Serbian-Kosovo Conflict Musings

The Serbian-Kosovo conflict in the late nineties was one of the first events in which the modern era world powers exercised their abilities to intervene and halt a tragic human event. Whether or not this intervention was in anyone's right is in contention, and the majority opinion is that the course of events leading to the conflict resolution was riddled with mistakes. I believe unraveling this conflict is a major step in understanding Balkan society and understanding the role of the world powers in a global society. 

The conflict, as I see it, is essentially two groups of good people represented by groups of "bad" people. In my reading (very limited on the subject matter), I have yet to be convinced that the Serbians and the Albanians wanted to go to war. Some extremely nationalistic individuals on both sides conspired to rid Kosovo of its Serbians or Albanians. The KLA wanted an Albanian state. Milosevic wanted to keep Kosovo as part of Serbia because of history. The result is atrocities on both sides. Depending on your bias, the KLA was either a resistance to improper treatment by Serbia or the KLA was a guerilla unit operating to free Kosovo and inciting Serbian reactions. Regardless, innocent people were killed and the world knew about it. The Rwandan genocide was fresh in the world's memories and thus world powers were keen to not have a repeat performance. 

Whether or not another state has right to militarily intervene hinges heavily on an individuals degree of faith in the power of diplomacy. Unfortunately, to have diplomatic influence, a government must be powerful, which leads to threats. There was a time in which threats were made and then not followed through on. In my history classes, it was called appeasement, and World War II followed. Because the Security Council was divided over the conflict, the UN was unable to act. However, the US and other European powers (NATO) could not simply turn their shoulders on a humanitarian crisis. There was evidence for the ethnic cleansing of Albanians. Unless they wanted to repeat Rwanda, they had to act. Unfortunately, the problem was immensely complex.

NATO faced a difficult problem in figuring out how to work a resolution. Milosevic and ethnic cleansing had to be stopped. The KLA, who was toeing the line of being a terrorist group (according to some opinions), was too extreme. This led to a trial and error course of events that increased in intensity until military action had to be taken. When NATO implemented the bombing campaign, there were roughly 19 political powers to seek approval for the details of any bomb strategy or plan. This is important. The United States was not dropping bombs over Serbia because they felt like it. The difficulties in working with such a large number of nationalities may help explain strategic mistakes. 

There were several results of this conflict. Albanians, in their resentment of Serbians, poorly treated - and in some cases beat and murdered - Serbians in Kosovo. This has caused continued resentment and proves that hate begets hate, violence begets violence. NATO proved itself as a political entity consisting of multiple nationalities, and the U.S. showed that it would not bully other countries into pursuing U.S. interests. Globally, it is no longer acceptable that a country can treat its citizens in any way it wants. Accountability for human rights is a recognized need among the world powers. The global society that is emerging needs law, which is enforced with the threat of force.

This leaves me with two prompts for further reflection. One, how should states handle immigrated ethnic groups who are seeking autonomy? Can a group of people move into a country and take over the land because of population size? This issue seams to be a factor in the events leading up to the conflict. Two, in what ways can diplomacy be effective without the threat of military power? I likely have a lack of understanding, but in such a case as Milosevic, his only incentive to stop fighting was either giving him what he wanted (an unacceptable option) or threatening him with military force (which leads to military intervention). Is diplomacy possible without a strong military support?