution and a Constitutional Court composed of nine judges, three of whom will be appointed by the president of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Kosovo Judicial Council will have 13 members, 2 of whom will be from the “international community” and oversee the appointment of judges.

A new Kosovo Security Force (KSF) will be established consisting of no more than 2,500 lightly armed active members and 800 reserve members whose main job will be restricted to crisis response and civil protection.

Acting as Kosovo “imperial viceroy” will be an International Civilian Representative (ICR), who will also be the EU Special Representative (EUSR).

The ICR will be appointed by an International Steering Group (ISG) comprising France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, European Commission, NATO and Russia. The ISG will have sole power to decide when the ICR’s work is done.

Two days before Kosovo declared independence, Pieter Feith, a former political advisor to NATO in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was appointed ICR/EUSR and Fletcher Burton, former US consul general in Leipzig, Germany, was appointed his deputy.

The ICR has powers to enforce the Ahtisaari plan, including the authority to overturn laws adopted by Kosovo authorities and ratify the appointment of public officials and remove them.

In addition, the ICR will appoint directly certain state officials including the auditor-general, the director-general of the Customs Service, the director of tax administration, the director of the Treasury, and the managing director of the Central Banking Authority of Kosovo.

Also the Kosovo Assembly cannot formally approve the Constitution until the ICR has certified it.

The Ahtisaari plan also called for a European Security and Defence Policy Mission now created as the Eulex mission to “monitor, mentor and advise on all areas related to the rule of law” and a NATO-led International Military Presence (IMP), which will absorb the 16,000 NATO troops currently in Kosovo.

Ominously the IMP has the power to “use all necessary force where required and without further sanction, interference or permission.”

The plan also dictates the structure and powers of municipalities, educational institutes and the police force.

This then is the crux of “independence” gained by Kosovo.

[”The Blue backround symbolizes Hope, the map symbolizes the territory of newborn State of Kosova, and the six stars on the flag of newborn State of Kosova symbolize the six largest ethnic groups.”]

The terms laid out in the Ahtisaari plan and its servile endorsement by the new Kosovo regime leaves no doubt whatsoever that independence for Kosovo means dependence on the West.

Thanks to the hectic events of the last quarter of the previous century , we in Sri Lanka have been made painfully aware that internal dissension inevitably leads to external intervention.

Such intervention however benign it may be is not for altruistic purposes alone.This lesson is being re-iterated for us through the disintegration of Yugoslavia and Kosovo “independence”.

Be it the global superpower or the regional power all powerful nations act primarily in their best interests. At times there is a congruence of interests between these states and other entities in particular instances.

These are often cited as justification for intervention. The truth however is that these are a convergence rather than an identity of interests.

Kosovo has been recognized by 22 states so far. These include the USA and some powerful European nations like Germany, France and Britain.

The creation of Independent Kosovo has caused much controversy.

The principle of self - determination has been allowed to override norms of national sovereignty.

Serbian sovereignty has been flagrantly violated.

The irony in this is that the fledgling state of Kosovo too is affected. It has neither genuine independence nor effective sovereignty.

The independence of Kosovo cannot be viewed in isolation. It has to be perceived as the last stage of a process that has been underway from the last decade of the 20th century.

Balkanization is a phrase used to describe fragmentation of states. It is derived from the history of the Balkan region. Now history repeats itself as we see the balkanisation of Yugoslavia before our eyes.

Kosovo is but the seventh new state to emerge out of the old Yugoslavia. Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia - Herzegrovina, Montenegro and now Kosovo are the seven sisters.

The birth of independent Kosovo is but the culmination of the process of dismantling Yugoslavia.

The break -up of Yugoslavia is due to a combination of internal and external factors. As is the case in such instances , “internal” reasons are used to justify “external” intervention.

Internal reasons particularly the majoritarian chauvinism of Serbia are basically responsible for the dis- integration of Yugoslavia. But it cannot be denied that this dis-integrative process was enhanced and expedited through external forces.

The horrible phenomenon of ethnic cleansing provided the rationale for humanitarian intervention. Yet there are other regions too where circumstances warrant humanitarian intervention.

In this case the moral force of humanitarian intervention to prevent further ethnic cleansing was bound with strategic considerations too. Thus Kosovo is perhaps the final phase in dismantling Yugoslavia.

