Freedom Fighters
From Kosovo to Kurdistan, rebels
vie for independence. Here are the reasons some
succeed-and some don't
Now something good could still come out of Rambouillet. The
17-day negotiating marathon concluded in an embarrassing mess:
U.S. officials pleading in the last seven minutes before the
final, final, final deadline for any concession that might keep
the peace process alive. Instead of signatures on a blueprint for
the future of Kosovo, all they got was a promise in theory from
the ethnic Albanians to subscribe to the NATO plan a couple of
weeks down the road. What Belgrade got was a delicious reprieve
from American dictates and the missiles that NATO had threatened
to launch if Serb strongman Slobodan Milosevic failed to accept
the deal. The whole business will have to be gone over again when
the talks resume on March 15 1999.
But no one should be surprised that Rambouillet came a cropper.
NATO's fragile construct was designed to avoid answering the
question at the heart of this Balkan war: Should Kosovo be an
independent state? "The beauty of the interim accord is that
no one has to give up their dreams," explains U.S.
negotiator Christopher Hill. "We've created this gray thing
that one side will call an elephant and the other will call a
mouse." Trouble is, some members of the Albanian delegation
saw through that and demanded a written guarantee of eventual
independence. No way, said NATO. "Sure, they can ask for
it," Hill adds, "but getting it is another matter.
Today, the international community does not support the idea of
an independent Kosovo. It's not a right they have."
Well, why not? For that matter, why not independent Kurdistan? Or
Chechnya or East Timor or Quebec? Once you start tinkering with
global cartography, everyone wants his say. The unintended
consequences of malleable borders scare away all but the most
arrogant of statesmen. Yet Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
sounded ready to try it last week: "Great nations who
understand the importance of sovereignty at various times cede
various portions of it in order to achieve some better good for
their country."
History is no guide. Nations are not some natural, organic
phenomenon but complex accumulations of strength, alliances and
enmities. And the passion for nationhood has swung between eras
of consolidation and fragmentation: the single-state world of the
Roman Empire; the 500-odd nations of the 1500s Renaissance. In
the post-cold war age, people impatient with the map they've
inherited appear to be caught in between. A globalized economy is
melting down the relevance of nationhood at the same time that
the dispossessed's unrealized yearnings to be a state are gaining
legitimacy.
It is an axiom of statehood that war is what dictates borders;
winners get the right to draw new lines. After World War I, as
the Great Powers meted out geographical punishments and rewards,
Woodrow Wilson advocated two principles that have governed
statemaking ever since: the right to self-determination and the
right to inviolable national borders. Unfortunately, they are
often in conflict.
For most of the century, the notion that borders were sacred
prevailed. African and Asian decolonization in the 1960s
recognized states along borders set by colonial rulers. It wasn't
quite as thoughtless as critics of these "arbitrary"
lines that split ethnic groups and ancient kingdoms now charge.
At least some diplomats believed that multiethnic states--like
the U.S.--should be encouraged. Between 1945 and 1990, secession
and separatism were not just discouraged but were also forcibly
opposed. The sole success: Bangladesh in 1971.
The end of communism thrust the principle of self-determination
back into prominence, and new states proliferated. In the thrill
of cold war victory, the West let captive nations in Eastern
Europe grab back their independence and happily pushed statehood
for the 14 republics inside the Soviet Union that wanted out. In
consequence, independence and separatist movements weaving
together ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious and economic
self-interests have blossomed worldwide. As Robert Lansing,
Wilson's Secretary of State, warned, self-determination "is
bound to be the basis for impossible demands and create trouble
in many lands. What a calamity that the phrase was ever
uttered." Where does the noble concept of self-determination
stop?
In expedience. Purists may yearn for a single principle to apply
across the board. But, says Brent Scowcroft, George Bush's
National Security Adviser, "consistency here doesn't
work." Pragmatism is what rules the world of power politics,
in which a range of less high-minded considerations determines
who wins and who loses in the statehood lottery.
LUCK The bad luck of historical accident is what has left most
current claimants out in the cold. To change that, you need to be
in the right movement at the right time in the right place. The
Kurds in northern Iraq were just another bunch of bickering
agitators until the U.S. needed them to challenge Saddam Hussein.
No one cared a whit for the Kosovars until Slobodan Milosevic
ground them into the dirt. (It obviously helps to be the victim
of a reviled dictator.) But Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka: Your
moment has yet to arrive.
LOCATION Distance from Washington is relevant but cuts both ways.
Fighting in Europe's backyard helps the Kosovars but hurts the
Kurds. Living far from the West deprives oppressed East Timor of
active foreign support, but in Sri Lanka the secessionist Tamil
Tigers wage their war without interference.
TELEVISION It is not necessarily the legitimacy of a a group's
claim as much as the telegenic horror of its suffering that gains
the combination of sympathy and anxiety crucial to independence.
Constant images of the intifadeh helped transform the
Palestinians from terrorist outcasts to deserving victims. The
Basques, seeking a homeland from Spain and France, can air no
bloody incidents to galvanize world support.
GOOD GUYS VS. BAD GUYS You have to be seen as the good guys in
your struggle. This is not a guarantee: the Ibos in Biafra were
regarded as victims, yet the world refused them statehood. Still,
it is because of the Chechens' reputation for thuggery that they
command little support. Leaders can make or break perceptions:
Abdullah Ocalan as a terrorist cast the Kurds into disrepute;
captive and martyred, he may help reshape them into the cause du
jour. The alchemy of time also helps, transmuting bad rebels into
negotiating partners, as the years have done to Northern
Ireland's Roman Catholics.
UNITY You can have too much or too little. The Kurds have long
been thwarted by their internal rivalries. The Kosovars are
feared because they might unite with ethnic brothers in Albania
and Macedonia. Physical dispersal is an even greater obstacle:
How would you separate territorially Rwanda's intermingled Hutu
and Tutsi?
DEMOCRACY The victors of the cold war will judge your case, and
they are disposed to anoint only noncommunist, nonauthoritarian
believers in multiparty elections and the free market. That
pretty much queers the prospects of religious-based Chechnya and
most African separatists. The Kosovars' lack of civil
institutions and political structures makes them a premature
candidate.
POTENTIAL TO ROCK THE GLOBAL BOAT Stability, more than any other
principle, governs statemakers. One reason the Kurds may never
get their state is that they covet pieces of four
geostrategically important nations: Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Tibet is stuck as long as the world considers it folly to take on
China.
VICTORY War is still the best guarantee of independence--if you
win. Eritrea won in 1993, after 32 years of battle. The Kosovars
and the Kurds are not ready to concede. Quite frankly, most of
today's aspirants for independence are not going to get it now,
and maybe never will. The Helsinki accords of 1975 approved
changes of borders only by mutual consent. Yet who besides the
Czech Republic and Slovakia will politely shake hands and part
ways?
That is why statesmen invented autonomy. It looks like a nice
middle ground between immovable borders and the chaos of
universal self-determination. "We have to work out these
ways of allowing groups of people who feel they have something
important in common to have a degree of autonomy within the
existing borders," prescribes Samuel P. Huntington, a
Harvard professor who has written on the subject. Fine theory,
but how does the world accomplish that? And maybe it shouldn't.
Existing arrangements of semipartition, like in Cyprus and
Bosnia, are also semiprotectorates requiring long-term
peacekeeping troops.
Anyhow, in Rambouillet the Kosovars balked at Washington's
half-elephant, half-mouse formula precisely because it avoided
deciding on independence. In the march of history, borders
change, states come and go. How the West settles Kosovo is going
to set precedents for how our era manages that, like 'em or not.
BY JOHANNA MCGEARY