The Role of Different International Organization in the Kosovo War Crises - Essay Example

Kosovo War crises Q1: What is the role of different international organization on the Kosovo War crises such as the United Nation i.e. (UN protectionforce UNPROFOR), NATO, EU, and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)? From the very start, the Kosovo crisis stood for a complicated issue of legitimizing an international involvement. Mainly the crisis took place in the sovereign country of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Within the state of Serbia the Albanians represented a major minority group. The UNO, the lawful body of international intervention might act as a strong negotiator, implementing international peace-keeping task in the disputed area, however the UNO might have no right to control larger country of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or to alter the status of Kosovo. This was the outline, where the international organizations, intervening in the crisis functioned till the end of 1998 (Minchev, 2000). Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter the UN Security Council called in its Resolution 1199 of 23 September 1998 for the withdrawal of Serbian security forces from Kosovo. It decided that there was ‘a threat to peace and security in the region’, and called upon the participant to progress the condition and start talks to bring this about. NATO Secretary General Javier Solana stated that Resolution 1199 gave the Alliance the right to use force as they have the authority to act to stop a humanitarian catastrophe (Burger, 2000). The legitimization of the NATO movement against official Belgrade was prepared around the international character of the human rights values and the obligations of the ‘global community. The increasing integrity of merging Europe was also used as an influential additional argument. The major Western leaders, united around the NATO, and the UNO, where Russia and China with veto powers at the Security Council, has reduced the legality of the ‘international community’ further action to the arguments of the major Western powers. The military operation against Belgrade was carried out because of the cohesive decision of the Western powers. As Milosevic surrendered to the military force that allowed the international peace keepers of KFOR, agreement linking the UNO as a recognized agency of control over the international force had made possible. These developments have shaped a fresh framework of international action legitimization in the area of crisis management. Once major violations of human rights considered to have taken place, the national sovereignty is not a barrier to stop international action. Observing international relations in essence, smaller countries in several regions of the globe have frequently been considered sovereign only by right. Kosovo represents an example where human rights concerns are considered more valuable principle of the international organization, than the principle of sovereignty. The western powers decided to avoid the UNO, in the case of Kosovo, and took legal action on Belgrade, legitimizing NATO as an authority of implementing the decisions of the ‘global community’ without considering the status and opinion of Russia and China. Later, the NATO Alliance approved a new structure of the NATO policy and territorial range of action, involving Central and Eastern Europe as the Alliance’s partners with their consent in the lawful territory of operation. NATO’s commitment to human rights protection has further legitimized with the strategy those only democratic nations may represent the Alliance’s membership (Minchev, 2000). The European perspective is that the Kosovo is the finest way to move towards European integration by creating an independent and multi-ethnic Kosovo with integrity and full respect for the law working together calmly with its neighbours and establishing regional and European stability. This comprises broad actions to preserve the future of all the people in Kosovo, thus creating a base for Kosovos financial and political growth. Hence, the EU is taking an important role in the international presence in Kosovo, in cooperation with local and other global actors (consilium.europa, ND). Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) expressed its serious concern that the Belgrade rule under President Milosevic has not only determinedly refused to engage for a political solution but has performed military operations against the civilian population in Kosovo, forcing thousands out of their homes, burning entire villages, committing the crimes of genocide and ethnic cleansing, in breaking of the provisions of the pertinent Security Council resolutions and international humanitarian law. The OIC observed that a crucial global action was essential to stop humanitarian disaster and further abuses of human rights in Kosovo. It is unfortunate that the Security Council has been incapable to carryout its job in this case in line with the United Nations Charter (OIC, 1999). Q2: Then what is the REALIST CUT, the LIBERAL CUT and the MARXIST CUT to the Kosovo war case? The REALIST CUT The Conservatives from the realist view think that war is legal and unavoidable; they consider it should commence only when continued existence or vital national interests are in danger. War is considered as an expensive and dreadful event that is not easy to manage. Since the war’s negative potential and uncertain nature, the realist views it as a last option used only for the most significant reasons. The notion that the state should only fight for its survival or vital national interests is the outline of conservative realism. In summing up, the conservative philosophy of force stems from a ‘realistic’ global vision where sovereign states act with finest interests according to the principle of its more contemporary outline. The outcome of these efforts is a balance of power structure that adds to stability. Within such an arrangement, war is a legitimate way of attaining and safeguarding the state wellbeing. Considering war’s destructive and expensive nature, war should be invoked only as a last alternative in support of state survival or crucial interests. The LIBERAL CUT The liberal worldview added importance as the tragic outcome of World War I. European leaders wanted to restore the old balance of power structure whereas American diplomats tried to reveal it as a failed model of international relations. President Woodrow Wilson explained to Europeans that the global system is no longer based on the balance of power but on racial autonomy, communal security, and open harmony. At the same time President Theodore Roosevelt, a classical realist, thought that America ought to assume a global role because of its self-interest. According to Woodrow Wilson, America had a responsibility, not to the balance of power, but to extend its principles globally. These principles were that peace relied on the spread of democracy, ethical standards as persons, and national interest must be substituted by obedience to global law. This change from national interest based foreign policy to one based on universal principles is the crucial difference between the realist and liberal global vision. According to the liberal, peace is the accepted form which obviously endorses cooperation rather than conflict. The decision to intervene militarily in Kosovo outlines the Clinton administration’s policy for human rights. The American administration’s policy toward human rights, both in theory and practice, evidently reflected the liberal worldview (Rizer, 2000). The MARXIST CUT Marxist rejects a liberal worldview. It has projected a new world order based on a set of philosophies, which is dissimilar from the vision of a ‘new order’ planned by either realist or liberals. The principles are: adherence to the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-aggression and non-interference in each others’ domestic dealings; adherence to the principle of the diplomatic resolution of disputes; disputes must be resolved through peaceful negotiations and full respect to the positive role of the UN in protecting world peace and stability; adherence to the principle of respecting the national conditions to choose its social system, road to progress; adherence to the principle of mutual cooperation; and no country should hinder the development of other country. In fact, China and Russia opposed NATO’s military intervention in Kosovo and other unilateral intervention by force is to maintain the principles of non-intervention. Credibility of UN was questioned when NATO launch the air strike on Yugoslavia. What Marxist insists is that the intervention ought to be on the basis of rules and authorized by the UN Security Council. This was not followed in the case of Kosovo. Any fresh rule making must be done by the international community with full participation of its members, rather than just a few member countries (Yunling, 1999). References Burger, J.A. (2000). International humanitarian law and the Kosovo crisis: Lessons learned or to be learned International Review of the Red Cross No. 837, Retrieved on 11 May 2008 from: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JQCS consilium.europa, (ND). The EU and Kosovo Retrieved on 11 May 2008 from: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1352&lang=en&mode=g Minchev, (2000). The Kosovo Crisis and the International System: Issues of Legitimacy and Actors Motivation. International Studies Association, 41st Annual Convention Los Angeles, CA Retrieved on 11 May 2008 from: http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/mio01/ OIC, (1999). Statement of the OIC Contact Group on Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo on the situation in Kosovo, Press Release. Retrieved on 11 May 2008 from: http://www.oic-un.org/pr/1999/News.99.htm#nyst Rizer, K.R. (2000). Military Resistance to Humanitarian War in Kosovo and Beyond An Ideological Explanation. Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Retrieved on 11 May 2008 from: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/fairchild_papers/Rizer/Rizer.pdf Yunling, Z. (1999). Whither World Order? Institution of Asia-Pacific Studies,CASS Retrieved on 11 May 2008 from: http://iaps.cass.cn/english/Articles/showcontent.asp?id=384 Read More