January 31, 2008
By John Bolton, Lawrence Eagleburger and Peter Rodman - The Bush
administration has indicated its readiness to recognize a unilateral
declaration of independence by ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, a province of
the Republic of Serbia that since 1999 has been under United Nations
administration and NATO military control.
Such a declaration may take place as early as February. American
recognition would be over Serbia's objections, without a negotiated
solution between Serbia and Kosovo's Albanians, and without modification
by the United Nations Security Council of Resolution 1244, which
reaffirms Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo while providing for the
province's "substantial autonomy." U.S. recognition may be
joined by that of some members of the European Union, which has been
under heavy diplomatic pressure from Washington, though several EU
states and a number of countries outside Europe have said they would
reject such actio n.
Attempting to impose a settlement on Serbia would be a direct challenge
to the Russian Federation, which opposes any Kosovo settlement not
accepted by Belgrade.
We believe an imposed settlement of the Kosovo question and seeking to
partition Serbia's sovereign territory without its consent is not in the
interest of the United States. The blithe assumption of American policy
â? that the mere passage of nine years of relative quiet would be
enough to lull Serbia and Russia into reversing their positions on a
conflict that goes back centuries â? has proven to be naive in the
extreme.
We believe U.S. policy on Kosovo must be re-examined without delay, and
we urge the Bush administration to make it clear that pending the
results of such re-examination it would withhold recognition of a Kosovo
independence declaration and discourage Kosovo's Albanians from taking
that step.
Current U.S. policy relies on the unconvincing claim that Kosovo is
"unique" a nd would set no precedent for other troublespots.
Of course every conflict has unique characteristics. However, ethnic and
religious minorities in other countries already are signaling their
intention to follow a Kosovo example. This includes sizeable Albanian
communities in adjoining areas of southern Serbia, Montenegro, and
especially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as well as the
Serbian portion of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Recognition of Kosovo's independence without Serbia's consent would set
a precedent with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for many
other regions of the world. The Kosovo model already has been cited by
supporters of the Basque separatist movement in Spain and the
Turkish-controlled area of northern Cyprus. Neither the Security Council
nor any other international body has the power or authority to impose a
change of any country's borders.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current policy is the
dismissive attitude displaye d toward Russia's objections. Whatever
disagreements the United States may have with Moscow on other issues,
and there are many, the United States should not prompt an unnecessary
crisis in U.S.-Russia relations. There are urgent matters regarding
which the United States must work with Russia, including Iran's nuclear
intentions and North Korea's nuclear capability. Such cooperation would
be undercut by American action to neutralize Moscow's legitimate
concerns regarding Kosovo.
If the U.S. moves forward with recognizing Kosovo, Moscow's passivity
cannot be taken for granted. It may have been one thing in 1999 for the
United States and NATO to take action against Yugoslavia over the
objections of a weak Russia.
Today, it would be unwise to dismiss Russia's willingness and ability to
assist Serbia. On an issue of minor importance to the United States, is
this a useful expenditure of significant political capital with Russia?
Our Kosovo policy is hardly less p roblematic for our friends and allies
in Europe. While some European countries, notably members of the EU, may
feel themselves obligated to join us in recognizing Kosovo's
independence, a number of those countries would do so reluctantly
because of Washington's inflexibility and insistence. No more than the
United States, Europe would not benefit from an avoidable confrontation
with Russia.
Even if Kosovo declared itself an independent state, it would be a
dysfunctional one and a ward of the international community for the
indefinite future. Corruption and organized crime are rampant. The
economy, aside from international largesse and criminal activities, is
nonviable. Law enforcement, integrity of the courts, protection of
persons and property, and other prerequisites for statehood are
practically nonexistent. While these failures are often blamed on
Kosovo's uncertain status, a unilateral declaration of independence
recognized by some countries and rejected by many others would hardly
remedy that fact.
The result would be a new "frozen conflict," with Kosovo's
status still unresolved. The risk of renewed violence would further
impede Kosovo's development. Moreover, heightened tensions might require
reinforcing the U.S. presence in Kosovo when we can least afford it due
to other commitments.
Serbia has made great strides in democratic development and economic
revitalization since the fall of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic.
Current policy with respect to Kosovo risks complete reversal of these
gains. Faced with a choice between Western partnership and defense of
their sovereign territory and constitution, there is little doubt what
Serbia would decide.
The current positive trend could falter in the face of political
radicalization and possible internal destabilization. Serbia's relations
with countries that had recognized Kosovo would be impaired. Serbia
would inevitably move closer to Russia as its only protector.
W e do not underestimate the difficulty and complexity of the Kosovo
question nor do we suggest the status quo can endure indefinitely. As
with thorny questions elsewhere, viable and enduring settlements should
result from negotiation and compromise. Such an outcome has been
undermined by a U.S. promise to the Kosovo Albanians that their demands
will be satisfied if they remain adamant and no agreement is reached
with Belgrade. Such a promise cannot be justified by the claim, often
heard from proponents of independence, that the Albanians'
"patience" is running out, so independence must be granted
without delay. This is nothing less than appeasing a threat of violence.
A reassessment of America's Kosovo policy is long overdue. We hope a
policy that would set a very dangerous international precedent can still
be averted if that reassessment begins now. In the meantime, it is
imperative that no unwarranted or hasty action be taken that would turn
what is now a relatively small problem into a large one.
John Bolton is former permanent U.S. representative to the United
Nations. Lawrence Eagleburger is former U.S. secretary of state. Peter
Rodman is former assistant secretary of defense for international
security affairs.