I was opposed to military intervention for two reasons. First, I argued that while it might do local good, it would damage the rules of international relations as they were then understood. The UN Charter was designed to prevent the use of force across national lines except for self-defense and enforcement measures ordered by the Security Council. Human rights, democracy, and self-determination are not acceptable legal grounds for waging war.
Secondly, I argued that while there might be occasions when, regardless of international law, human rights abuses are so severe that one is morally obliged to act, Kosovo was not such a case. I considered the imminent humanitarian disaster that the intervention was ostensibly aimed at preventing, to be largely an invention. I further argued that non-military means to resolve the humanitarian issue in Kosovo were far from being exhausted, and that the failed Rambouillet negotiation with Serbia in February-March 1999 was, in Henry Kissingers words, merely an excuse to start the bombing.
Without doubt, the NATO air strikes, and the subsequent administration of Kosovo as a protectorate, improved the Albanian Kosovars political situation. Without NATO intervention, they probably would have remained second-class citizens within Serbia. Against this must be set large-scale deterioration in the economic situation of all Kosovars, Albanian and Serbian (44% unemployment), widespread criminalisation, and the fact that under NATO rule, Kosovo was ethnically cleansed of half its Serb minority.
Kosovo remains in political limbo to this day. Two thousand European Union officials run the country, and 16,000 NATO troops guard its security. Its independence is rejected by Serbia, unrecognised by the Security Council, and opposed by Russia, China, and most multi-national states in Europe and Asia, which fear setting a precedent for their own dismemberment. Indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quick to blame the disturbances in Tibet on Kosovos declaration of independence.
A Serbian insurgency and de facto partition of Kosovo remain possible, and we have yet to face the destabilising effects of Kosovos claim to independence on other divided Balkan states such as Bosnia and Macedonia. But the balance sheet is even worse in terms of international relations. Kosovo was a stalking horse for Iraq, as the doctrine of humanitarian intervention morphed into President George W Bushs doctrine of pre-emptive war, by which the US claimed the right to attack any state that it deemed a threat to its national security. As then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan rightly argued, this opened the door to the proliferation of unilateral, lawless use of force.
Not the least damaging consequence of the Bush doctrine is that it dispenses with the need for public proof of aggressive intent. The Iraq invasion was justified by the same use of fraudulent evidence as was displayed in Kosovo.
Western countries must consider more seriously how far they should press their human rights agenda on states with both the power and the will to defend their territorial integrity. Under American leadership, it is the West that has emerged as the restless, disturbing force in international affairs. China should certainly grant Tibet more autonomy; but is pumping up the Dalai Lama into a world leader or threatening to boycott the Beijing Olympics the best way to secure a better deal for Tibetans, or to obtain Chinese cooperation on matters that are far more important than Tibets status
Activists, impassioned by the justice of their cause, will not consider these questions. But world leaders should take them seriously.
Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is Professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University, author of a prize-winning biography of the economist John Maynard Keynes, and a board member of the Moscow School of Political Studies
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2008