The Kosovo Precedent

In his comments on Kosovo's declaration of independence, Barack Obama said: "Kosovo's independence is a unique situation resulting from the irreparable rupture Slobodan Milosevic's actions caused; it is in no way a precedent for anyone else in the region or around the world." In response came a sneering and ignorant New York Sun editorial:

Among the lessons we've gained from a life of foreign corresponding are that wars have consequences —and that history has its ironies. As Kosovars danced in the streets in joy and kissed the nearest Americans and the United Nations wrung its hands, the son of the president who delivered the Chicken Kiev speech embraced change in the Balkans. And the echoes of the words of the 41st president against independence for the so-called Soviet so-called Socialist so-called Republics are coming from a Democratic presidential candidate aquiver at the prospect that some other downtrodden countries might take hope from Kosovo's example and seek to follow suit.

As Jonathan Kulick points out the "no precedent" line is the standard declarative policy of the United States and its purpose is to protect America's ally, Georgia, from the threat of Russian-backed secessionist groups in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Is it really the Sun's view that the embrace of freedom requires responsible presidential candidates to sign on for Vladimir Putin's geopolitical schemes? I assume not; most likely they were just going for a cheap hit and couldn't be bothered to check what was going on. Meanwhile do Palestinians count among the world's "downtrodden countries"?

Comments

Is it really the Sun's view that the embrace of freedom requires responsible presidential candidates to sign on for Vladimir Putin's geopolitical schemes?

As this is the NY Sun, consider the possibility that the editorial was written by a neocon hack who believes that chants of "Freedom!" dissolve national interest by magic. I'm not sure it makes sense to inquire to closely into someone's religious views.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2008 8:58 AM

I suspect there is an even better example of a place where we would not want to be encouraging separatist movements than Georgia.

Posted by DTM | February 20, 2008 9:00 AM

DTM,

I assume you mean Vermont.

Posted by vanya | February 20, 2008 9:03 AM

The point about Palestinians is a good one, since it is the most directly comparable with the Kosovo situation: absence of independence being caused by a neighboring country claiming historical ties to the territory.

Time magazine's quote of the day: "Kosovo is not better than us", from an advisor to Palestinian President Abbas, urging a unilateral declaration of independence. (I must say I've always been mystified why the Palestinians don't do this. Israel did it, and thus would have no cause to complain...).

Posted by Hans B | February 20, 2008 9:03 AM

lol this is very common in politics

Posted by sftco | February 20, 2008 9:04 AM

Is it really the Sun's view that the embrace of freedom requires responsible presidential candidates to sign on for Vladimir Putin's geopolitical schemes?

You mean Pooty-Poot?

I think it's safe to say that it's on the table.

Posted by dbt | February 20, 2008 9:08 AM

I am not sure if people in the US know this, but the matter of when a secessionist movement can issue a UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) actually went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The full text of one of the uestions is:
"Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self‑determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?"
The ultimate decision is that there is no right to secede under a strict legal interpretation, one cannot be ruled out in specific circumstances, depending on the conduct of the two parties leading up to the secession and the recogniton of other actors on the international stage.
So, I think that they are saying it should be on a case by case basis, and obviously the treatment that Kosovo has received since 1993 within the framework of Yugoslavia/Serbia has been such that they do qualify to issue a UDI (in my eyes at least)

Posted by Chris B | February 20, 2008 9:09 AM

Wait a minute, Matt- I thought that on your account Putin was basically a decent leader and that his interest in Georgia were perfectly legitimate. Are you changing your views? I certainly hope so.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 20, 2008 9:10 AM

And what's up with this bit of sneering from the Sun?

so-called Soviet so-called Socialist so-called Republics

Is the Sun some kind of neoTrotskyite paper claiming that the Soviet Union was illegitimate because all power was not, in fact, vested in the soviets, and that true socialism was not achieved? I mean, I got it when people mocked the German "Democratic" Republic, but since when have people on the right started claiming that the Soviet Union was insufficiently Soviet and insufficiently Socialist?

What a worthless paper, the mind boggles.