Post second world war Yugoslavia was a showpiece model for a modern. multi - national state. A key element in gluing the country together was the principle of ethno - federalism.

Whatever his fault in other respects the visionary leadership of Tito helped preserve this unity.

This unity was made possible through increased self - rule for the non - Serb nationalities on the one hand and the containment of Serbian hegemonism on the other.

After Tito, there was a vacuum in which Serbian chauvinism gained dominance. Of course it must be said that chauvinism was not a serb monopoly alone.

Once Serbian hegemonism began to assert itself and the autonomy enjoyed by other nationalities suffered erosion, divisive tendencies became inevitable. With external agencies exploiting these divisions the de - stabilisation of Yugoslavia became inevitable.

Paradoxically the stability of Yugoslavia was guaranteed during the period of the cold war between USA and USSR. Both the United States and the former Soviet Union shared joint concern in maintaing Yugoslavia as a neutral oasis of stability then.

Things began to change after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war.

One reason for Yugoslavia’s downfall was its declining economy.Excessive borrowing from the West and the imposition of IMF conditions exacerbated the crisis. In 1984 the USA’s Reagan administration adopted “shock theraphy” recommendations to push Yugoslavia towards capitalism.

The powerful Yugoslavian communist party began to pursue a neo -liberal agenda. This in turn led to a weakening of Communist party influence and the rise of fissiaparous , chauvinist tendencies.Ethnic tensions aggravated.

[Kosovo Independence celebrated in Times Square, New York City in Feb]

There also emerged a strategic shift in the USA’s perceived interests and objectives in the region. While it was in US interests to maintain a stable, neutral Yugoslavia during the cold war period it was no longer the case in a post Soviet Union era.

Policy makers in Washinton felt that a dissolution of Yugoslavia was necessary to promote and foster US and allied western interests further in Europe.

Bringing the Balkans under its sphere of influence is regarded as important for US and Western strategic benefit. For this Yugoslavia had to disintegrate. The secession of Kosovo was the grand finale.

Interestingly relations between the US and other European powers like Germany are of a mixed nature. The intrusion and omnipotence of USA into a European “backyard” is resented at one level.

Strategically , there is alliance and association with the US on this Yugoslavian project. There is a necessity for these European powers like Germany to build up its own influence in the Balkans alone and by aligning with the USA.

Germany has been a strategic partner with the USA in this 21st century Balkanization. Both Germany and the USA secretly trained, financed and armed the Kosovo Liberation Army.

By dismantling Yugoslavia and establishing close relations with the new Nations (except perhaps Serbia) both the USA and Germany have increased their clout and importance. This is seen as necessary to balance and check a resurgent Russia.

Kosovo is the jewel in a Balkan crown. The Balkans in general and Kosovo in particular constitute an important access route to the Black sea and the energy resources of the Caspian lake basin. Gas and Oil pipelines are to be constructed by passing Russia. Kosovo is of vital importance in this.

Apart from this the economically under - developed Kosovo has vast reserves of lead, tin, gold and brown coal. These will be ruthlessly exploited in an “independent” Kosovo.

There is also the military dimension. US military bases under NATO auspice in the Balkan states and East Europe form part of Washington’s containment strategy in surrounding Russia.

There was a time when the NATO was ridiculed as “No Action Talk Only”. In recent times the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has become the cover/cutting edge of expanding US interests in Europe.

Defence projects like ” anti - missile shields” are being set up. Rocket silos in Poland and Slovenia,a radar complex in the Czech republic, are but some of these. Ukraine is being enticed to join NATO.

In this respect Kosovo has one of the largest US (NATO) bases on its soil. Camp Bondesteel near Ferizaj/Urosevac is 955 acres in extent with a defence perimeter of nine miles.

It houses about 7000 US security personnel. There are allegations about it being used like in Guantanamo to “intensively interrogate” terrorist suspects.

Further NATO/US military expansion in Kosovo is very likely in the future.. After all Kosovo is a protectorate and has to be protected!

Thus Kosovo is “independent” by name only and is a mere pawn in the geo - politic chess game of the big powers.

Internal dissension leads to external intervention. This is the simple lesson for Kosovo and Sri Lanka

Tamil Translation of this article:

கொசோவோவும் இலங்கையும் : உள்ளக முரண்பாடுகள் புறச்சக்திகளின் தலையீடுகளுக்கு வழிகோலும்

Entry Filed under: transCurrents