| Sign me up to receive the free weekly email |
 |
Sir Hugh Jafee, QC, lights your ire:
Upholding principles of international law in the
Balkans
by SIR HUGH JAFEE, QC
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I write this week from the beautiful cities of Pristina and Beograd, where I have
been called at considerable expense to the EU (financial), the UN (political) and
myself (the cost of my own safety) to give guidance on, and oversee the historic
declaration of independence for the region of Kosovo. And a fine place it is too.
People jubilant at the change of power are so happy that merely letting bullets off
in the air is not enough for them to express their joy; some have taken to creating
bigger bangs with hand grenades and Molotov cocktails, such is their pleasure at
the weekend’s momentous events.
However, my being here has caused some to raise questions, if not eyebrows, over
the issue of national sovereignty and what this handover means for the region and
the wider world. And these questions are not, as you might imagine, of the ‘Why
does this matter? Why should we care?’ variety; well, not all of them, anyway.
There have been questions as searching as ‘Where is Kosovo?’, ‘Do they make
anything there?’ and ‘Why does anyone care who owns it?’ So I have determined to
sort through the morass of misinformation that permeates the media in the hope of
providing you, my loyal readers, with some much needed clarity and perspective on
the issue.
The dispute begins in 1389, when, on 13th April, some people fought some other
people over the land that is today’s Kosovo. An historic land, with some of the
great mediaeval treasures of Central Europe housed there, it is famous for
absolutely nothing more than having been the preferred location of localised spats
for the last six hundred and twenty years. In this sense, it is the Balkan equivalent
of the playing field furthest from the staff room, or perhaps the bus stop down the
road, as the place to arrange a fight without teachers’ interference. The first group
of people were victorious (and shall henceforth be referred to as the People Who
Won [and variants thereof]), and although fighting in the region continued healthily
throughout the successive centuries, these were fights with other peoples, and
everyone, whilst fighting, was agreed on the need to keep Kosovo out of the hands
of the people who had lost it way back in the day (henceforth referred to as the
People Who Lost [ditto]). All following this so far? Good.
The People Who Lost had other ideas however, and realised what cannot be
gained by force can be gained more easily with love. And they loved this barren
wasteland so much, some of them decided to move there. And then more came. And
more. Soon, there was so much love in the area that babies began appearing all
over the place. In a matter of decades, the People Who Lost were in the
(significant) majority, and in that tyrannical way beloved of democracy, started
demanding some form of rights. Naturally, this was laughed at by the People Who
Won, who reasoned that, as the People Who Won, the land was theirs, and so they
could start fighting and win it again. All this seemed a bit underhand to the rest of
the world, who thought that people who made up over 80% of the region’s
population should have some say in how it is run. Which is both entirely fair, and
consistent with historical developments of sovereignty. After all, when sufficient
Frenchmen from Normandy moved to southern England in 1066 they were given
immediate control of governmental issues. Similarly, when north Europeans arrived
in the New World after 1623, their numbers were so great that the people living in
the Americas happily gave up large parts of their land for these new people to
control for themselves. And I feel confident in asserting that if, for example, a new
wave of French settlers were to choose Kent as their preferred domicile, Whitehall
should have no hesitation in ceding administration of the territory to our
Continental cousins. Similarly, I know I am not the only one looking forward to
Texas and California declaring their independence and autonomy to forge greater
links with the ethnic brethren of the (soon to be) majority of Mexicans in those
states.
And so Kosovo was taken from the People Who Won But Were No Longer A
Majority. But it could not in all fairness be given to the People Who Lost. Instead a
perfect compromise was formed: the region was mandated by the UN prior to being
given independence, and although effectively controlled and run by the People Who
Originally Lost, it was a solution that almost all were happy to see. The only real
unhappiness came from the People Who (Thought They Had) Won But Had In Fact
Now Lost (mainly because of trying to kill all the People Who Lost But Had Come
Back To Live There Anyway). And so we reach the present day, with People Who
Won and People Who Lost united in their gunfire to celebrate this momentous
occasion. I’m glad now that we are all up to speed on the history.
However, it appears that some people, on both sides, are still not happy. There are
those among the People Who Won who think that the actions of the international
community are illegitimate in supporting the creation of this fledgling state, arguing
as they do that the United States of America wouldn’t cede control of Texas and
California, as I have shown clearly would be the case. This is just silly and naïve,
and based on outmoded concepts of sovereignty. What these people need is to
look at this as a form of corporate takeover. The People Who Lost simply bought
enough shares (put enough people) in the company (territory) to exercise control.
