The Double Standard of the West toward Kosovo and Crimea

While events in Kosovo and Crimea have essentially amounted to another two rounds in the game of great power politics, the parties involved have all attempted to present themselves as the ones donning the mantle of international law. But in truth, on these issues, the West has adopted a double standard that stems from the calculus for its own political ambitions and has taken to interpreting international law as it pleases.

With regard to Kosovo, the West has declared that human rights should take precedence over sovereignty, becoming a strong advocate for Kosovar independence. In Crimea, however, it has taken a line of maintaining the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Ukraine. This sort of hypocrisy reveals that the standards of Western nations are not fixed, but rather more ad hoc.

In fact, whether it is the independence of Kosovo or Crimea — not to mention South Ossetia and Abkhazia — the West has evinced a lack of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of many states, as well as a similar irreverence for international law. The West was the first to open this Pandora’s box with its armed intervention in Kosovo and subsequent recognition of the region’s independence. Russia opposed the action, believing that it would set a dangerous precedent. Just as with Putin’s positions regarding South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, his stance on Crimea, citing Kosovar independence as a precedent, is an obvious counter jab at the West.

And concerning the issue of Crimea, China should respond dispassionately and prudently, and can refer back to its policy on Kosovo. When the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1244 on Kosovo in 1998, China abstained from voting, being of the opinion that the situation was an internal affair of Yugoslavia’s and should therefore be resolved in a manner chosen by its people. On Feb. 17, 1998, Kosovo — with the unspoken blessings of the U.S. and Europe — unilaterally declared independence in a move that China has neither acknowledged nor repudiated to this day.

In August of the same year, China voted in favor of the U.N. General Assembly acting on behalf of Serbia to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. In July 2010, China voted against the ultimate ICJ ruling that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in accordance with international law. China’s consistent position has been to respect Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and be understanding of Serbia’s reasonable concerns on the issue.

UNSCR 1244 provides a significant legal foundation, upon which the fate of Kosovo may be decided, and a plan for resolving the dispute that all parties involved can accept should be formed through dialogue and negotiation under the framework of such Security Council resolutions.

Naturally, Serbia has been appreciative of China’s position and perspective. And while Kosovo has rejected Taiwan’s gestures of acknowledgment, it has made significant efforts to gain similar support from China, paying close heed to China’s reiterated statements to consistently work toward seeking a political solution to the Balkan standoff that both sides can accept. Kosovo believes that one of the reasons why China favors Serbia is the presence of independence-seeking movements within China, most notably in Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet, and that this in turn creates concerns that Kosovo’s unilateral bid for independence may set a precedent that will lead to a series of undesirable consequences.

The policy on independence and autonomy that China ultimately elected to adopt with respect to the issue of Kosovo was subdued, cautious, and relatively gray. And in Crimea, China should be able to fall back on that same policy. In the United Nations, as a responsible permanent member state of the Security Council, China has insisted on upholding international law and the spirit of the U.N. Charter in maintaining every country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In light of China’s core interests and the existence of independence movements within Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet, China cannot openly approve changes in sovereignty over Crimea.

At the same time, in view of the strategic and cooperative partnership it has with Russia, China should not openly oppose or criticize Russia’s actions. Finally, considering the geopolitical significance of Ukraine, as well as its strategic partnership and shared economic interests with China, China should encourage Ukraine to resolve the question of Crimea and other disputes through dialogue and negotiation.

The author is a research fellow at the Xinhua Center for World Affairs Studies.