One thing that will emerge from the Kosovo conflict, for better or for worse, is a precedent for dealing with a type of conflict that we will be seeing a great deal more of. Most of us assume that outside parties, whether national or multilateral, have only a very limited right - some would say no right at all - to interfere in another country's internal affairs. But what precisely defines "internal affairs"?
National borders are in a continuous state of flux; is it the business of the UN to preserve them as they were at the close of WWII? All over the world we have borders arbitrarily drawn, sometimes by colonial bureaucrats, sometimes as part of peace settlements for conflicts long past. All over the world we have people who feel that they actually belong to a neighboring country or ought actually to be independent. Many feel that they are getting the short end of the stick from majority populations in the countries to which they are attached. On the other hand, in many cases the dominant populations in these countries have often settled a fair number of their own ethnic group in the territories in question, and are extremely touchy about what is "theirs". We also have countries that are eager to recover territories that they feel have been unjustly removed from their control.
Here we have conflicting principles. Most of us agree on the principle of self-determination: the notion that the people who live in a place have the right to decide what happens to that place. We also believe in the principle of territorial integrity: the idea that a nation has the right to preserve its borders.
What do we do when these principles collide? Decide on a case-by-case basis, obviously, but it might not be a good idea for the powers that be to put some serious thought into defining the criteria. |
