Kosovo:Sri Lanka perspective

Kosovo’s Independence and Sri Lanka
by Neville Ladduwahetty
Serbs follow the casket during the funeral of Zoran Vujovic in Novi Sad, Serbia, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008. Vujovic was found dead inside the U.S. Embassy during a riot following demonstrations to protest against Kosovo’s independence in Belgrade. (AP)
Referring to Kosovo’s declaration of independence on February 17, 2008, Roger Cohen in his column to The New York Times of February 21, 2008, titled "A Change to Believe In" stated: "….(Kosovo) is in effect the first major fruit of the ideas behind R2P" (Responsibility to Protect). Cohen acknowledges that when member states adopted the notion of R2P at the World Summit of 2005, it was predicated on the condition that they would take "collective action in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter" when "national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"(2005 World Summit Outcome).
The fact that NATO intervened militarily in Kosovo without the approval of the Security Council means that the basis on which the approval of R2P was adopted has transgressed the "territory of law… on which human life is protected" (Ibid). This makes the "first major fruit" of R2P rotten to the core. In the absence of an International instrument in which to plead for justice, what can small nations such as Sri Lanka do to protect themselves from arbitrary unilateral action where International Law is violated by the very parties that initiate such laws?
The document that formalised peace in Kosovo was the "Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo" in Rambouillet, France, in February 23, 1999; popularly known as the Rambouillet Accord. The Preamble of this Accord states: "Recalling the commitment of the international community to the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia…". The political arrangement was to be federal with Kosovo enjoying substantial autonomy. Consequently, central powers came under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Article 1 clause 3 of the Accord states: "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has competence in Kosovo over the following areas: (a) territorial integrity".
The Ranbouillet Accord was followed by Security Council Resolution S/RES/1244 of 10th June 1999. The Preamble to this resolution states: "Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other states of the region…". Annexure 2 clause 5 calls to "Establish an interim administration as part of the international civil presence under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".
Next came the invasion of Iraq without approval of the Security Council to whom the United Nations had conferred "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security..." (Charter of the UN, Chapter V, Article 24, Clause 2). No one is certain whether this unilateral action was motivated by the search of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, as part of the war on terror, regime change or in the cause of advancing democracy. Whatever the case may be the US and UK for the most part, known as the "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq violating the basic tenets of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 clause 4 of which states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations".
The third instance of territorial integrity violated without Security Council approval occurred when NATO forces invaded Afghanistan. This action was justified on "the war on terror" following the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US. Even if the invasion of Afghanistan was justified as a defensive measure to prevent further attacks, the issue is what authority has NATO to act beyond the Euro-Atlantic area over which it has the "essential and enduring purpose" to ensure "the defence of its members" (NATO The Alliance’s Strategic Concept, 23, 24 April, 1999). By expanding its scope outside the Euro-Atlantic region NATO has evolved into a military instrument that can be deployed anywhere in the world; a precedent that would threaten global security.
Right to protect
In all three instances, accepted norms to maintain peace and stability throughout the world have been violated. Under the circumstances, what recourse has the rest of the world to protect themselves from the orchestrated and unilateral actions of the major powers? The effect of such arbitrariness is to make the UN lose its relevance through its inability to persuade all members to act within the norms of its several instruments. The fact that the UN failed to protect the territorial integrity of Serbia despite its commitment as stated in Security Council Resolution 1244 would cause countries such as Russia, China, Spain, Georgia, Philippines, Thailand, Belgium, Cyprus, Sri Lanka etc. with secessionist movements to resort to ways beyond the purview of the UN to resolve issues of internal insecurity arising from threats to their respective territorial integrities.
Serbia relied on Russia to support its rights to territory that included the province of Kosovo. The fact that Russia failed Serbia makes clear to countries that they must rely on their own resources without reliance on support from other nations. Instead of fostering an environment where all member states big and small conduct affairs within accepted norms, the flouting of guarantees given by the Security Council in the case of Serbia means that any similar guarantees given in respect of territorial integrities to other countries become unreliable. This erosion of confidence in the UN systems would no doubt cause countries with threats to their territorial integrities to seek individual action rather than rely on legitimate collective action.
Three members of the Security Council, US, UK and France that had guaranteed Serbia’s territorial integrity broke their commitment when they recognised Kosovo as an independent state. What motivated the US, UK and France to violate their commitment to the Security Council? Clearly, an independent Kosovo would give not only access to the its vast mineral resources but also serve to weaken Serbia and bring it within the European Union, thereby isolating Russia even further. Thus, prospects of commercial and geopolitical advantage would be the rationale for setting a trend for small ethnically clean states that are economically and politically so weak that they would become dependent on the major powers.