To argue that America as a bastion of free trade would not support this on its own
shores is obviously absurd! If systematic migration and colonisation of a land is not
enough to establish sovereignty under international law, then I don’t know what is
(but then I am not an international lawyer, as you well know. Can’t stand all that
wishy-washy stuff!); it seems deeply foolish to suggest that just because you
govern a territory, secure its borders, etc. you should maintain some claim to it.
Similarly, there is a small but vocal minority on the side of the People Who Originally
Lost But Now Appear To Have Won who argue that an independent Kosovo cannot
protect itself, and only official union with the People Who Lost as a whole can
secure the territory’s future. This is equally false, as it is clear that Kosovo will be a
thriving state that faces no threat from any of its neighbours, particularly as the EU
has volunteered to perform a policing role, and to protect it from this non-existent
threat. So that’s all alright, then.
All in all, there seems very little that is confusing, or should be, about the situation
once you have the facts. The People Who Had Won But Have Now Lost will come to
see this as another victory when they see how much more money they have after
not paying to keep Kosovo; the People Who Had Lost But Have Now Won will no
doubt be invited to join with the rest of the People Who Lost and reunite a
disparate people. Soon, the former Yugoslav territories of Moldova and Montenegro
will join too, as they too now have a majority of People Who Lost But Have Migrated
Back. And that will reunite more people. The People Who Had Won But Have Now
Lost Who Are Still In Kosovo will demand that they too be reunited with the other
People Who Had Won, Have Now Lost, But Don’t Live In Kosovo, and we can all
come back for another celebration of independence and autonomy in a few years.
And with so many of them living in territories bordering the EU, we will finally be
able to invite Albania to join. Which is what we all want in the long run, isn’t it?
So be not worried if you see news of riots and demonstrations; these are nothing
more than the local expression of unbounded joy and relief that most people on
both sides righteously feel. And I can assure you, if you stayed away from
McDonald’s, you were perfectly safe anyway.
© lizardmagazine.com, 2008
Back to the homepage
Upholding principles of international law in the
Balkans
by SIR HUGH JAFEE, QC
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I write this week from the beautiful cities of Pristina and Beograd, where I have
been called at considerable expense to the EU (financial), the UN (political) and
myself (the cost of my own safety) to give guidance on, and oversee the historic
declaration of independence for the region of Kosovo. And a fine place it is too.
People jubilant at the change of power are so happy that merely letting bullets off
in the air is not enough for them to express their joy; some have taken to creating
bigger bangs with hand grenades and Molotov cocktails, such is their pleasure at
the weekend’s momentous events.
However, my being here has caused some to raise questions, if not eyebrows, over
the issue of national sovereignty and what this handover means for the region and
the wider world. And these questions are not, as you might imagine, of the ‘Why
does this matter? Why should we care?’ variety; well, not all of them, anyway.
There have been questions as searching as ‘Where is Kosovo?’, ‘Do they make
anything there?’ and ‘Why does anyone care who owns it?’ So I have determined to
sort through the morass of misinformation that permeates the media in the hope of
providing you, my loyal readers, with some much needed clarity and perspective on
the issue.
The dispute begins in 1389, when, on 13th April, some people fought some other
people over the land that is today’s Kosovo. An historic land, with some of the
great mediaeval treasures of Central Europe housed there, it is famous for
absolutely nothing more than having been the preferred location of localised spats
for the last six hundred and twenty years. In this sense, it is the Balkan equivalent
of the playing field furthest from the staff room, or perhaps the bus stop down the
road, as the place to arrange a fight without teachers’ interference. The first group
of people were victorious (and shall henceforth be referred to as the People Who
Won [and variants thereof]), and although fighting in the region continued healthily
throughout the successive centuries, these were fights with other peoples, and
everyone, whilst fighting, was agreed on the need to keep Kosovo out of the hands
of the people who had lost it way back in the day (henceforth referred to as the
People Who Lost [ditto]). All following this so far? Good.