Posted by vanya | February 20, 2008 9:10 AM

Re Hans B

1. The reason why the Palestinians don't declare an independent state is very simple. If they did so, they would also have to declare what the borders of such a state are. Since the Palestinians claim that all of Palestine belongs to them, declaring the border between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel would legally be tantamount to forgoing their claims to all of Palestine.

2. If the Palestinians declared an independent state, then the State of Israel would be legally entitled under international law to declare that the launching of Qassem rockets and homicide bombers from that state is an act of war by one state against another and thus would be entitled to take any measures necessary to stop such attacks, just as the US would be entitled to do the same if rocket attacks and homicide bombers were being launched from Mexico.

Posted by SLC | February 20, 2008 9:15 AM

This is a huge deal here in Europe - with the Spanish not recognising Kosovo because they are worried about the impact on the Basques. Also, expect ethnic Serbs to try and carve out a bit of Bosnia.

Posted by DavidS | February 20, 2008 9:17 AM

Is the Sun some kind of neoTrotskyite paper

Well, it's an all-but-explicitly neocon paper, so, you know....People change their clothes, but not much else.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2008 9:18 AM

I suspect there is an even better example of a place where we would not want to be encouraging separatist movements than Georgia.

Hmm, is it time already for the annual invade Canada thread?
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/quebecblogging/

It is absolutely in the interest of the United States to encourage Quebec separatists. Divide and Conquer, people, it really works.

Posted by beowulf | February 20, 2008 9:21 AM

It is absolutely in the interest of the United States to encourage Quebec separatists.

Only for those wanting to lose Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, lured by the promise of good beer and the best strippers, er, bagels in North America.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 20, 2008 9:26 AM

The Reconquista movement is gearing up for the Southwest secession/reincorporation into Mexico.

Posted by Pan | February 20, 2008 9:34 AM

"Wait a minute, Matt- I thought that on your account Putin was basically a decent leader and that his interest in Georgia were perfectly legitimate. Are you changing your views? I certainly hope so.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 20, 2008 9:10 AM"

Yeah, his line on Russia is the weirdest part of his thought.

Posted by Reality Man | February 20, 2008 9:49 AM

Since Israel has never declared where its boundaries are, I don't see why the Palestinians would have to.

Posted by William Burns | February 20, 2008 9:50 AM

Communist propaganda was not without allusions to the sun ("Mao, you're the red sun of our hearts"). Once a Trotskyite (and fuck Hitchens and his "Trotskyist" bullshit) always a Trotskyite I guess. The same thing goes for the Weekly Standard and the early National Review.

Posted by Reality Man | February 20, 2008 9:56 AM

"bagels in North America"

There is a bagel gap between the US and Canada?

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | February 20, 2008 10:25 AM

Bagels AND smoked meats, at least if we're talking about Montreal.

Posted by pan | February 20, 2008 10:36 AM

Re SLC
The Palestinians claim the 1967 borders, i.e. all territory that is not explicitly claimed by Israel. We're not talking about "push the Jews into the sea" radicals here, but about Fatah. I think they'd be happy - and clever - to claim all of the West Bank before anyone else does.
And as for Israel responding to attacks, it already does. I'd say the opposite holds true: Israel would have a harder time legitimizing its building a wall within Palestinian territory, taking Palestinian land and water, judging Palestinian citizens for acts committed on Palestinian land, or striking Palestinian targets especially in the absence of provocation (as does happen).
Then again, Israel does keep a hold on the Golan Heights without anyone blinking an eye, so maybe Palestinian statehood would change nothing.

Posted by Hans B | February 20, 2008 10:44 AM

Sorry - just wouldn't happen. No way they'd trade being part of Red Sox Nation to having to root for the Blue Jays no matter how good the smoked meats and bagels are.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | February 20, 2008 10:49 AM

Independent Kurdistan, here we come!!!!!

For what its worth, is it really a good thing for an impoverished territory run by organized crime thugs and drug smugglers to be recognized as a nation? I guess Camp Bondsteel makes it all worth it.

Posted by An Outhouse | February 20, 2008 10:49 AM

Sorry - just wouldn't happen. No way they'd trade being part of Red Sox Nation to having to root for the Blue Jays no matter how good the smoked meats and bagels are.

