A discussion on Kosovo at GPIA: Intervention and State-building

(Left to Right: Anna Di Lellio, Julian (?), Lamberto Zannier, James Rubin)

I attended a discussion hosted by the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University (my alma matar) this past week. The discussion was titled: "Kosovo: The Hazards of Intervention and State-Building" with panelists James Rubin, Former Assistant Secretary and Chief Spokesman, Lamberto Zannier, the current Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the head of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and Zannier's Political Director for UNMIK (who was a fill in for Zannier until he showed. Unfortunately his name was not posted, but his first name is Julian, I believe). Although the moderator, Anna Di Lellio, wanted to at first speak about the past and bring the conversation to the present and future of Kosovo, like all discussions with diplomats, it did not go as intended. But nevertheless it was interesting to hear what Rubin, Zannier, and Julian had to say - Rubin was the most loquacious of the three. Here is a summary and brief analysis of the event:

The first question Di Lellio brought to the panelists was whether the humanitarian intervention was successful in light of the problems and failings it has has economically, politically, and socially. Rubin, who was part of Madeline Albright's entourage at the peace discussions between Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, was adamant that it was successful, for two reasons. The first being that it prevented a genocide, which he was sure would have occurred, and second because there was no commercial interest or potential for profit in state-building. Hence Rubin believed the intervention was successful for the US and the West in the moral use of military action. Yet the problems in which Kosovo faces currently have been there since the war's end and it will take some time to solved the Kosovo crisis, which Rubin says won't be over night (or in a decade since the end of the war in 1999, apparently).

Of course it will never be known how many Albanians would have been killed by former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic had NATO not intervened in Kosovo. And there is also a critique that NATO actually prompted Serbia to kill more Albanians before they their potential defeat by NATO. But the past is the past, and there is a general consensus according to Rubin that atrocities to Albanians in Kosovo would have been worse if NATO did not intervene. (There is two sides to this story, which includes the Kosovo Liberation Army and how they might have stepped up their attacks on the Serbian army and Serb residents because they believed they were backed by NATO no matter what. This is another debatable topic, which you can read about in my Kosovo posts of this past summer).

The second question was addressed to Julian, since Zannier was not present at the time. Di Lellio asked whether one can measure the progress of democracy in Kosovo, especially with the presence of all the state-building and democracy-promoting international institutions. Julian, who works for UNMIK, addressed his answer first toward his organization. He said that UN Resolution 1244, which allowed UNMIK to administer to Kosovo and prepare it for its independence, was never meant to be in place 12 years after implementation. There is now something of a 'checkmate' in Kosovo since Kosovo has its independence and is calling for UNMIK to leave. The UN supposedly wants to repeal 1244 because it has largely fulfilled its mandate, but it is not up to the UN, rather to the UN Security Council. But because Russia and China are on the Security Council, they will not repeal the mandate because this would imply they are recognizing Kosovo's independence, which they do not. (The other members of the SC recognize Kosovo as an independent state.)

This is where things got a bit interesting. Rubin proclaimed that China will eventually change its disposition on Kosovo and recognize it. Julian stated that if Kosovo receives over 100 recognitions from UN member states (it now has 75), there could be a psychological shift within the UN to see it as an independent state. Julian did sound skeptical that this would happen any time soon. Zannier, who showed up by this time, had this to say: Kosovo has a parallel universe, on one side it is the citizens of Kosovo and the other it is the stakeholders (i.e. international community, donors) who expect results. Particularly when one talks about the rule of law in Kosovo, it cannot be just about Pristina, the capital, but about the whole country, and much needs to be done. Although UNMIK is trying to scale down activities, there is still a number of countries who object to Kosovo's independence and there are many political problems that UNMIK can assist with. Hence, UNMIK still survives. Rubin, on the other hand, simply stated that the US needs to get moving on this issue, because the US is still a world leader, and "without US action, it is unlikely international action can be galvanized."

The last big question Di Lellio was able to posit before opening it up to the floor, had to do with the prospect for partition in the North of Kosovo. Zannier answered first. He said the the government of Kosovo's strategy of penetrating the North and trying to convince the Serbs in Kosovo to play along with it is not working. No matter how much money the Kosovo government funnels into the North or the institutions they try to implement, the Serbs are not buying in to becoming a true citizen of the Kosovo government. Serbia however is pushing partition or some sort of special status in the North, like Republika Sprska. There have been rumors of a land swap in the North, meaning North Kosovo will go to Serbia and in return, there will be some land in South Serbia which is mainly inhabited by Albanians that will fall under Kosovo's jurisdiction. Or there has been a proposal of a free trade zone in the North, which would include Mitrovica South (see previous blog posts on this city), but Zannier seemed to dismiss these propositions. He said that territorial adjustment would set a precedent for malfunctioning, multi-ethnic societies, which is potentially destabilizing in these areas. Although Zannier did not give a direct answer or solution, he did say that Kosovo has been relatively stable since independence, which is a good thing. But to address the situation in Northern Kosovo, the root of the problems between Serbs and Albanians in this area must be addressed.

I'll conclude with some brief remarks by Rubin and Julian on what Kosovo means for the field of humanitarian intervention. Rubin says that the international community will have to solve the problems in Kosovo to avoid arguments against the aftermath of interventions, i.e. state-building. But also that in the future, if one threatens force, one may have to use it, which was the case of NATO against Serbia in Kosovo in 1999. Julian ended with saying that the nature of peacekeeping has changed due to the creation of regional and sub-regional organizations like the African Union or Organization of American States. The UN has decreased its peacekeeping operations in the face of these organizations doing the work for them, but it is still the case that in the most dangerous places, like Sudan (but not Somalia), the UN is the only organization that will attempt peacekeeping missions.

This event was taped and should be posted on the GPIA website soon. It will most likely be located under "Announcements" when you scroll down.