The People Who Lost had other ideas however, and realised what cannot be
gained by force can be gained more easily with love. And they loved this barren
wasteland so much, some of them decided to move there. And then more came. And
more. Soon, there was so much love in the area that babies began appearing all
over the place. In a matter of decades, the People Who Lost were in the
(significant) majority, and in that tyrannical way beloved of democracy, started
demanding some form of rights. Naturally, this was laughed at by the People Who
Won, who reasoned that, as the People Who Won, the land was theirs, and so they
could start fighting and win it again. All this seemed a bit underhand to the rest of
the world, who thought that people who made up over 80% of the region’s
population should have some say in how it is run. Which is both entirely fair, and
consistent with historical developments of sovereignty. After all, when sufficient
Frenchmen from Normandy moved to southern England in 1066 they were given
immediate control of governmental issues. Similarly, when north Europeans arrived
in the New World after 1623, their numbers were so great that the people living in
the Americas happily gave up large parts of their land for these new people to
control for themselves. And I feel confident in asserting that if, for example, a new
wave of French settlers were to choose Kent as their preferred domicile, Whitehall
should have no hesitation in ceding administration of the territory to our
Continental cousins. Similarly, I know I am not the only one looking forward to
Texas and California declaring their independence and autonomy to forge greater
links with the ethnic brethren of the (soon to be) majority of Mexicans in those
states.
And so Kosovo was taken from the People Who Won But Were No Longer A
Majority. But it could not in all fairness be given to the People Who Lost. Instead a
perfect compromise was formed: the region was mandated by the UN prior to being
given independence, and although effectively controlled and run by the People Who
Originally Lost, it was a solution that almost all were happy to see. The only real
unhappiness came from the People Who (Thought They Had) Won But Had In Fact
Now Lost (mainly because of trying to kill all the People Who Lost But Had Come
Back To Live There Anyway). And so we reach the present day, with People Who
Won and People Who Lost united in their gunfire to celebrate this momentous
occasion. I’m glad now that we are all up to speed on the history.
However, it appears that some people, on both sides, are still not happy. There are
those among the People Who Won who think that the actions of the international
community are illegitimate in supporting the creation of this fledgling state, arguing
as they do that the United States of America wouldn’t cede control of Texas and
California, as I have shown clearly would be the case. This is just silly and naïve,
and based on outmoded concepts of sovereignty. What these people need is to
look at this as a form of corporate takeover. The People Who Lost simply bought
enough shares (put enough people) in the company (territory) to exercise control.
To argue that America as a bastion of free trade would not support this on its own
shores is obviously absurd! If systematic migration and colonisation of a land is not
enough to establish sovereignty under international law, then I don’t know what is
(but then I am not an international lawyer, as you well know. Can’t stand all that
wishy-washy stuff!); it seems deeply foolish to suggest that just because you
govern a territory, secure its borders, etc. you should maintain some claim to it.
Similarly, there is a small but vocal minority on the side of the People Who Originally
Lost But Now Appear To Have Won who argue that an independent Kosovo cannot
protect itself, and only official union with the People Who Lost as a whole can
secure the territory’s future. This is equally false, as it is clear that Kosovo will be a
thriving state that faces no threat from any of its neighbours, particularly as the EU
has volunteered to perform a policing role, and to protect it from this non-existent
threat. So that’s all alright, then.
All in all, there seems very little that is confusing, or should be, about the situation
once you have the facts. The People Who Had Won But Have Now Lost will come to
see this as another victory when they see how much more money they have after
not paying to keep Kosovo; the People Who Had Lost But Have Now Won will no
doubt be invited to join with the rest of the People Who Lost and reunite a
disparate people. Soon, the former Yugoslav territories of Moldova and Montenegro
will join too, as they too now have a majority of People Who Lost But Have Migrated
Back. And that will reunite more people. The People Who Had Won But Have Now
Lost Who Are Still In Kosovo will demand that they too be reunited with the other
People Who Had Won, Have Now Lost, But Don’t Live In Kosovo, and we can all
come back for another celebration of independence and autonomy in a few years.
And with so many of them living in territories bordering the EU, we will finally be
able to invite Albania to join. Which is what we all want in the long run, isn’t it?
So be not worried if you see news of riots and demonstrations; these are nothing
more than the local expression of unbounded joy and relief that most people on
both sides righteously feel. And I can assure you, if you stayed away from
McDonald’s, you were perfectly safe anyway.
© lizardmagazine.com, 2008
Back to the homepage