Obviously not a Canadian:

Quebec *already* hates Toronto (as does most of the rest of the country).

Posted by McKingford | February 20, 2008 11:20 AM

The Russians and Serbs are right to be pissed about the recognition of Kosovo.

And the Palestinian analogy is for once a pretty good one.

the launching of Qassem rockets and homicide bombers from that state is an act of war by one state against another and thus would be entitled to take any measures necessary to stop such attacks

The Israelis already take any measures they want whenever they want, as someone pointed out above. Also, "homicide bombers" is a pure propaganda term -- all bombers (including ones in national armies) committ homicide, what distinguishes suicide bombers is the delivery mechanism.

Posted by mq | February 20, 2008 11:23 AM

absence of independence being caused by a neighboring country claiming historical ties to the territory. - Hans B.

But is this really what's the "cause" of absense of independence for the Palestinians? In a sense it has been since Israel obtained control of the Palestinian territories following a war (and we can have a whole debate about whether Israel is right or wrong under international law to be occupying the territory it occupies), but the absense of an independent Palestinian state in 1953, e.g., was not "caused by a neighboring country claiming historical ties to the territory" (unless Egypt was claiming historical ties to Gaza ... and what history does Jordan as a distinct political entity have?).

Posted by DAS | February 20, 2008 11:40 AM

The "no precedent" line about Kosovo, based on the unique circumstances, is marginally defensible but problematic. The Post-WW2 order is (rightly or wrongly) built on the premise that national borders are inviolable and sacrosanct. Allowing a politically expedient exception to this rule will, without question, encourage separatist groups around the world. Given the sheer number of stateless ethnic groups around the world, and high-stakes issues like Taiwanese independence, this sets a dangerous precedent whether we like it or not.

Of course, the truly stupid and dishonest part of the Sun's editorial is their convenient amnesia about the fact that President Bush, Secretary Rice, the rest of our foreign policy establishment, and most of the EU are taking the exact same position as Obama.

We've obviously reached the point where the conservative media has decided that Obama is the presumptive nominee and started to recalibrate their Clinton Derangement to fit the new Obama Derangement specs. Witness Robert Samuelson's amazingly idiotic hit piece on Barack in today's Post for another example.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 20, 2008 11:47 AM

If the Palestinians declared an independent state, then the State of Israel would be legally entitled under international law to declare that the launching of Qassem rockets and homicide bombers from that state is an act of war by one state against another and thus would be entitled to take any measures necessary to stop such attacks, just as the US would be entitled to do the same if rocket attacks and homicide bombers were being launched from Mexico. - SLC

Contra what the "Israel engages in disproportionate responses" crowd says, if state X attacked state Y with the same proportional (on a population basis) damage that the Palestinians inflict on the Israelis -- even if the attacks were not from state actors but from terrorists who were being insufficiently prosecuted by the state X government -- then state Y would be "allowed" to not only attack X, but also remove its government, put in a new one, etc (c.f. international support for the US's actions in Afghanistan).

If Israel were as smart as Israelis think they are, they would unilaterally declare Palestine to be an independent state and then treat it as such. But then, of course, that would mean, when Israel re-occupies Palestine following the inevitable invasion of Palestine in response to a terrorist attack, they'd actually have to have a "Marshall plan" for Palestine. But then again, rather than complaining about "Zionist conspiracies" all those rich Arab "leaders" should pay for that Marshall plan and do something about the plight of the Palestinians.

Posted by DAS | February 20, 2008 11:52 AM

The Post-WW2 order is (rightly or wrongly) built on the premise that national borders are inviolable and sacrosanct. Allowing a politically expedient exception to this rule will, without question, encourage separatist groups around the world. Given the sheer number of stateless ethnic groups around the world - LaFollette Progressive

To some degree the Post-WW1 order was built on that premise. And politically expedient ("peace in our time") exceptions to the rule (i.e. based on the desire of Germany to incorporate within its borders the various German ethnic groups did indeed allow a pretty nasty government (the Nazis) to gain momentum that led to another war.

