Sovereignty Hypocrisy

Earlier today, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer demanded that Russia withdraw troops from Abkhazia, a breakaway region of the ex-Soviet state of Georgia. He claimed that the action, unauthorized by the national government, was a violation of Georgian sovereignty. Unsurprisingly, this is an inaccurate framing of the issue, and reflects the exception hypocrisy practiced by US and the international institutions it dominates, such as NATO.

First, it is quite clear that this is not a violation of sovereignty in any capacity. The Georgian government officially recognizes Abkhazia as an autonomous republic. More importantly, the vast majority of said territory has not been under Georgian control for the past 16 years. For years now, the Russian government has been the main source of aid and stability for the highly volatile region. This is reflected by the nature of the recent military deployment. Russia did not send in troops to bolster revolution, but to aid in railway repair. The 300 soldiers were unarmed, and came via non-military transportation vehicles. Clearly, this was a humanitarian mission, with the Russian government aiding de facto dependents that the national government of Georgia lacks the financial resources to care for. The average citizen in Abkhazia is neglected and lives in poverty, relying on Russian support to survive, but remaining under the thumb of an incompetent national government. Yet this story of aid in infrastructure repair does not reveal the full extent of Abkhazian-Russian ties. They use the Russian ruble instead of the Georgian lari, in large part because one of their largest industries is tourism from Russia. And, while a visa is needed for Russians to enter Georgia, it is not needed for Abkhazia. Thus, there is clearly a strong relationship between the Russian and Abkhazian people.

While a distinct language is spoken among their population, and they are religiously more similar to the rest of Georgia based on Ottoman conquest, that is where the Abkhazia-Georgia relationship ends. They are not closely tied to the people of Abkazia, whose distinct identity has afforded them autonomy under many alien rulers in centuries past. Georgia may have done likewise, but remains in violation of international law. The right to self-determination is one of the cornerstones of UN policy. So, if NATO and the UN insist on upholding international law, then they must condemn the Georgian control of Abkazia, not the Russians who have elected to assist these maligned people.

Of course, when it comes to Eastern Europe, US-led institutions consistently and flagrantly defy international law. In this era of unipolarity, the US feels it has license to violate the very same laws it helped to author; avoid taking any responsibility for such actions; and still continue to hold others accountable, even where their guilt is questionable at best. This vile hypocrisy was perhaps most clearly illustrated by American involvement in the Balkans. Excluding the two American attacks on Serbia during the 1990’s, which is another topic deserving a lengthy analysis, the present Kosovo crisis provides an excellent case study.

Kosovo is, quite clearly, an integral part of Serbia, and has been since its founding. Even in the 11th century, when Serbian kingdoms were divided by Ottoman rule, the vast majority of them were concentrated in and around Kosovo. When Stefan Nemanja created what many regard as the first unified Serbian nation in 1180, he included Kosovo in it, as it was home primarily to the Serbian people. Prizren and Priština, both cities in Kosovo, long served as alternate capital cities for the Serbian monarch. It was only when Serbia fell to the Ottoman invaders that Kosovo began to undergo a demographic change. The Serbians largely refused to convert to Islam, and thus were discriminated against, forcing many to flee when able. By contrast, the Albanians welcomed the new religion, and were afforded greater territorial control within the empire. Albanian Muslims, who now account for 90% of the population in Kosovo, have only controlled the region since the 19th century, and did so mostly with the support of their own foreign rulers. Their first attempt at real independence for Kosovo came only after the Young Turks did not afford the Albanians the rights they sought. There was not ever a push for an independent Kosovo in and of itself, but for a Greater Albania, based on migration over the past two centuries. To this day, the strongest advocates in Albania and Macedonia for Kosovo are those politicians who want to create a massive pan-Albanian state, able to dominate the ethnically polarized region.

In spite of the obvious illegitimacy and irrationality of the Albanian declaration of independence, the United States supported this. Perhaps, if international law were on their side, they could be given a pass for displaying a profound ignorance of regional history. However, there is no doubt that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is a violation of international law. Resolution 1244, passed during the illegal foreign interference in a Yugoslavian civil war, remains the most important piece of legislation regarding the status of Kosovo, and has garnered acceptance even among the most radical segments of Serbian society. It established the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, which would serve as the interim administration of Kosovo until a final status consensus could be reached. Suffice to say, the UN Security Council, which has the sole legal right to undermine sovereignty and arbitrate major land disputes was not consulted. Why? Two of the five permanent nations, Russia and China, disagreed with American policy. So, rather than comply with the rules whose design was largely American, the United States opted to circumvent the established legal protocol, and unilaterally legitimize the independence of an illegally created state. Many nations in Europe and elsewhere have noted this. Rather than attempt to correct this by withdrawing support from a false government and comply with international norms, the US has attacked nations who dare suggest that recognition of Kosovo creates a dangerous precedent and undermines the letter and spirit of international law and institutional cooperation.

With the handling of Kosovo in mind, it is unsurprising that the United States has again opted to impose its will in Easter Europe without properly understanding the realities of the region, its history, and the applicable international law by which it is bound. This does not however excuse such behavior. Other nations need to take the United States to task for this, and force them to comply with the rule of law. If the US fails to respond to such demands, then it only strengthens the case for a coalition of other powers to unite and end this unipolar reality that empowers American arrogance in foreign policy. After all, the United States is clearly in the wrong, and will continue to support or enact inappropriate policy unless forced to change course. Only then will the sovereignty hypocrisy end.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

• Previously Unreleased: The Changing Nature of Dhimmitude and the Jizyah
• In Defense of the EDL
• How Liberal Politics Ruined Student Life
• My Resignation From Student Life
• Srebrenica: More Myth Than Massacre