Political Posturing in the Kosovo War - Trey Sides

"We know accurately only when we know little; doubt grows with knowledge."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

As I read through the myriad of opinions and interviews on the Kosovo War compiled by PBS, I became interested in the recurring tendency of individuals to frame the conflict in a particular way. It seems like a no-brainer that the Yugoslav general would defend his military's actions as justified by the "terrorist activities" of the KLA, while the Kosovar Albanian resistance leader would focus on the necessity of violent resistance in the face of "segregational policies" handed down from Belgrade. The Serbs have nothing to gain from admitting their complicity in fostering conditions that favored war, and the KLA's position would not be improved by acknowledging its own terroristic actions in Kosovo. From a political standpoint, their behavior makes sense - they must maintain a façade of complete justification of their side's actions and denial of any wrongdoing in order to solidify popular support. Ceding points to the opponent does not make for effective propaganda.

Yugoslavian/Serbian general Nebojsa Pavkovic

 Kosovar leader Hashim Thaci

Yet I wonder whether, for all the bluster, those individuals really buy into their rhetoric. Certainly they know where they've overstepped or flat out done something wrong. Presumably both sides believe wholeheartedly in their respective causes. So is it simply a matter of knowing the value of posturing that they refuse to admit their faults? Or do they really see the conflict so slanted that any behavior on their part, no matter how foul, is justified - and therefore irrelevant in talks - in light of their opponents' activity? Perhaps it's a mix of both. While that sort of talk helps galvanize public opinion, it doesn't create a climate favorable to negotiations or a peaceful resolution. When the Serb general consistently labels his opponents terrorists, he provides a moral defense for not participating in talks with them.

And that may, in fact, be another reason for maintaining such a consistent front of rhetoric, charged terminology and insistence on the degeneracy of the opponent. While holding to a position of righteousness may not be even logically defensible in some cases (e.g., mass graves exhumed by human rights organizations and the fact that the KLA was listed by the US as a terrorist organization for years), admitting to wrongdoing or taking a more neutral stance in discussions is an undeniable weakness. In doing so, the more moderate side would be giving its opponents ammunition that would almost certainly not be reciprocated, leaving their side vulnerable to attack. Thus we reach the nearly inescapable conclusion that any negotiations that do take place do so against a backdrop of pure, unadulterated disagreement. While I don't know what might have been said behind closed doors in those talks, even once agreements have been reached, both sides claim that they are reaching out an olive branch to the other side, and both paint themselves as martyrs.

What shocked me was the feeling that the US - and NATO, more broadly - exhibited nearly the same behavior in the Kosovo War. Amazingly, American military and political figures seemed to take the question of right and wrong for granted - that the Kosovar nationalists were right, and (more importantly) that Serbia was very, very wrong. Maybe an objective look at claims of ethnic cleansing support that position, but from the sources I read, there seemed to be at least moderate doubt that the situation was as clear-cut as some of those individuals assumed. A very well-written chain of correspondence between two subject-matter experts reveals some of the debate over the justification for engagement in the conflict. Similar to the posturing of Kosovo and Serbia, though, NATO's unflinching belief in the rightness of their cause (even with the lack of a UN security council resolution) may have been a prerequisite to their decision to make a military commitment.

What is the point of all this nit-picking about political posturing? Simply the fact that it applies to nearly every instance in which there is a difference of opinions. Consider any modern issue or conflict - Ukraine, North Korea, Iran, even LGBT rights in Uganda and ongoing tensions in Balkan independence movements - and you'll see the exact same behavior. The problem is, these situations present little to no incentive for acknowledging your own faults or wrongdoing, making for an environment where neither side is addressing the reality of the situation and progress comes through political maneuvering or threats, rather than enlightened discussion. To end on a call to action, we average citizens must be willing to see our own (or our country's) faults and to moderate our positions on the big issues accordingly. When the countries sitting at the table have no reason to take a moderate tone, we must refuse to buy into the ideology and vocally stand up for the middle ground.