Kosovo and its Liberal Ties and Protections

On February 17th, 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. As of yet, eighty-four states (and Taiwan) recognize it as a sovereign nation, including powerhouses Germany, France, and the United States. Many international institutions informally recognize it and even take measures to protect it. The International Court of Justice has declared Kosovo’s existence legal.

Kosovo’s history, however, reaches further back than its declaration of independence. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Kosovars continued to experience the ethnic tension that had been going on in that region since the Middle Ages between the Albanians and the Serbs. From 1995-1999, the Albanian ethnic majority - which makes up the mass of the Kosovar population - fought Serbia. This was only alleviated in 1998 and 1999 with NATO intervention.

NATO is an excellent example of a liberal institution because it is a collaboration of many nations working together for collective security. NATO first intervened in Kosovo because all diplomacy between Kosovo and Serbia failed. One of their main goals was to ensure “the establishment of a political agreement for Kosovo in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations” (NATO Briefing on the Kosovo Air Campaign). The initial force consisted of NATO troops from twenty-two countries, along with forces from an additional eight countries. Currently, NATO still has forces in Kosovo, but in lesser numbers, laying more trust in Kosovo’s own forces. By assisting Kosovo in the way that it did, NATO helped lay foundations for liberal pacifism. Pacifism in this situation is exemplified by how Kosovars were given their rights as a separate nation, granted their own rights both collectively and personally. By extending their protection to Kosovo, NATO solidified their rights as a sovereign nation and gave it much more credibility. This display of liberal institutionalism in 1999 definitely helped lead to recognition form major global players in 2008.

One of the things to consider about NATO: it is an alliance between countries to ensure that they come to each others’ aid in event of one of the member states being attacked. Giving aid to Kosovo was NATO’s first act involving a non-member state. Unlike other NATO interventions (such as that in Afghanistan following 9/11), the events in Kosovo and Serbia were not directly traced to any of the twenty-eight member states. So why would NATO choose to get involved in Kosovo? This is an anomaly not fully explained.

Perhaps even more interesting on the global stage is the involvement of the European Union. The EU is unable to recognize Kosovo as a sovereign nation as a whole, which leaves each member-state free to make its own decision. The majority of member states - 22/27 - do officially recognize Kosovo. However, even with this as the case, it has all but delivered an ultimatum to Serbia: recognize Kosovo to ensure consideration for eventual entry into the EU. Kosovo is also actively seeking to join the Union, as they believe they meet all of the criteria. The EU maintains formal relations with Kosovo, with troops actively employed to aid in the Serbia-Kosovo conflict. In the summer of 2008, mere months after Kosovo’s declaration of independence, the EU pledged 1.2 billion Euro in monetary aid to the newly-formed “state.” The EU’s website states simply that since no international agreement has been reached on Kosovo’s statehood, they are “actively seeking a diplomatic solution while providing practical help.” Kosovo in this situation is benefiting from one of the largest liberal institutions in the world. Although its statehood is still in question, it is following the EU’s rules through liberal pacifism by having  a democratic representative government and free trade.

Interestingly enough, the Republic of Kosovo is a member of the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. This role of economic solidarity within the two organizations is a perfect example of both liberal pacifism and institutionalism at work. Interdependence in international trade leads to collective security between states - a tenant of liberalism. By allowing Kosovo to participate as a full member, the WTO and the IMF are giving a controversial world player a definite stance in a globalized world.

The UN is where Kosovo’s potential statehood comes to a standstill. While three out of the five permanent members of the Security Council recognize Kosovo as independent, the People’s Republic of China has no official position on Kosovo and remains skeptical on its legality, whereas Russia claims that its existence is illegal, despite the International Court of Justice’s ruling. Any bid that Kosovo may present to the Security Council for official statehood is sure to be vetoed by Russia. This is where liberalism’s tenants begin to break down. As ex-Yugoslavia is a part of the former U.S.S.R., Russia still has significant influence over that area. In the case of Kosovo, it would appear that Russia is acting out of selfish motives instead of catering to the international institution: the UN. This may be due to the current Russia-Georgia situation. However, this selfish interest in Russia’s part has a very anti-liberalism sentiment, showing how the largest world institution has its flaws. There seems to be no teleology at work.

Anscombe, Frederick F. "The Ottoman Empire in Recent International Politics-II: The Case of Kosovo." International History Review. 28.4 (2006): 758-93. Print. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40109813>.

Solana, Javier. "NATO's Success in Kosovo." Foreign Affairs. 78.6 (1999): 114-20. Print. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20049537>.

europa.eu