The post-WW2 order was largely built on the massive, forced migrations of such ethnic groups, ingathering them into the borders of established countries of their brother nations: e.g. the various Germanic peoples of Eastern Europe (excepting, for obvious reasons, the Ashkenazim) being forced into Germany, Karelians being forced into Finland, etc. Indeed, this precident carried beyond the belligerent powers of WW2: e.g. Arab countries terrorizing their Jewish populations driving them to leave for the nascient state of Israel, the mass migrations following the Partition of the Indian subcontinent, etc.

It was in areas that the WW2 order was not enforced to begin with that we are seeing these problems today: the various South Slavic groups were not ingathered into separate homelands, Palestinian Arab refugees were not assimilated into other Arab nations, etc. So I'm not sure if establishing an independent Kosovo really is all that much of a break from an established post-WW2 order as much as a move toward establishing such a post-WW2 order where it was not yet established (although the real "late 1940s solution" would be to pay off the Albananians to absorb the Kosovars).

Posted by DAS | February 20, 2008 12:06 PM

As this is the NY Sun, consider the possibility that the editorial was written by a neocon hack who believes that chants of "Freedom!" dissolve national interest by magic. I'm not sure it makes sense to inquire to closely into someone's religious views. - SomeCallMeTim

Hmmm (c.f. Bobo Brooks' (?) def. of a neo-con) ... these neo-cons would say, given my less than 100% devotion to the Likud party line, I'm a self-hating Jew (heck, they'd probably call SLC a self-hating Jew because he's not 100% revisionist Zionist ... heck, they'd probably consider Zhabotinsky (sp?) himself not pro-Israel enough), yet they happily cozy up to the neo-Czarist Putin 'cause he says the right buzzwords? Isn't something wrong with this?

Posted by DAS | February 20, 2008 12:14 PM

DAS, you have a good point, but you're taking the phrase "Post-WW2 order" a little too literally. I'm not talking about the mass displacements that followed in the immediate wake of the war; I'm talking about the international laws and institutions built after WW2 that survive to this day.

The default position of the Security Council is to oppose unilateral declarations of independence. The borders of a nation at the time of their accession to the UN are essentially fixed. The principle of ethnic self-determination that drove Wilsonian policy toward Europe after WWI, and the partition of colonial possessions in the aftermath of WW2, has been repressed.

As you suggest, the crises have tended to develop in places that did NOT feature mass migrations and ethnic cleansing at the end of the WW2, as well as among the stateless populations that were left without a chair when the music stopped in the 1940s.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 20, 2008 12:40 PM

Re William Burns

Mr. Burns is seriously in error relative to Israels' borders. The border between Israel and Egypt has been defined and agreed to by both sides. The border between Israel and Lebanon has been defined and agreed to by both sides with the exception of Sheba Farms; Israel claims that this area is part of Syria, Lebanon claims that it is part of Lebanon. The border between Israel and Jordan has been defined and agreed to by both sides. The border between Israel and Syria has not been agreed to as the two countries are technically still at war. That leaves the border between Israel and the Palestinians which has not been agreed to because the Palestinians claim that the State of Israel does not exist.

Re Hans B

1. The reason why nobody cares about the Golan Hights is that Syria is very unpopular in the Arab World. If Mr. Hans B doesn't believe it, he should talk to people from Jordan, as I have.

2. The Palestinian Fatah faction is totally corrupt and incompetent as evidenced by its loss of the Gaza Strip to the Hamas faction. It holds onto power in the West Bank only because Israel, the US, and the European Union prop it up. Remove those props and the Hamas faction would take over the West Bank also.

Posted by SLC | February 20, 2008 12:50 PM

as well as among the stateless populations that were left without a chair when the music stopped in the 1940s. - LaFollette Progressive

This is the problem with "international law" though. You have a bunch of people saying "the Israelis should follow international law" or even "the Palestinians should follow international law" ... yet international law, very conveniently, has left people without a chair (or in the case of Israel, with a very insecure chair and no recourse to secure it) while the people with secure chairs continue to benefit from that security.

