What’s certain is that Kosovo’s status has been ambiguous since the beginning of the Yugoslavian wars. Treaties signed for stability in the Balkans have not always been beneficial for the regional states and peoples. Those who have declared independence and received approval from the global powers or those who have obtained their independence as a gift from those same powers have generally decided to apply to the EU. For them the word “stability” has some meaning.
But in the case of Kosovo the treaties don’t resolve problems but only freeze them, just as we’ve witnessed in Cyprus. Negotiations on the final status of Kosovo have been held since 2005 and during this time Kosovo was treated under a separate title in the EU’s official Web site on enlargement.
Before the US secretary of state’s visit to Russia, three main disagreements between the two powers were laid down by the US administration: Kosovo, disarmament and democratization. Kosovo is the first case because the US supports the idea of an independent Kosovo, but Russia does not. The missile defense shield project and its implementation in Poland on the one hand and the Kosovo issue on the other seem to constitute a bargaining ground. In fact these two subjects are the wings of the essential dispute.
Russia accuses the US of pursuing aggressive policies with unlawful acts and thus putting global security in danger. The US says that Russia seeks to expand and develop its national power as in the Cold War era and does this as an authoritarian state would. This disparity is apparent in Kosovo.
It’s possible to analyze this situation from different perspectives. First of all, under current international law how will a Serbian territory become independent only because the international powers want it? International law doesn’t accept the modification of national borders and self-determination is not a general rule, but a principle used when it’s needed.
We don’t have any proof about the possible use of the Kosovo process in the same manner in Nagorno-Karabakh, in the “Jerusalem region,” which seems to remain unresolved between Palestine and Israel, for northern Iraq or for the other territories around the globe. Besides when the Cyprus question remains unresolved and the existence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) has been a reality since 1983, it’s odd to see the concentration of all the efforts on the Kosovo issue. That means that a way of adapting international law to the current political situation is always possible. Moreover if Kosovo becomes independent, will this precedent be able to be applied in the KKTC?
It’s obvious that international law is not sufficient in the current state of global developments and social demands. If the great majority of Kosovo’s residents permanently refuse the Serbian sovereignty over their homeland, no one can assure that persistence will make them change their minds. All the international pressure in Cyprus couldn’t make this happen, so why should it succeed in Kosovo?
The only way to make both Serbia and Kosovo happy is to promise them joint accession to the EU and to NATO in the near future. It is unknown if the people there support this idea but NATO and the EU act as if they do. At this point we should remember that Cypriot Turks have already proven by their votes that they want to join the EU, but that this has done nothing to change their situation.
Finally we can say that the disagreements between Russia and the US will deepen because double standards on principles are becoming more and more common, while the people are the ones ultimately held responsible.
