The mighty eraser

Monday marked the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, a 74-day British military campaign ordered by Margaret Thatcher to reclaim the islands after a 1982 invasion by Argentine forces. Today both countries make sovereign territorial claims to the small Atlantic islands. But despite the islands’ proximity to Argentina, the international community tends to recognize British sovereignty, proving yet again that sovereignty can only truly be guaranteed by the exercise of a state’s hard power and the amiability of that state’s neighbors and allies.\nThough the United Nations Charter and countless international treaties – both militaristic and economic – symbolically reinforce the preeminence of a government over its geographic territory, the practical efficacy of those documents is in fact greatly overstated. Take, for instance, the current dispute between the predominantly Albanian Kosovo National Assembly and the Serbian government in Belgrade.\nFollowing the 1999 Balkan conflict, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244 authorized the Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to govern the province until a lasting resolution could be reached. In spite of Belgrade’s insistence that Kosovo remain part of Serbia, the proposal delivered Feb. 2 by U.N. special envoy Martii Ahtisaari (of UNOSEK) essentially grants full statehood to the embattled province. \nThe Status Proposal is intended to be a compromise between the Serbs and Albanians; however, it clearly ignores Belgrade’s undisputed territorial claim to the Kosovo region. While the proposal diplomatically omits the word independent, it nevertheless includes provisions for a separate constitution, a self-governing legislature, a “distinct flag, seal and anthem,” a national language and the right to enter into treaties and multinational organizations without approval from, or association with Serbia. Not surprisingly, Belgrade has denounced the proposal as an attack on its sovereignty and right to self-determination, claiming that Kosovo’s autonomy under the proposal is tantamount to independence.\nGiven the extent of Kosovo’s autonomy under the proposal, one is forced to wonder how exactly Pristina is tied to Belgrade. The answers are not readily apparent. The two regions share neither demographic similarities, a common currency, nor a common language – their history may be the only similarity. Though the proposal calls for a small multinational security force to ensure stability during the transition from UNOSEK, the primary reason to remain a part of Serbia seems to be the U.N. Envoy Ahtisaari’s fear of future Serbian aggression.\nWhatever specific motivations resulted in the proposal’s final form, the implications are clear: State sovereignty is an illusion for countries unable to command the respect of the international community. The differences between Serbs and Albanians have proven as irreconcilable as the animosity between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Palestine, or even the Basque separatists in Spain. However, the issue of Kosovar independence is distinct from similar separatist movements in that Russia, Israel and Spain are capable of deflecting international pressure. \nCripplingly deliberative and militarily impotent as the U.N. may be, it regularly and willfully exercises the power to redraw the very boundaries of a sovereign state. With a pen stroke the Security Council could give Argentina, Falklands and all to the queen.