Russia's Sane Position on Kosovo

Russia's
Sane Position on Kosovo


By
Michael
Averko


March
22, 2007





Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov firmly stated that any solution to the Kosovo
conflict must be agreeable to both sides. Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly
Churkin correctly noted how some of his Western peers have disrespected
UN Resolution 1244 governing Kosovo. Recent Russian diplomatic action on
the disputed south Serb province confirms how many in the West continue
to misread Kremlin desires. In some Western circles, Russia was expected
to cave in to the idea of granting Kosovo independence. Russia's position
isn't yet etched in stone. However, at this late stage of Kosovo negotiating,
one can't overlook how Russia has if anything become more resolute in securing
a settlement on agreeable terms with Serbia.


 


During the presidency of Vladimir Putin - Russia is experiencing economic
growth and a new found confidence in its post Cold War world role. Nations
on the rebound often become more assertive in their foreign policy agendas.
For example: the US displayed a more muscular foreign policy during and
after Ronald Reagan's presidency; after America experienced a brief geo-strategic
decline following its debacle in Southeast Asia.


 


Contemporary Russia isn't the same as the one of the last decade when
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote (in Foreign Affairs Magazine) of that country
possibly breaking up into several nations. Some might recall the pathetic
backtracking of the Russian troop deployment to Kosovo at the end of the
NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. That clumsy move saw
Moscow back down from an engagement in Kosovo to counter NATO's presence.


 


Lavrov and Churkin are hardened no nonsense diplomats, with an active
background in former Yugoslav matters. During Boris Yeltsin's presidency,
Churkin represented Russia in the Contact Group of outside powers monitoring
the Bosnian Civil War. At the time, Lavrov was his country's UN ambassador
to many discussions on former Yugoslav issues.


 


In his prior role as UN ambassador, Lavrov was very much involved with
UN Resolution 1244. He's fully aware of how certain Western governments
have attempted to leapfrog over that document.


 


When looked at in its entirety, 1244 isn't a directive for Kosovo becoming
independent.


 


- It specifically states that Kosovo is a part of Yugoslavia. 
Serbia is internationally recognized as the successor state to Yugoslavia. 
In Communist and post Communist Yugoslavia - Kosovo was part of the Serb
republic.

- 1244 calls for a return of refugees, as well as of Serb military and
government bodies to Kosovo.  This has yet to happen.

- In legalese, the 1244 clause about taking into "full consideration"
the unsigned Rambouillet diktat isn't a green light for independence. It
simply means that aspects of Rambouillet can perhaps be considered. Prior
to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the Clinton Administration and Kosovo
Albanian nationalists wrote a clause in Rambouillet which would've (if
signed) permitted Kosovo to vote on independence after three years from
the accord's signing. I specifically recall noted American University law
professor Paul Williams bragging about his having written that segment
on Geraldo Rivera's MSNBC cable news show. No one questioned Williams'
objectivity as a then adviser to the Kosovo Albanian nationalist leaders.
Madeleine Albright was quoted as having said that Rambouillet was written
in a way that was unacceptable to the Serbs. An obvious pretext for starting
the war that was to be.

- The "final outcome" status for Kosovo is stated towards the end of
1244. It relates to how Kosovo should be governed as a part of Serbia.
What other logical way can be otherwise suggested when the very same document
recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia, while stating that refugees, Serb
government and military bodies should all return to that province?


 


Bill Clinton's UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke leads a pack of Democratic
Party affiliated foreign policy politicos advocating Kosovo independence.
They argue how Kosovo will become more violent if independence isn't granted.
Is this rational not a blueprint for encouraging violence elsewhere by
effectively saying that peaceful means will not get the same consideration?
Why should independence be granted to a group threatening  violence?
Isn't such an acquiesce a support for law of the jungle principles?


 


Holbrooke claims that Kosovo is the "special case" for independence
unlike some other disputed former Communist bloc territories. On this point,
Lavrov can easily outdo him by noting how Trans-Dniester has a much better
case for independence than Kosovo.


 


The lines have been drawn. Other nations have expressed sympathy with
the Russian and Serb position. At the same time, the vestiges of neo-liberal
and neo-conservative antipathy towards Serbia remains a strong guiding
factor in American foreign policy. The art of diplomacy seeks a middle
course to such a dispute. This would lead one to believe that a compromise
of sorts could be in the works. Writing in The Washington Times (March
20), former Serbian Unity Congress President Michael Djordjevich sees the
possibility of a partition of Kosovo.


 


Bosnia, in a way, already serves as a precedent for such an arrangement
and in this case it means that the Bosnian Serb republic "Republika Srpska"
(RS) has a greater case for independence than Kosovo. The signed Dayton
Accords governing Bosnia states that each of the two established Bosnian
entities can establish their own parallel relationships with other states
after a four year period from the document's signing in 1995. Unlike Kosovo:
in RS, there's no noticeable ethnic violence, with many refugees having
returned to its territory.


 


What’s really spooky about all of this is how Anglo-American mass media
outlets at large haven't fully explained all of the valid particulars related
to opposing Kosovo's independence. This kind of a "free press" makes it
easy for officialdom to hustle policies like the "humanitarian" bombing
of Yugoslavia.


 


Russia and America have a number of common interests. Why risk a betterment
in Russo-American relations by supporting a faulty premised Kosovo independence?

---

Michael
Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media
critic. His commentary has appeared in the Action
Ukraine Report, Eurasian
Home, Intelligent.ru,
Johnson's
Russia List, Russia
Blog, The
New York Times  and The
Tiraspol Times.

Powered by ScribeFire.