Visit our Washington Page for more information
The passage of H.RES.24, on Independence of Kosovo, as being introduced by Congressmen Lantos (D-CA) and Henry Hyde (R-IL), would undermine the fundamental American national interests and transcend partisan politics.
It will also lead into:
Severe destabilization of Southeastern Europe matters to the United States. Following the Yugoslav wars of succession and other turmoil of the 1990s, the present state of the region is a tenuous peace, admittedly with numerous flaws. Nevertheless, it forms a basis for continued gradual progress, through Euro-Atlantic integrations and other regional trust-building measures.
Any further state fragmentation and unilateral border-redrawing is a precedent bound to rekindle regional conflicts with very serious consequences, as it would erase stability stemming from democratic progress in Serbia-Montenegro, destroy the premises for the present precarious balance in Bosnia-Herzegovina and FYROM, and likely trigger other unpredictable broader fallout. In turn, this will necessarily mandate a serious American open-ended involvement – something the US can objectively not afford in the present state of long-term strategic engagements in multiple international theaters.
Rewarding terrorism. The deadly ethnic Albanian rampage of March 2004, compounded with five years of continuous unpunished violence in UNadministered Kosovo, was nothing short of systematic, organized terror, based on a racist ideology and with clear culprits.
American NATO generals and European diplomats alike squarely labeled it “ethnic cleansing”, and UN Chief Holkeri accused the perpetrators and ringleaders of “severe crimes against humanity". Some Albanian lobbyists and terror apologists continue to see the problem in Kosovo’s open final status, insisting on granting it independence. But as NATO Secretary-General Scheffer plainly said:
”I don’t believe that the unresolved status has anything to do with this. This has to do with people who think wrongly, who have illusions that by carrying out these criminal acts of ethnic violence they get closer to their ambitions but they must understand that the international community will never accept this.”
The broader implications were succinctly addressed by former UN special envoy to the Balkans, Carl Bildt:
“In the US, some are now saying that […] in the wake of the violence we should reward the perpetrators with immediate independence: status - without standards. But giving in to violence today would give a powerful incentive to the ethnic cleansers of tomorrow. It is a principle as dangerous in the fight against ethnic violence as it is in the fight against terrorism. It risks betraying everything we have stood and fought for in the region for more than a decade.”
This is something America can ill afford. Caving in to demands of political extortion stemming from terrorism – whether in Manhattan, Madrid, Moscow or Mitrovica – must not be an option, or the lesson will not be lost on scores of rogue elements around the globe, discrediting our painstaking efforts in combating terror worldwide.
Undermining respect for international law. UN SC Resolution 1244 clearly reaffirms the sovereignty of Serbia-Montenegro over its province of Kosovo and Metohija, otherwise established through the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1976 and other international law. The democratic institutions of Serbia- Montenegro have repeatedly reiterated their country’s commitment to its national integrity and sovereignty.
Any unilateral move that would attempt to negate this is extremely dangerous, since it is increasingly obvious that the ambitious but comprehensive US foreign policy goals and programs are not possible without broad allied support and buy-in from the spectrum of world democracies. This is primarily achieved through established multilateral institutions, and insistence on any such unilateral independence will be interpreted as blatant disregard and disdain for such institutions – resulting in a serious weakening of the US ability to lead by example and to constructively forge and effectively maintain such alliances in high-priority areas of its foreign-policy agenda. Furthermore, given the clear opposition to such a move by the State Department - supported by the spirit and language of Senate Resolution 326 and the continuously growing co-sponsor list for HRES 596 - sending an opposite message from the US Congress would display a detrimental lack of unity and coherence on vital foreign policy issues.
Comments from our readers
