14 March, 2008:  For those who haven’t been following closely the situation in the Balkans for the last decade, Kosovo’s declaration of independence on February 17th and the subsequent riots in the Serbian capital of Belgrade may have seemed like a sudden or spontaneous occurrence. For many individuals without a vested interest in the region, Kosovo’s saga may have seemed to come to an end with the Kosovo War in the late 1990’s. With this region of the world being once again thrust into the spotlight on the world stage, many are looking to understand exactly what led to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence and what it means for the future. This task is complicated by the fact that the past, present, and future of Kosovo appear fundamentally different depending on who one asks.   

The views on these issues have come to fall more or less along two different conflicting narratives, each of which can, for the sake of simplicity, be identified with the major international powers which support and promote them.

The first narrative is held by the United States and its Western European supporters, who almost immediately recognized the existence of an independent Kosovo. The opposing view belongs most notably to Russia and Serbia along with some major supporters, such as China, which refuse to formally acknowledge the actions taken by the Kosovar Assembly. What is so interesting and troubling about these dual narratives is that they disagree fundamentally on the facts, history and future outcomes associated with this situation.

One side of the debate is comprised of those who generally believe that Kosovo’s declaration was inevitable and unavoidable and now feel the focus must be shifted to moving forward with a peaceful and united Europe. “It is inconceivable that the outcome could have been any different than what we have today,” says Ambassador Frank G. Wisner, Special Representative of the Secretary of State to the Kosovo Status Talks, and a leading promoter of this narrative.

This view comes from its adherents’ perspective on the events leading up to the landmark decision and the position Kosovo has been in for the last decade. Since NATO intervened in the late 90’s to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo by Milosevic’s regime, the region was placed under the auspices of the United Nations, under which it has remained for the last nine years. The UN could not maintain this position indefinitely, this perspective argues. Repeated attempts to secure independence through the United Nations were blocked by Russia and China, and those supporting Kosovo’s actions believe that the terms Serbia was presenting in negotiations were unreasonable. “There was no bridge,” Wisner says of the failed negotiations. He feels that the terms offered by Serbia gave Kosovo little autonomy and were unacceptable. He also blames Russia for having an inflexible position throughout the negotiations. According to this view, the decision has been made, and now the international community must cope.

Wisner sees the future of Kosovo hinge on three determinants: the international community—especially the United States and NATO—must fulfill the promises it has made to Kosovo in terms of support; Serbia must be included in the process and it must learn to deal with the psychological shocks associated with such a break and move forward; and Russia must abandon its polarizing positions and actions within the United Nations and throughout the process for the good of everyone involved.

The opposing side is held by Russia and Serbia who understands the facts of the situation in a very different way. “The United States must know that there is a second narrative,” says Dimitri K. Simes, President of the Nixon Center. Moscow has already made it clear that it will never accept an independent Kosovo. Russia views the past through a very different lens than those on the other side of the debate and this has colored its past and present actions with regards to Kosovo and will continue to guide its future behavior as well.

One of the key interpretations shaping its views is that the Russian government considered the 1999 attack on Yugoslavia by NATO a violation of international law rather than a humanitarian and peacekeeping mission. Russia views the United States’ encouragement of Kosovo’s independence to be just another instance of the U.S. ignoring international law. This view—that many dangerous and important precedents have been set—will continue to shape Russian foreign policy in the future.

Simes expressed that several important consequences will result from this interpretation. First, Serbia has already strengthened its ties with Russia—and Moscow values this opportunity to increase its influence in the Balkans. Also, Russia sees a precedent being set by the breaking away of regions unilaterally—and it is considering the implications for areas such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Finally, this set of events will shape Russian foreign policy for years to come. “As a result of the U.S. violating international law and UN Resolutions,” Simes explains, “Russia will also view these Resolutions as optional, depending on its own national interests.” According to the Russian view, the terms of autonomy for Kosovo offered by Serbia were more than generous. Russian leaders also resented the fact that the United States entered negotiations with the attitude that they could only result in an independent Kosovo, which according to Simes, provided no incentives for Russia to be flexible and cooperative. All of these precedents taken together will surely impact Russia’s dealings with countries such as China and Iran, Moscow has implied.

In the complicated and convoluted realm of international politics and diplomacy there is a rarely one objective, monolithic narrative for any given event. The independence of Kosovo is no exception. For such a small region, the implications stemming from the situation in Kosovo, which have spanned years and will reach far into the future, are surely too numerous to count.