As easy as Kosovo

We must worry about the manner in which the birth of a new nation has been engineered

It is difficult to shake off the feeling that the birth of Kosovo is really the culmination of a series of old and unhealthy trends in global politics. Major powers of Europe seem to relish the fact that for the first time a small Muslim majority state has been carved out in Europe, thus testifying to Europe’s progress. But the truth is that the birth of Kosovo is also a profound testament of the failure of the nation state form in Europe to accommodate ethnic diversity. As Michael Mann, in an important article on the “Dark Side of Democracy” had noted, modern European history has built in an irrevocable drive towards ethnic homogenisation within the nation state.

In the 19th century, there was a memorable debate between John Stuart Mill and Lord Acton. John Stuart Mill had argued, in a text that was to become the bible for separatists all over, including Jinnah and Savarkar, that democracy functions best in a mono-ethnic societies. Lord Acton had replied that a consequence of this belief would be bloodletting and migration on an unprecedented scale; it was more important to secure liberal protections than link ethnicity to democracy. It was this link that Woodrow Wilson elevated to a simple-minded defence of self-determination. The result, as Mann demonstrated with great empirical rigour, was that European nation states, 150 years later, were far more ethnically homogenous than they were in the 19th century; most EU countries were more than 85 per cent mono-ethnic.

Most of this homogeneity was produced by horrendous violence, of which Milosevic’s marauding henchmen were only the latest incarnation. This homogeneity was complicated somewhat by migration from some former colonies. But very few nation states in Europe remained zones where indigenous multi-ethnicity could be accommodated. It is not an accident that states in Europe that still face the challenge of accommodating territorially concentrated multi-ethnicity are most worried about the Kosovo precedent. The EU is an extraordinary experiment in creating a new form of governance; but Europe’s failures with multi-ethnicity may yet be a harbinger of things to come. Kosovo acts as a profound reminder of the failure of the nation state in Europe.

Story continues below this ad

Kosovo also sets a dangerous precedent in international law. A unilateral declaration of independence has been recognised without an appropriate form of institutional mediation; every unsavoury separatist is gloating. Milosevic represented barbarism of the highest order and that history has a profound bearing on Kosovo’s claims. But it should be a matter of some regret that a democratic post-Milosevic government was not given opportunity to find a workable and just solution. Indeed, there is more than ample evidence that the way in which the major powers like the US framed the issue, there was little prospect of any accommodation between the Serbs and Kosovars. For it appears that any solution short of independence was ruled out right from the start. The assurance that the US and major European powers would back independence surely would have altered the structure of internal negotiations.

Europe may think it is expiating guilt over its mishandling of Bosnia. Some even suggest that it might win brownie points by being seen to facilitate the creation of a small Muslim majority state. How this turns out remains to be seen. But the truth is that US and European support for Kosovo’s independence in this form is nothing but unprincipled and opportunistic. It is unprincipled because there is no way of distinguishing the Kosovo case from dozens other cases that could be subject to similar treatment. When Europe and the US try and assure countries struggling with the challenge of accommodating multi-ethnicity that this is simply a one-off case, what do they mean? Since when has a “one-off” instance become a principle of international law? All that it can possibly mean is that we, the US and three powers in Europe, decide what case is fitting for recognition — world opinion, international law or a prudent analysis of consequences be damned. In some ways the Kosovo crisis is yet another reminder of how the major powers have broken the back of the global governance system, and ad hoc power is filling the vacuum.

Vladimir Putin is, by no stretch of the imagination, a savoury character. But there is something extraordinary about the extent to which the West is going all out to humiliate Russia and marginalising it from the world system. It is true that if genocide is an imminent possibility, the sensitivities of one or other great power will have to be ignored. And the Russians, it could be argued, have no locus standi in the matter. But the same could be argued for the US in most parts of the world. With what locus standi does the US counsel restraint to Taiwanese who want to declare independence? (It may not be a wise move, but Taiwan’s case is probably stronger than Kosovo’s.) But under current arrangements, with Kosovo already under European protection, that was hardly the case. Yet the blatant disregard for Russian sensitivities has become part of an unhealthy Western engagement with Russia. Indeed, as commentators have pointed out, there is marked asymmetry between the way in which the West treats Russia and China. On this view Russia is to be contained and restrained at all costs; while China is to be accommodated as far as possible. The truth is that Russia is a sulking great power, and if the West, in its profound arrogance, does not give Russia its due space, it is setting the world up for a great deal of mischief. Nothing is more dangerous to the world system than a former great power being humiliated. Even after 1999, the West took some steps to placate Russia on Kosovo; it will need to do the same.

And India has been again caught in a familiar foreign policy stance: pusillanimous napping. It is not in India’s interest, for peace in the subcontinent, that the Kosovo precedent be recognised in the form it has. Make no mistake: this precedent has all kinds of unsavoury implications for the subcontinent. It is absolutely extraordinary that India has taken so long to respond to an event of such importance. Whether this is sheer indecision, or yet another instance where we dare not openly come out against the Americans, remains to be determined. But even if we resign ourselves to the birth of a new nation, we ought to worry about the manner in which it has been engineered.

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research

pratapbmehta@gmail.com