The United States, along with major European powers, officially recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state on Monday.
However, Serbia, Russia (Serbia's main backer) and other states, including Spain, have denounced this move. What implications does this seemingly innocuous act have on the world stage?
Sovereignty is vital for a state; without international recognition, a state's very existence is questionable. States themselves are nothing more than artificial boundaries surrounding a sovereign government. But what good is an artificial boundary if nobody recognizes it?
A parallel can be drawn to property. If you own an acre of land, people acknowledge that you have a deed of ownership to that land, and that it is your property. But what if nobody recognizes that you own that land? What if everybody, except you, believes that it is someone else's property? Serbia argues that Kosovo cannot be its own separate country; it cannot have the "deed" to its own property.
If there were a dispute over the ownership of the individual property from our example, the government would step in and arbitrate. However, there is no world government - the United Nations is the closest thing to it, but its power is not absolute. Land disputes like those in the Kosovo situation must be settled by the world community as a whole, through recognition of sovereignty.
By declaring its independence, Kosovo has drawn a line in the sand. Since the war against Milosevic in the Balkans in the 1990s, international monitoring has barely kept the region intact. The Kosovar government has raised the stakes in this ethnopolitical battle. But why is this so important?
The problem is the way support is divided. The countries that support Kosovar independence include the United States, Britain, France and Germany. In fact, many countries in the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) alliance do support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia. However, the biggest backer for Serbia is Russia. And the last thing the United States or any other nation needs is a fight with Russia over Kosovo.
It has not been uncommon for former Soviet-bloc countries (countries under the influence of Communism) to encounter this dilemma. Most post-Soviet nations faced a difficult choice after the fall of the Iron Curtain - look east toward their previous ally, or look west toward the victors and a seemingly superior system. Countries such as Poland have flourished under democratic leadership and a free market. Others have been more internally torn. Some countries even still have a powerful Communist party.
The Kosovo-Serbia conflict illustrates a growing problem in Eastern Europe. Serbia has retained strong ties with Russia, while Kosovo has strongly appealed to NATO and the West. It is clear that both East and West have an ideological and economic interest in swaying these countries. What is unclear, however, is how far each side is willing to go to achieve its aims.
With ties between the United States and Russia already tenuous, each nation must watch itself very carefully with regard to this matter. This situation, though appearing small, could be the straw to break the camel's back. It is unclear what will happen to Kosovo in the coming weeks, especially with Russia holding presidential elections on March 2. Will the new leader of Russia be a hard-liner who will stop at nothing to suppress the Kosovar rebellion? Will he be more liberal and lean towards the West? It is evident that this move will incite trouble for Europe and other countries.
It would be prudent for leaders of all nations to resolve this issue. History tends to repeat itself - and the last time the West and the East were split over an issue in the Balkans, a world war was quick to follow.
Dave Adams is a freshman majoring in political science and economics. He can be reached at David.Adams@tufts.edu.