Ethnic enclaves
Prior to Kosovo becoming independent the demographics of the state of Serbia was 7.4 million Serbs to 1.8 million Kosovo Albanians. This proportion was sufficiently balanced to diligently explore a healthy political arrangement based on the concept of unity in diversity. By rushing to recognise the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo, however, the major powers have rejected this concept, and instead welcomed ethnically clean enclaves in which small minorities would have to be at the mercies of overwhelming majorities. In the case of Kosovo, the 120,000 Serbs would be at the mercy of the 1.8 Kosovo Albanians; a potential human rights catastrophe.
This small Serbian minority is concentrated in two isolated pockets one in the North and the other in the South of Kosovo. Similar ethnic enclaves exist in urban cities in most European countries. These countries are experiencing unrest and violence due to their inability to deal with the frustrations and marginalization of these ethnic enclaves. Despite such conditions in their own states the major powers have opted to replicate a new state that has all the conditions ripe for instability in the center of Europe. Clearly it is in keeping with an agenda.
Sri Lanka too has similar pockets of ethnic concentration. For instance, pockets of Sri Lankan Tamils are located in the Northern Province with the majority concentrated in the Jaffna peninsula (estimated at 600,000 in Jaffna and 200,000 in the rest of the province). Another pocket of concentration is in the District of Batticaloa in the Eastern Province. The majority however are in the South. The only mix of ethnic concentration and territory that could lead to developments similar to Kosovo would be the Northern Province. The small proportion of Muslims and Sinhalese in the Northern Province would be similar to the 120,000 Serbs in a sea of 1.8 million Kosovo Albanians in Kosovo. In the full awareness of the forced ejection of nearly 90,000 Muslims from Jaffna already, the prospects for Muslim and Sinhala minorities must necessarily be dismal.
RECIPE FOR THREATS TO SRI LANKA’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
The Northern Province has all the characteristics of Kosovo. Even though the US, the EU and India have assured their commitment to the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, all these commitments are mere assurances. If the territorial integrity of Serbia could be violated despite Security Council Resolutions in place, clearly Sri Lanka cannot rely on assurances. The developments in Kosovo require Sri Lanka to think long and hard as to steps that need to be taken in order to safeguard its territorial integrity.
The Government is committed to implementing the 13th Amendment as the political solution to resolve Sri Lanka’s national question. This amendment transformed the territory of Sri Lanka from the 25 Districts as provided for in the 1978 Constitution to 9 Provinces in 1987. Since the peripheral unit as the Province with assigned powers has the potential to influence developments as in Kosovo, it is vital that civil society reexamine the constitutionality of the procedures followed when the 13th Amendment was adopted.
CONCLUSION
Despite commitments by the Security Council as to Serbia’s territorial integrity, the US, UK, and France (3 of the 5 members of the Security Council) as well as some countries of the European Union were quick to recognise and welcome Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. The initial calm that followed the declaration has been disturbed by crowds estimated to be over 600,000 rioting in the streets of Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. Whether the Serbs would settle down and accept Kosovo’s independence only time will tell. In the meantime, how Kosovo’s action would reverberate in other parts of the world is a matter of concern; as recognised by John Bolton, Lawrence Eagleburger and Peter Rodman in an article titled "Warning light on Kosovo" (Washington Times, January 30, 2008) wherein they stated: "Kosovo’s independence without Serbia’s consent would set a precedent with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for many other regions of the world".
The lesson of Kosovo is that when powers once devolved are withdrawn as happened in the case of Kosovo due to the violence initiated by the Kosovo Liberation Army, it would eventually lead to independence. Protection against such a tendency lies in not devolving power to ethnic regions, instead, to share power without involving territory but together with institutional arrangements that foster unity in diversity.
The violation of international undertakings by the majority of the Security Council members to whom the primary responsibility of peace and security has been conferred would inevitably cause member states to question the relevance of the UN, and lose confidence in its ability to maintain peace and stability through the Security Council. A predictable consequence would be for the majority of member states to take unilateral actions to protect their respective self interests. Sri Lanka too has to seriously explore all options and adopt self reliant measures to protect its self interests.
Neville LadduwahettyFebruary 26, 2008.