More on Kosovo

The following highly informative comment on the Philip Bowring piece on Kosovo is from John Whitbeck, an eminent lawyer in Jeddah who is a well-published commentator on matters touching the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio.

Somewhat surprisingly, it appears that only 17 of the EU's 27 members have any immediate plans to extend diplomatic recognition to Kosovo, while six have made clear that they will not do so under any circumstances. Spain and Slovakia have publicly branded Kosovo's UDI as "illegal under international law", and Romania has called it "an illegal act". As a matter of law, they are clearly correct. However, as a matter of practice (and not only in this context), it is always easier to adhere to principles when they coincide with one's self-interest or one's racial or religious affinities and loyalties. Slovakia has a large Hungarian minority which might think that a second independent Hungarian state would be nice. Spain has Basques and Catalans. Cyprus has the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Romania are all overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian countries, like Serbia.

Indeed, even the EU states that are recognizing Kosovo do not dispute that its unilateral declaration of independence, and their recognitions, violate international law. They simply argue that this is a special case which is worthy of an "exemption" from international law and which should not constitute a "precedent". (No one argues that proper behavior should not constitute a precedent.) Of course, such reasoning always risks constituting a "slippery slope". As I ... suggested ... some time ago, it is reasonable to believe that the "successful" illegal war launched by NATO against Serbia (viewed by many people whom I respect as morally justified even if admittedly illegal) greased the skids for -- and greatly facilitated -- the equally illegal but rather less "successful" war against Iraq. The only good thing that can be hoped for from that debacle (and it can be little comfort to the Iraqis) is that the catastrophic failure of that particular war of aggression and crime against peace, if recognized as such, will immunize the world against the temptation to indulge in similar crimes for at least a few decades.

NATO member states which attacked Serbia obviously have a vested, self-justificatory interest in recognizing an independent Kosovo. Some Muslim states may do so out of Muslim solidarity, and small island states in the Caribbean and the Pacific which sell diplomatic recognition for sums significant to their economies (and which "flip" between China and Taiwan at regular intervals) may do so as well. However, unless the United States engages in vigorous arm-twisting, I would be surprised if many other countries felt any incentive to bless a blatant violation of international law. The powerful may view international law with contempt, as an annoying constraint on the free and full exercise of their power, but the less powerful still tend to see it as offering them some degree of security and protection.

We shall see in the weeks and months ahead whether Kosovo eventually matches the 65 diplomatic recognitions achieved by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara), a member of the African Union (unlike Morocco, which occupies it) but not of the United Nations, or even the 108 recognitions achieved by the State of Palestine, a member of the League of Arab States with enhanced permanent observer status at the United Nations. Unlike Kosovo, their claims to freedom and independence are fully consistent with international law and even supported by advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice.

One thing is clear. Among these three peoples, all of whom have suffered greatly, the Kosovar Albanians have been vastly more fortunate in the West's attitudes toward their enemies, who, in all three cases, want their land but want it without them on it. The conditions of life of Kosovar Albanians during the past nine years of UN administration and NATO protection, free from the Serbian boot, have not been all that bad -- which should have raised the question why "well enough" could not have been "left alone" and this potentially toxic "non-precedent" avoided. The conditions of life of Palestinians and Sahrawis, whether in occupation or in refugee camps, have been indescribably appalling for decades -- and there will be absolutely no hope of improvement for them unless the West undergoes a moral and ethical transformation.