KOSOVO SUBERTS AUTHORITY
By Alexander Titkov
St. Olaf College Manitou Messenger Online
April 11 2008
MN
In response to the Feb. 29 article "Kosovo Demands Liberty," I was
a bit disappointed (but not surprised) by the impressionability
presented in the commentary as well as the willingness to jump onto
the independence and freedom bandwagon as it heads off to plunder
new frontiers.
Now, I’m not a hemp-wearing, unshaven misinterpreter of Zen nor am
I an economically and socially delusional conservative who thinks
that happiness is a warm gun, but I do believe in attempting to
objectively present both sides of an issue with some time invested
into the subject matter. Only by framing such words as "freedom" and
"independence" within the relevant history and present day context
can we fairly assess this situation in Kosovo. After all, should we
not aspire to objectivity in journalism, lest we fall into the abyss
of Goebbelsian propaganda?
The history of Serbia and the Balkan states is a complex and violent
one. The Serbian people have served as the buffer zone between invading
Ottoman Turks and Europe since the late 14th century, making Kosovo
a territory of early battlegrounds. Historically and religiously,
Serbia and its people consider Kosovo to be the heartland of their
country. This area is sacred and dear to the Serbian people, so it
is no surprise that they are revolting and rioting in reaction to
Kosovo’s recent declaration of independence.
We must recognize that these reactions are more than "mindless mob
anger" but are deeply rooted sentiments forged over many generations.
During World War II, the Serbian people revolted against a regime
that had signed a pact with the Nazis, leading to Nazi invasion and
the establishment of a fascist puppet state. The Nazis proceeded to
set up an Albanian secret service division which was responsible for
the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Serbians as well as
the displacement of many Serbians from Kosovo. These displaced people
were replaced by Albanians in hopes of creating a greater Albanian
state. Incidentally, Albania was already a state.
If we compare the ethnic ratio between Serbians and Albanians over the
last 140 years, we find that in 1871 the ratio was 64:32 in favor of
Serbians.By 2008, Serbians composed merely 5 percent of the population
in Kosovo. This disparity intensified in the 1990’s, when Serbia took
measures under Milosevic to prevent Kosovo’s secession, leading to
the Albanian counter in creating the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
The KLA was recognized as a terrorist organization by the CIA only a
few years before U.S. and NATO forces bombed Serbia under President
Bill Clinton. In the days after the end of bombings (when the U.S.
had determined that a sufficient number of civilian deaths had occurred
to quell rebellion and the media tired of "The Crisis in Kosovo"),
the KLA continued to terrorize Serbians in Kosovo and were never
brought to trial.
Kosovo’s independence is illegal under U.N. Resolution 1244, which
establishes the "principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Serbia" (then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Also, the 1975 Final
Helsinki Act’s preamble states that the Commision for Security and
Cooperation in Europe guarantees "sovereign equality, respect for
the rights inherent in sovereignty, inviolability of frontiers and
territorial integrity of States."
The argument that more states are in favor of Kosovo’s independence
is shortsighted. How can one weigh the importance of states like
Albania, Afghanistan and Turkey against the opposition from Russia,
China and Spain?
The Serbian people are more than frustrated; they are outraged and
rightly so. The illegal arrogation of 15 percent of a nation’s land
mass without the general population’s vote would be enough to initiate
unrest in any nation. It would be the equivalent of external countries
acknowledging an independent state in Texas or California due to the
high percentage of Latin Americans residing in the area.
The nations opposed to Kosovo’s independence are not simply worried
about setting a precedent with regards to their own regional disputes,
but are seeking an overall balance between nations. Only a few days
ago, this precedent encouraged another ethnic group in the Karabakh
region of Azerbaijan. As a result, tensions between ethnic Armenians
and the Azerbaijan government have mounted. Undoubtedly, the resolution
of this conflict will involve the U.N. and the invested countries
of Russia, Turkey and the United States, thus emphasizing that these
other smaller countries are mere pawns in a larger scheme.
One should not be shocked or appalled by opposition towards matters
such as Kosovo’s self-declared independence. Claiming anti-Kosovo
independence Facebook groups as "anti-freedom" would be a rather
incorrect interpretation. Rather, they should be seen as a proper
or expected response, a protest to an illegal action based on legal
grounds in reaction to a tumultuous situation. We should question
why nations such as ours have jumped to admit this independence in
such haste. Surely there is more than Kosovo’s independence on our
government’s agenda. We could also deduce that a certain president
is scrambling to put something in his portfolio containing the words
"free states" and "speedy democracy" to conclude an otherwise pitiful
eight years in office. Finally and most importantly, we should question
the U.N. effectiveness as a governing body. If these nations cannot
live up to the resolutions they declare, who are we to turn to for
global peace?
Alexander Titkov ’08 is from Eden Prairie, Minn. He majors in Russian
area studies with concentrations in German studies and exercise
science.