“What is good for the goose is good for the gander” English Proverb
On Sunday 17th February, the parliament of Kosovo unanimously approved a declaration of independence from Serbia, marking the end of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and with it the realisation of one Europe’s worst kept secrets.
Despite strong objections from Serbia, Russia and a handful of EU countries and vitally a lack of a UN resolution, it was long anticipated that Kosovo would declare unilateral independence in early 2008.
As the streets of Pristina were overfilled with joy and excitement, just across the small province, the Serbian dominated parts witnessed much violence, anger and upheaval.
The controversial motion sets an ominous precedence for separatist movements across the globe, in spite of EU claims that Kosovo was a ‘special case’. Serbia withdrew ambassadors to a number of countries that supported Kosovar independence and denounced the proclamation of a ‘false state’. Serbia was adamant that the sovereignty of Belgrade over Kosovo was guaranteed by UN and international law.
Clearly, the example of Kosovo shows that statehood can be achieved with the support of key countries across the world. Even without the advent of a UN resolution and particularly support from Russia and China, fervent US support was all that was necessary.
Russia accused the EU of encouraging global separatism and was equally vocal in its criticism of the US in proceedings.
Unsurprisingly, the UN Security Council could not agree on a response to Kosovo’s proclamation but declaration of independence was quickly recognised by US, Britain, Germany and numerous others.
With their own separatist headaches, a number of countries including Russia, Cyprus and Spain refused to recognise the newest member of the European family.
Apprehension by those opposed to the unilateral pursuit of statehood is understandable. After all, the definition of a credible separatist movement from those seeking unlawful division of a sovereign country is proving a very fine line.
Perhaps the most ironic recognition of Kosovo was by Turkey, who was never an avid supporter but its ‘thumbs-up’ to the new state was symbolic nevertheless. Undoubtedly, Kosovo has paradoxical implications for Turkey. On the one hand, it strengthens their claim on the rogue state of Northern Cyprus which they have held by force since 1974 despite no official international recognition. On the other hand, it undermines their bloody war with Kurdish separatists that they have relentlessly tried to quell and have even invaded a neighbouring country under the banner of preserving national security.
The old saying, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’ cannot be discounted. The situation begs a critical question, as Kosovo and by Turkish implications, Northern Cyprus are justified separatist causes then how can 15 millions Kurds with a rich culture and history dating back thousands of years in the same region be classified as terrorists by the same brush?.
It only goes to highlight the importance of perception. Kosovar independence was endorsed by the US and other powers because its people ‘deserved’ freedom and unmolested sovereignty and by virtue that Serbia had forfeited the claim to the province after a highly-publicised genocide that was conducted in the late 1990’s that culminated in the region becoming a UN administered zone, protected by NATO.
However, the similarities with the Kurds by that same token stretches even deeper. As Kosovar’s suffered under a dictatorship, so have the Kurds for many decades under multiple regimes. Kurds form a great minority in Turkey, Iran and Iraq as Albanians do in Serbia, Greece and Macedonia. Kosovo Albanians also border their ethnic brethren as do the Kurds in four adjacent countries.
However, whilst Albanians already have a country of their own (Albania), the Kurds have nothing. The struggle to establish a ‘Kosovar’ identity in the aftermath of statehood is well documented. Kosovar’s have yet to build a distinctive national image with a lack of an official flag, army and national anthem. After all, it was the greater Albanian flag that was ubiquitous on every corner of Pristina.
The tale of double-crossings and double-standards has been the bane of modern Kurdish history. Forcefully divided, a national of 40 million with its own flag, language, history and distinct national identity has never received the support of global powers.
If the principle of self-determination as touted by former US president Woodrow Wilson or the modern model used for Kosovo is applied equivocally then Kurdistan would have been independent long ago.
The key issue is not whether the Kurds deserve independence (in the same manner as Kosovar’s obviously do), anyone in their rightful mind will not doubt this, even the strongest of foes but it is the loss that some global powers would have by employing these same principles to the Kurds.
For one, the Kurds have masses of oil which was a precursor to their separation in the first place. However, it is the imperialist ploys of the past that continue to make mockery of the new world order.
Unfortunately, the political chess board is full of loop-holes and shallow interpretations. Each pawn will only move in a way afforded by other seemingly superior pieces. Whilst the Kurds advocating even cultural rights are deemed terrorists for defending their identity, other groups are endorsed in the same quest.
Whilst global powers rushed to assist a population of 2 million in Kosovo, millions of Kurds have been the victims of brutal persecution and chemical gassing, while the same advocates of a righteous world turned a blind eye – seemingly to quench their strategic thirst that made the Kurds indispensable by-products.
At least Iraqi Kurdistan can take some heart for the new benchmark set by Kosovo and perhaps even a few tips on Kosovar marketing and systematic approach to achieving their goals.
However, even in the days of so-called equality and globalisation, out dated colonial philosophies are widely in circulation. If Kosovar’s are worthy of independence and freedom then based on what international criteria are separatists in Romania, Georgia and Spain classified as any different?
Obviously, not every nation or group without merit can simply demand independence, this would amount to absolute anarchy across the world but it just goes to show the vague and ambiguous international criterion for assessing the eligibility of statehood. In essence it is simply derived on factors determined to suit the parties around the table.
Ironically, with Kosovo now inhibiting a population of 10% Serbs, the seeds for future conflict and instability have already been sewn. Almost immediately following celebrations in the Kosovar capital, angry Serbs ransacked two border crossings linking Kosovo and Serbia with NATO forces subsequently cutting off Serbs in Kosovo from mainland Serbia.
Remarkably, what is now emerging on the ground is nothing short of a second Kosovo. So what if Serbs in Kosovo were now ethnically cleansed and systemically persecuted, what would the international community then do?
In the case of the Kurds, due to their rich lands and strategic position, independence would only have the same support if global powers would make particular benefit from such a move.
When the newly created state is more strategically significant than its former occupier, former occupiers would be simply powerless to stop the state attaining independence.