Many so-called liberals sit in their pacified, ethnically cleansed countries, benefiting from the "peace" obtained via such ill means and then say, now that the music has conveniently stopped "oh, you can't do what we benefit from -- it's against international law". To me this is at least a wee bit hypocritical ... and you can imagine how people who were themselves ethnically cleansed ... and then only afterward (and pretty immediately afterward) the laws magically changed, feel about this hypocrisy. Yet many so-called liberals cannot see the hypocrisy or empathesize with those left in insecure chairs? And we liberals are supposed to be all about empathy, aren't we?

This is why many of my fellow tribesmen have soured on liberalism, and who can blame them ...

Posted by DAS | February 20, 2008 12:59 PM

Vanya 9:10am - And what's up with this bit of sneering from the Sun? "so-called Soviet so-called Socialist so-called Republics" Is the Sun some kind of neoTrotskyite paper claiming that the Soviet Union was illegitimate because all power was not, in fact, vested in the soviets, and that true socialism was not achieved?

No, the Sun is suggesting that Russia's imperial dominion over its various non-Russian possessions that made up the "Soviet Union" was illegitimate.

Posted by nbt | February 20, 2008 1:06 PM

If Israel were as smart as Israelis think they are, they would unilaterally declare Palestine to be an independent state and then treat it as such. But then, of course, that would mean, when Israel re-occupies Palestine following the inevitable invasion of Palestine in response to a terrorist attack, they'd actually have to have a "Marshall plan" for Palestine.

This is rich. The Israelis should make Palestine independent so that can immediately invade and re-occupy it. The logic is perfect. Couldn't they just skip those two steps and start the Marshall Plan now?

Invasion and occupation have not worked out all that well for Israel. The Israelis seem to be in the process of trying to un-occupy (from southern Lebanon to Gaza to, perhaps someday, the West Bank as well).

And DAS, I can certainly imagine how the Palestinians, currently undergoing ethnic-cleansing operations in the West Bank, would find the support of safe and happy Americans of the occupying regime to be hypocritical. That was your point, right?

Posted by Rob Mac | February 20, 2008 1:15 PM

The point about Palestinians is a good one, since it is the most directly comparable with the Kosovo situation: absence of independence being caused by a neighboring country claiming historical ties to the territory.

Time magazine's quote of the day: "Kosovo is not better than us", from an advisor to Palestinian President Abbas, urging a unilateral declaration of independence. (I must say I've always been mystified why the Palestinians don't do this. Israel did it, and thus would have no cause to complain...).

Actually, I believe that the PLO did unilaterally declare independence in 1988 or 1989 within the 1967 borders. It was never recognized by the major powers and it has de facto been retracted, but I don't believe it has ever officially been retracted.

Posted by Andrew | February 20, 2008 1:29 PM

You are expecting the New York Sun to depart from its rigidly right-wing, neo-con loving stance. I subscribed to the rag for about six months and then got nauseated when I realized that the only thing I agreed with were the crossword puzzles. When I stopped my subscription, I answered quesions with the simple declaration that the paper was too far right for me.

Posted by Karen, New York | February 20, 2008 2:00 PM

nbt respondsNo, the Sun is suggesting that Russia's imperial dominion over its various non-Russian possessions that made up the "Soviet Union" was illegitimate.

I know that's what they are trying to say, but they are such muddled thinkers and poor writers that they fail to say it. "so called Republics" is fine, but the Soviet and Socialist qualities of those entities were facts independent of the legitimacy of Russian rule. And for right-wingers to contest that just sounds odd - it's like the rants you might have read in some mimeographed Maoist tract handed out in Harvard Square in the '70s.

Speaking of which, I assume all right-thinking right-wingers (and left-wingers) will now support Crimea's desire to be independent of Ukraine.

Posted by vanya | February 20, 2008 2:01 PM

You are expecting the New York Sun to depart from its rigidly right-wing, neo-con loving stance. I subscribed to the rag for about six months and then got nauseated when I realized that the only thing I agreed with were the crossword puzzles. When I stopped my subscription, I answered quesions with the simple declaration that the paper was too far right for me.

