[ALBSA-Info] A Sovereign Kosovo

[aalibali at law.harvard.edu]

Christian Science Monitor
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 03, 2000 


OPINION
How to create a sovereign Kosovo 
By Julie Mertus 


BALTIMORE, MD. 

In the face of an election defeat last month, Yugoslav President Slobodan 
Milosevic appears all but ready to give way to his opposition successor. No 
matter what happens next in Belgrade, however, it is clear that the vote for 
the opposition was a necessary first step in giving power back to the people of 
Yugoslavia and restoring their hope for a better future. 

The same kind of ballot-driven catalyst for change is needed in Kosovo, where 
the people can't govern for themselves because the international community 
governs for them. This presents a curious irony: While the UN is there to help, 
it's actively preventing self-determination by Kosovars. 

The key to new thinking on Kosovo that could lead to a long-term solution rests 
in application of modern concepts of human rights and state sovereignty. These 
concepts were played out at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September, 
where the fact that state sovereignty is no longer absolute was repeatedly 
acknowledged. World leaders heard in speech after speech that preventing war 
and fostering the conditions for peace means addressing the root causes of 
conflict wherever they occur. What happens inside states, including economic 
deprivation and human rights violations, the summit found, is of concern to the 
entire international community. 

This developing international consensus on limited state sovereignty has broad 
implications for all parts of the world. For those struggling to find a 
solution to the ongoing Kosovo crisis, it is crucial. 

Some legal commentators have thought about sovereignty in the context of 
military intervention. The argument here is that the NATO military intervention 
in Kosovo was justified by the gross and systemic human rights violations 
there. Ever since the days of the Nuremberg trials, states have been unable to 
justify gross mistreatment of their own citizens in the name of state 
sovereignty. States that do so in violation of international standards waive 
their claim to sovereignty and open the door to international corrective 
measures. 

The same thinking about state sovereignty applied to the intervention question 
can be applied to interpretation of the Kosovo peace agreement. To date, 
however, this has not been done. 

Any discussion on Kosovo these days is hampered by a fundamental misreading of 
UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the document which provides authority for 
the UN mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Commentators read this document as resolving 
the future status of Kosovo in Serbia's favor. They claim that either 
reconstruction efforts must proceed with Kosovo forever being part of 
Yugoslavia, or the UN resolution must be changed. This is wrong. Options in 
Kosovo need not be limited to these two scenarios. 

Resolution 1244 does confirm the commitment of UN member states "to the 
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." 
But the use of the words "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity" does not 
automatically resolve the status of Kosovo in Serbia's favor. 

On the contrary, these words invoke human rights principles that weigh not on 
the side of any particular group, but in favor of respect for international 
human rights standards for all. 

The concepts of "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity" incor- porate the 
international standards discussed at the Millennium Summit. Thus, the concept 
of "territorial integrity" means more than just passive border maintenance. It 
requires states to actively maintain the integrity of their territory through 
the observance of international human rights standards. 

Similarly, the concept of "sovereignty" points to the prerogative of states to 
act, but only insofar as the state is in line with international standards. The 
notion of "sovereignty" today also incorporates the right to popular 
sovereignty. States must respect sovereign rights of the people to participate 
in society and choose how they should be governed and by whom. 

For more than 10 years, the government of Yugoslavia has violated the integrity 
of its own territory and the sovereignty of the people through orchestrated 
oppression against Albanians, Croats, Muslims, independent journalists, and 
opposition politicians. The task for UNMIK should be to help the people of the 
region claim their sovereignty and restore the integrity of their territory by 
promoting the human rights of all citizens. 

The international mission must permit the people to decide their future for 
themselves. Instead of acting as a colonial-style administrator and imposing 
its own will, UNMIK should empower locals to discover their own solutions. 
Whether that future is partition or independence, the role of the international 
mission is to provide security in the short term and aid the development of 
participatory, self-governing, human-rights-abiding institutions for the long 
term. 

So far, UNMIK has been afraid to support any local efforts that would upset the 
status quo. But the status quo is unacceptable to all parties, and it cannot 
endure over the long term. A status-quo solution imposed by an outside force 
against the will of locals violates the principle of sovereignty that the UN is 
working to uphold. 

By denying Kosovars the right to decide their own fate, UNMIK is violating the 
principle of sovereignty, not promoting it. The lessons on limited state 
sovereignty, which were heard loud and clear at the Millennium Summit, should 
be applied to Kosovo. 




Julie Mertus, a professor of peace and conflict resolution at American 
University, is the author of 'Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War' 
(University of California Press, 1999).