In the twilight of the last century the world turned its attention towards Eastern Europe as the international community witnessed the brutal destruction of human life with Serbian forces and Kosovo Albanians engaged in an intense struggle for survival. Only after 10,000 Kosovo Albanians were killed and a million people driven out, did the NATO intervene, choosing to three months of bombing on Serb targets. The Kosovo Albanian then has been independent in all but name, functioning as a United Nations protectorate.
Once again the unresolved Kosovo issue is at the center of global focus. When the UN mediator Martti Ahtisaari submitted his proposal to the Security Council that proposes Kosovo independence under international supervision, the polarized position between the US and Russia has deepened with renewed vigor. With Russian President Putin blocking Kosovo’s bid for independence from Serbia during the just concluded G8 Summit; US President Bush has responded with an assurance supporting Kosovo’s independence during his visit to Albania.
The differences between US and Russia on Kosovo’s independence are not surprising, but what is of grave concern is the rhetoric being echoed on both ends of the spectrum. The manner in which the rhetoric is aggravating the situation has spilled over to other areas of differences, causing observers to speculate the possibilities of the resumption of the Cold-War era. The situation is not helped by the fact that Kosovo has clearly indicated that they would resort to their own course of action, particularly after the G8 summit decided not to make a concrete decision on the issue.
The division over the issue within the UN Security Council does not help given the fact that it only delays the voting over Ahtisaari’s proposal for Kosovo’s supervised independence. The delay has only allowed differences to be entrenched, while causing huge financial burdens since the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo is the UN’s most expensive operation. The inherent contradictions within the UN are a glaring manifestation that demonstrates the lack in its political will to abide by its own principles and to exercise them equally, with no discrimination towards any people, nation or government.
Tragically, the UN has lost its moral authority. This is evident by the UN’s contradicting implementation of self-determination, inspite of its recognition that ‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’ Between 1947 to 1991, self-determination has been exercised twice – the independence of Bangladesh and the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. Since then people in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and East Timor have successfully challenged the very notion of territorial integrity and exercised their self-determining capacities.
The case of Kosovo is just one example where the UN has lost its ability to discern its stand on the principles of justice and democracy, seeking instead the short-sighted approach of state pragmatism. There is no doubt that the politics of the elephants is holding the future of struggling people at ransom. Few years ago, Babu sighted an African proverb which claimed that when two elephants fight, the grass suffers; and when two elephants make love, the grass still suffers. For too long, the people have fallen casualty to the elephants, and it’s about time that a new discourse in world politics is founded. Can we transcend the politics of the elephants?
