The Albanians in Kosovo have achieved their historic dream by
declaring their independence from Serbia. They proclaimed the
independence of their state without the mandate of the United
Nations and with the strong backing of the United States and a
majority of the European countries. Since 1999, the province had
been placed under UN protection in the wake of international
intervention and the provision of a NATO-led peacekeeping force to
protect civilians and to put a stop to the carnage considered one
of the biggest human rights violations during the last decade of
the 20th century. In addition, arrangements were made for the
return of the refugees and the displaced who had been forced to
flee their homeland as a result of the policy of ethnic cleansing
perpetrated by Serbia's regular army and its paramilitary
forces.
The international community's intervention put in place a mechanism
under the supervision of the UN, led by former UN Envoy Martti
Ahtisaari, who was also entrusted with overseeing the NATO-led KFOR
(Kosovo Force). The latter was responsible for ensuring security
and stability in the province that had been battered by a vicious
civil war between the province's Albanian majority (90% of the
population) and its Serbian minority, backed by the Serbian
government and political leadership.
The unilateral declaration adopted by the parliament in Kosovo,
based on a draft resolution for the declaration of independence
under international supervision, guaranteed at the same time
wide-ranging rights for the other ethnicities. It also defined the
nature and substance of the political system, based on democracy,
political pluralism, the transfer and devolution of power through
peaceful and democratic means, and the adherence to international
standards of human rights as well as to international conventions
and charters.
Justifiable Apprehensions
The step taken by Kosovo to declare independence unilaterally had
raised and still raises many fears and reactions. These remain
linked to the respective interests of the surrounding countries,
especially Bulgaria, Rumania, Greece and Cyprus. And, naturally,
there is the stance of Russia, which has a number of perhaps
justifiable apprehensions. For Russia and the other countries,
these fears are not so much based on ethnic considerations as on
the fact that Kosovo's move would encourage other national
minorities in these countries to follow suit and secede from the
central government. Such a development could lead to further
fragmentation in a region already under the dark cloud of a return
to the Cold War and to the frantic pursuit of a new form of arms
race, and would include many international and regional conflicts
that are emerging as causes of tension and regional
flare-ups.
These fears, then, are understandable and perhaps justified, given
the present international climate. However, it would be
unreasonable and unacceptable to acquiesce to the fact that the
present conditions - which are liable to shift at any moment -
should be inconsistent with the most basic rights of nations,
enshrined in the UN Charter: the right of peoples to
self-determination.
A Good Example to Study
Conceivably, the Kosovo experience and its unilateral declaration
of independence could prove a valuable example for our people and
political leadership to study and from which to draw lessons. The
option of a unilateral declaration of independence was placed on
the Palestinian political agenda before the expiration of the
interim stage in May 1999. This date was allowed to pass in the
hopes that the intensive negotiations that had begun at the time,
including at Camp David under the auspices of former U.S. President
Bill Clinton, would lead to a resolution of all the final status
issues and to the declaration of independence, based on an
agreement between the two parties and on the resolutions of
international legitimacy.
Now we are in a seemingly different political stage; however, there
is a similarity between the situation on the eve of the end of the
interim period and today's negotiations that have set a new
deadline at the end of the current year [2008], in accordance with
what was agreed upon in Annapolis. And as physical facts - not
theoretical analysis - indicate, the Israeli government is seeking
to void the Annapolis agreement of all its substance, and to annul
even what has already been agreed upon in order to move the process
forward towards a settlement of final status issues. Israel has
demolished the first stage of the Road Map, even though it was the
one that insisted on the implementation of this stage as a
condition for the negotiations to progress. The execution of the
first stage was meant to pave the way for the implementation of the
final phase of the agreement, i.e., the application of the
resolutions of international legitimacy pertaining to the
withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967,
including Jerusalem, and the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state.
The Need for Alternatives Options
The negotiations now underway do not point to the possibility of
arriving at an agreement by the end of this year. The declarations
by Israel's prime minister that the objectives of the negotiations
for this year should be limited to defining the framework for the
settlement, and his sidestepping of the question of Jerusalem,
leave no doubt as to the direction of the Israeli government. This,
combined with its activities on the ground - the confiscation of
lands, the building of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank
and East Jerusalem, and the rush to complete the construction of
the separation wall - lead to this unequivocal conclusion: Reaching
an agreement to end the occupation and to realize freedom and
independence for the Palestinian people in accordance with
resolutions of international legitimacy appears not only unfeasible
but also impossible. Consequently, the search for alternative
options has become not simply a matter of necessity; it has become
a matter of urgency in light of our assessment of the political
situation.
A Palestinian political move that starts now to prepare the
international, regional, Arab and Islamic communities for an option
akin to the Kosovo independence move is a matter of vital
importance, especially given that Palestine's situation and its
cause are not incompatible with regional interests, nor do they
threaten other countries with fragmentation. On the contrary, the
establishment of an independent and geographically contiguous
Palestinian state will prevent the partition schemes of other
neighboring countries. It will also place the U.S. and the other
countries that have backed Kosovo's independence so robustly in a
political and moral position where they would have to prove their
credibility. Otherwise, their rejection would constitute a clear
case of double standards in dealing with nations and their search
for self-determination.
It is imperative that we study the dimensions of Kosovo's
unilateral declaration of independence and to prepare ourselves for
this option which, in the end, may prove inevitable.