KOSOVO’S ‘INDEPENDENCE’ HAS SHUFFLED A WHOLE NEW DECK OF CARDS
Barcýn Yinanc
Turkish Daily News
Feb 27 2007
We are witnessing a new trend in international arena. If a region can
no longer be governed by a country due to its repressive policies and
aggression, the international community will not let that country go
with what it has done
The term, "the indivisible unity of our country" is rhetoric I have
not come across in other countries’ daily conversations. It reflects
Turkey’s sensitivity for the protection of the territorial integrity
of the country. Hence, I am curious about how the recent developments
on the future status of Kosovo will be perceived in Turkey.
The chief U.N. envoy to Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari, unveiled the plan
for the future status of Kosovo at the beginning of this month. Not
once does the plan use the word "independence." However, the general
feeling of the international media, academics and experts I have
talked to is that the plan opens the way for Kosovo’s independence.
Ahtisaari’s plan gives Kosovo many of the attributes of a sovereign
state while stopping short of independence. Under the former
Finnish president’s plan, Kosovo would gain the right to enter into
international agreements and join international organizations. It
would gain the trappings of a country, including a flag, an anthem,
a lightly armed security force and its own border guards.
The minorities, the majority of which consist of ethnic Serbs but
also include ethnic Turks, would enjoy special protection and would
be granted special rights.
Ankara’s view on Kosovo:
Dr. Michael Pravica, who wrote to us from the United States, seemed
resentful of the headline we used in the Turkish Daily News, "The
time has come for an independent Kosovo," to describe the latest
developments concerning the status of this province.
Pravica said regarding "the wholly illegal efforts to steal Kosovo away
from Serbia," he would be very interested in knowing "how Turks would
feel if the ‘international’ community recognized the ‘independence’ of
Kurds in eastern Turkey, allowing them to establish their own country."
Naturally, Pravica is not the only one to draw parallels. I presume
all the secessionist movements and those countries faced with these
challenges have their eyes on Kosovo.
Actually I was curious myself about Turkey’s stance on the future
status of Kosovo.
First of all, Turkey supports Ahtisaari’s plan. Furthermore, Ankara
believes U.N. Security Council resolution 1244, which blocks Kosovo’s
break away from Serbia, is to be replaced by a new one, in order to
facilitate the implementation of Ahtisaari’s plan.
Ankara is happy to see that the rights of ethnic Turks in Kosovo are
secured under the plan. However, this is not the only reason behind
Turkey’s support. According to Turkish diplomats I talked last week,
Ankara also backs the plan because of the general approval it has
received from the international community.
Nevertheless, the international community is far from being united.
Although there is a general consent to back the plan, the EU is indeed
divided on the issue and some key international players have diverging
views on how to proceed.
Armenians, Cypriots and Kurds:
Actually, the international community cannot reach an agreement on the
new Security Council resolution about Kosovo. According to Turkish
diplomatic sources, Russia, interestingly, wants the new resolution
to emphasize that it will set a precedent. No doubt it has in mind
analogous post-Soviet Russian enclaves like the Trans-Dniester, the
breakaway region of Moldova and other problematic areas like Abkhazia,
which seek independence from Georgia.
On the other hand, Romania, an ally of Moldova, fiercely opposes
Russia’s position. Apparently, China (because of Taiwan) and Spain
(because of the Bask region) are also against Kosovo setting a
precedent. This group also includes Greek Cyprus. Greek Cypriots
are obviously not very happy since it can set a precedent for the
Turkish Cypriots.
Another country that follows the developments in Kosovo is Armenia,
due to Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian region. Officially
part of Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh is described by Wikipedia as a
de facto independent republic.
Therefore, if you look from the perspective of Turkish Cypriots,
Kosovo sets a "preferable example" for Ankara. However, looking from
the perspective of Nagorno-Karabakh, where Turkey backs Azerbaijan,
Kosovo does not really set a "desirable example."
Hence, it is obvious that developments in Kosovo have caused a big
question – that of whether it will or should set a precedent for
other secessionist movements and breakaway regions.
America’s friends in the Balkans:
Wasn’t there any alternative to Ahtisaari’s plan? "Under the
circumstances he came with the best compromised solution," they told
me and U.N. sources familiar with Kosovo. Its success, they warned,
would depend on the full implementation, which has to be monitored
and supervised closely by the U.N. and the European Union.
The view of most of the experts on Kosovo is that there is no turning
back. The conviction that it’s no longer possible to convince Kosovar
Albanians to be content with the autonomy offered by Serbia is deeply
established within the international community. It seems nearly
impossible to convince Kosovar Albanians to live within Serbia,
after all the suffering they had at the hands of the Serbs.
Furthermore, an expectation for independence was prompted in Kosovo
thanks to the U.N. administration supported by NATO military forces
for the past seven-and-a-half years. My sources, who actually lived
in Kosovo during this period, point to the existence of a strategic
U.S. military base in Kosovo, and argue that Washington contributed
considerably to the hope among Kosovar Albanians that one day they
would become independent.
Indeed Kosovar Albanians have many American and British advisors.
Apparently, a fraternity bond seems to have established between Kosovar
Albanians and the United States and the latter is seen by the former
as their savior. Remember, it is with the American initiative under
Clinton administration that NATO began air strikes against Serbian
targets in March 1999.
And this all sounds quiet familiar when you think of Northern Iraq…
The new zeitgeist
The standard answer provided by diplomats to the question of
"wouldn’t the example of Kosovo encourage all the secessionist
movements throughout the world" is this:
"Every case is different and has its particular characteristics.
There is no rule that obliges that a formula of self determination
conceived for one particular case has to be implemented for all
other cases."
But it’s not that simple. My understanding is that we are witnessing
a new trend in international arena. If a region can no longer be
governed by a country due to its repressive policies and aggression
towards that region, the international community will not let that
country go with what it has done. Hence Serbs are paying a heavy
price for what they have done to Kosovar Albanians.
However, one should not undermine an important factor as far as Kosovo
is concerned. Many believe, that the independence of Kosovo will not
cause regional instability, although some disagree with this view,
asserting that it might have repercussions in Republika Srpska of
the Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina, and also in Macedonia.
That’s why experts warned that Kosovo should never be allowed to
unite with Albania.
After all, who said that there are no double standards in international
relations?..
–Boundary_(ID_RUjYX46 n8CV8DIDFtgzgvw)–