The Paradoxes of Resolution 1244


The recognition of Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia under Resolution 1244 represents a legitimization of expansion, of hegemony, of colonization, and of continuous violence that contracts the fundamentals for defending freedom and people’s rights that, in1999, finally was treated as genocide politics.

Laws by their nature try to put order and control over different societal relations: between a person and a state, between states etc. They in themselves involve an interest from which some people benefit more and some less, dependant on there being whatever factor, one standard, a testimony that describes the developing level of a particular civilization. Aristotle, one of the great human minds, in his time professed an idea that comes from logical incoherence: “All people are equal except slaves and women”. This logical inconsistency is explained by the irresistible influence of the ideological standards of his time. However, the history of mankind is described with the tendency that these regulations and laws are more comprehensible and in harmony with justice and with moral codes, which understand the necessity of universalizing these principles.

Anthropologists have ascertained that laws began to be applied by the first human societies in order to warrant the nonvulnerability of one dominant interest. For example, a group of hunters in order to ensure their existence attack a group of farmers and steal their goods. They carry out this deed from time to time until the first group propose the idea of doing a deal: farmers willing to accept giving the robbers a percentage of their products in exchange for their security. This deal represents the first form of the establishment of laws. From then on, laws in essence sanctify one concrete interest, and when developing societies have bordered them, they have calmed these interests by harmonizing with them. However, even today’s laws and their different forms such as resolutions and decisions involve in themselves this dimension of the interest. It is obvious that frequently the interest construes neither with reality nor with ethical codes.

I gave this introduction in order to see UN Resolution 1244 from a real point of view. This resolution sanctions a number of interests that abuse reality as much as they abuse the principles that ought to be universal.

Resolution 1244 counts Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia legitimating a time when, by means of violence, an interest was imposed and reality was abused. Kosovo became a part of Yugoslavia by occupation in 1918 when the first Yugoslavia was constituted. At that time, when states were formed by force, and new legalities too when expansion itself was legalized, wise and conscientious politicians, worried by the universalization of these non-human principles, stood against the motion with another principle, a principle that later became the basis for instituting the “United Nations”: with the right to self-determination, liberation, de-colonization, etc.

The chief supporter of these principles who tended to limit the use of violence, to prevent expansion and colonization, was the American President, Woodrow Wilson. Later, those who laid the foundations of the UN greeted this principle as a postulate of their activities, legalizing and legitimating in this way the right of nations to liberation and de-colonization. From that period on, many states were formed contesting legalities set by violence, and affirming new legalities based on goodwill, on the right of the nation to self-determination.

Hence, Resolution 1244 is a paradoxical decision that denies the basic determinations on which the UN was established, that of self-determination, liberalization and de-colonization.

But, why did the UN make this decision? The answer cannot be found in the reality or in the basic fundamentals of the UN, but simply in the field of real-politics, in the never-ending politics of the creation of balances between great powers.

For a long time, the Russian factor has sponsored the expansion of Slavic states in the Balkans. This politic has been continuous, beginning in the days of the Ottoman Empire and continuing until today, when they used the right of veto not for defending the sublime, human principles but instead the geopolitical interests, geo-strategic or cultural. On the other hand, in the UN Security Council another resolution could not be set that would sanction Kosovo’s right to self-determination from the fear of Kosovian precedence. China and Russia are also afraid of this Kosovian precedence, the reason being their interests in Chechnya, Tibet or Taiwan. In this way, with sorrow the degeneration of the UN mission is established. The question immediately arises as to whether this organization was set up to help the world or to become a novel instrument for defending the interests of big states, which would later offer their services to sponsor small interests?

The recognition of Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia under Resolution 1244 represents a legitimization of expansion, of hegemony, of colonization, and of continuous violence that contracts the fundamentals for defending freedom and people’s rights that, in1999, finally was treated as genocide politics.

Resolution 1244 involves the Serbian interests in expansion, an issue this sponsor has for a long time had from Russia, and other interests such as, for example, the fear of precedence, etc.

Resolution 1244 incorporates an incoherent and segregating principle: “All nations and constitutive ethnicities of Yugoslavia are equal except Albanians and Kosovo”

This interest has for a long time hidden itself beyond the principles for respect towards new legalities. However, at this point it is necessary to examine the issue of the Serbian legalities over some areas where they have imposed their governing. The origins of these legalities are full of violence. Kosovo was occupied by force, in the same way that new legalities were created in a part of Bosnia that was baptized ”Republika Serbska”(Serbian Republic). Naturally, this brutal blending is hidden behind a mythical propaganda that spreads the conviction that in Kosovo they defend their history, while in Bosnia it is their reality. It is true that Serbians have created a myth related to Kosovo, but they don’t have history there. Both the historic reality in Kosovo and the ethnic reality in Bosnia are created artificially by the use of propaganda and violence. No political movement, no uprising was ever organized in the territory of Kosovo toward the establishment of modern Serbian intentions. These processes have been developed exclusively outside the territory of Kosovo, and this is evident if we consider the fact that in 1906 Kosovo’s population was only 6% Serbian. De facto, they in Kosovo have a very rich history, that of theYugoslavian period of colonization, ethnic cleansings, artificial popularization. On the other hand, Albanian attempts at creating a modern and independent Albanian state have their origins in the territory of Kosovo.

So, Resolution 1244, beside the fact that it supports and legalizes a right that has its origins in violence and continually by violence protects that same right, on the other hand violently denies a historical fact and an actual reality.

These decisions should be analyzed and understood solely from this area of real-politics, in consideration of the threatening factors and not from principles on which the UN is based.

In general, in the field of international rights, there appears a contradiction between two principles that tend to put order into the mutual relations between nations and states:

1)      The principle of self-determination; the right to liberation, to de-colonization; and

2)      The principle of no modification of borders.

The first principle is unchangeable. No one has the right to impose its government on a nation. We all agree with the fact that freedom is the absolute right of all people and all nations. It is clear and evidenced that Serbians constantly disputed the Albanian’s right to freedom, justice and equality, and not just this; they developed detailed projects as to how to remove Albanians by force. Anyone would be shocked reading the genocide elaborations of the academics of the Cubrillovic and Andric caliber.

Resolution 1244, created and voted for under the pressure of the sponsors of hegemony, of Serbian expansion, unfortunately did not take into consideration the first principle that is coherent and indispensable. They instead chose the second principle, which does not contain anything coherent besides the technical part that describes some models as to how state borders can or cannot be altered.

While supporting the second principle, forgotten is the historic reality of Kosovo and the international rights on which the UN established the base. Also forgotten is the context of the actual history. During the period when more than 20 borders of the former communist campus were altered, someone was determined that this principle would be applied precisely in Kosovo. Why? Because of legality, legitimism, historical reality or actual reality? - Of course not. The reasons are more banal. Albanians as a factor cannot threaten anybody or destroy the equilibrists between any great powers; the issue of their rights has no protector. They received the support of the international factor because they were the object of genocide politics. Resolution 1244 is not concerned about the occupation of Kosovo, Serbian expansion, the Serbian colonization of Kosovo or the creation of legalities by force.

Because of that it should not be forgotten that laws and resolutions often sanction an interest, a standard, a report, an incoherence that predicts moreso the power of factors than factual reality and the principles of justice. Historical processes have shown that laws that sanction only interests and that are in contrast to the principles of equality, freedom and perspectives become an obstacle for historical processes.

Karl Popery, a famous American sociologist, in a genius way ascertained that modern societies ought to be open, not only in the actual context, but, and in relation to the future. Resolution 1244 is a decision that represents an obstacle to the opening of future perspectives.