The Future of Kosovo

It was a busy weekend for Kosovo related business. On Saturday, following talks with Italy's Prime Minister Romano Prodi, George Bush expressed his administration's support for a quick resolution of Kosovo's status despite Serbian and Russian opposition. The next day, Serbia's Prime Minister was in Moscow getting guarantees from Vladimir Putin that Russia would indeed veto any UN Security Council Resolution that would pave the way for Kosovo to become independent. The guarantees were duly given as Russia, which until a few months ago was non-committal about its policy towards Kosovo, expressly rejected the idea that any solution could be imposed without Belgrade's consent. Bush then arrived in Tirana and reiterated his support for Kosovo's independence.

There are several problems with these developments. Belgrade's stance, expressed today, that the status of Kosovo is in the hands on the UN and not the US shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation multiplied by wishful thinking. With such wide ranging support within the EU for Kosovo's independence, a US recognition of an independent Kosovo would be followed by the EU (despite the fact that not all EU states are favourable to this - flashback to 1991-2) and probably a number of other nations around the world, giving Kosovo enough legitimacy and leaving Serbia between the rock and the hard place. Does it tacitly accept the situation while continuing to claim sovereignty? Does Belgrade severe ties with those that have infringed upon its sovereignty? The most unlikely option is one of using force, but Belgrade still had the capacity to create trouble in Northern Kosovo, which could in turn declare independence. This is far from a satisfactory resolution. And it seems to me that the US has not thought this one through.

The current problem is a US creation. Not in the sense that the US created the Kosovo problem itself (I think that we can all agree where that came from), but its push for a speedy resolution of the status will lead to further instability in the Balkans. Frustration with the potential for further negotiations is understadable but rushing might lead to further conflict. Secondly, the US is undermining the basis of the international society - sovereignty. While this contested concept has changed since the early 1990s, it nevertheless continues to be the building block of relations between states. Already the idea that the UNSC had the power to change territorial boundaries is a serious challenge to the system. The idea that one should begin to recognize territorial entities seriously challenges previously accepted approaches to the problem of self-determination. And it creates a precedent. And despite claims to contrary. This is why developments in Kosovo are closely watched by Transdnietria, Abkhazia and other break-away territories.

There is another interesting question. What about China? It has remained quiet and Belgrade, in another sign of the political immaturity that continued to reign there has not courted it to the extent that it should. Because if abuses of human rights are a basis for self-determination, China should be worried and could be as natural an ally as Moscow is.

Grand Strategy - further reading

Unit 2.9 seems to have generated a lot of discussion on the meaning of grand strategy. I wonder whether the thrust of the discussion would have been different had the question read "Are the setbacks for the West in the Third World during this period best explained on their own terms, or as part of a Soviet strategy?", dropping the grand part of it. Most of the students seem to have taken the view that the "grand strategy" in question needed to cover the Cold War as a whole, rather than just the Third World, which made for some interesting debate, as well as some racing analogies.

Having failed miserably to post in WebCT for the past 2 1/2 hours - the system does not allow me to - I thought I should point those of you interested in taking the debate further to Paul Kennedy's Grand Strategies in War and Peace. You can find an excerpt on Amazon.com.

How does his definition fit with your understanding of the term?