Posted by Karen, New York | February 20, 2008 2:01 PM

nbt respondsNo, the Sun is suggesting that Russia's imperial dominion over its various non-Russian possessions that made up the "Soviet Union" was illegitimate.

I know that's what they are trying to say, but they are such muddled thinkers and poor writers that they fail to say it. "so called Republics" is fine, but the Soviet and Socialist qualities of those entities were facts independent of the legitimacy of Russian rule. And for right-wingers to contest that just sounds odd - it's like the rants you might have read in some mimeographed Maoist tract handed out in Harvard Square in the '70s.

Speaking of which, I assume all right-thinking right-wingers (and left-wingers) will now support Crimea's desire to be independent of Ukraine.

Posted by vanya | February 20, 2008 2:11 PM

As far as the Crimea goes, it shouldn't be too hard to do since the Russian Black Sea Fleet is still based in Sevastopol. That the transfer of the Crimea to the Ukraine happened because of Uncle Joe should further delegitimize its current status.

Posted by Pan | February 20, 2008 2:25 PM

DAS -- Many so-called liberals sit in their pacified, ethnically cleansed countries, benefiting from the "peace" obtained via such ill means and then say, now that the music has conveniently stopped "oh, you can't do what we benefit from -- it's against international law". To me this is at least a wee bit hypocritical ...

Well, of course it is. The same complaint can be made regarding wealth and property that were obtained via ill means and then sanctified by law for generations to come, which is why the international Left has never cared much for liberalism, either.

But that's the whole point of the rule of law. It never satisfies everyone, but it provides a framework for stability and it forces conflict to the margins instead of boiling over into mass chaos and world wars. Sometimes it's wise for the powers that be to bend the rules and allow an exception based on the unique circumstances of the case, but we're also talking about a floodgate holding back 60 years of repressed grievances and nationalist ambitions all over the world.

I'm not opposed to Kosovar independence, per se, but I'm concerned about how many so-called liberal internationalists seem blissfully unaware of how this precedent is likely to play out. The partitions and mass migrations of the 1940s generated many long-term benefits, but they also produced a level of instability and violence that we're no longer prepared to accept.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 20, 2008 2:52 PM

With regard to the Palestinians, Saeb Erekat has made the point that Andrew makes above. The Palestinians have declared independence in the past. What they need is actual independence which requires an end to occupation.

This is just a good example of the general case. There are not likely to be other regions that did not want independence before, but suddenly do now. Nor are there likely to be other regions that did not have the ability to declare independence and make it stick, but do now.

The Obama quote seems to get things right. It places the default case on stability, but allows for an exceptional case like Kosovo. Obviously there will be cases of relative merit to be made in a variety of places, but it would be a mistake to not recognize Kosovo (or even to applaud its taking a step forward) on this basis, or to think, on the otherhand, that the rules have gone out the window. There may be other exceptional cases but they should be judged on their own merits (some principled some pragmatic) without the Kosovo case playing much of a role in the outcome.

Posted by Lon | February 20, 2008 3:52 PM

The New York Sun has a great sports section.

Posted by Peter H | February 20, 2008 5:56 PM

I think DAS just made the argument that his "tribesmen" (which I take to mean the Red Sox nation) have soured on "liberalism" becuase it is down on ethnic cleansing, massacres, mass rape, and other ways to bruatlize unwanted minority groups.

Anyway, Palestine declared independence on November 15, 1988. It was recongized by many countries (including the USSR).

You can find the text of the Palestinian declaration of independence on Wikipedia.

(And yes, it's borders with respecty to Israel are undefined, as are Israel's borders with respect to Palestine)

Posted by Ikram | February 21, 2008 9:27 AM

I believe Crimea became part of Ukraine thanks to the machinations of Nikita Krushchev. In any case, it didn't seem to make much difference at the time. Now, who knows? It's a lovely place, but nearly everyone speaks Russian not Ukrainian, and certainly not Tartar which was it's major native tongue for centuries.

I still think Norman Mailer had a great idea when he ran for Mayor of New York on a secessionist platform.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 21, 2008 12:37 PM