Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2010-12 Mixed signals the impact of international administration on Kosovo's independence Trachier, James M. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/4969 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS MIXED SIGNALS: THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ON KOSOVO’S INDEPENDENCE by James M. Trachier December 2010 Thesis Co-Advisors: Zachary S. Shore Kenneth R. Dombroski Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED - December 2010 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Mixed Signals: The Impact of International 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Administration on Kosovo’s Independence 6. AUTHOR James M. Trachier 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. IRB Protocol number ________________. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) Under provisions of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1244, elements of the UN, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the European Union (EU) became the de facto government of Kosovo following NATO’s 1999 air campaign against Serbian forces suspected of committing atrocities against the province’s ethnic Albanian population. On February 17, 2008, after just under a decade of international administration, Kosovo declared its independence and was recognized by the United States and other Western powers in the following days. Given the emphasis placed on respecting Yugoslavia’s sovereignty and preserving its territorial integrity in numerous official texts, including Resolution 1244, why is Kosovo now recognized as an independent state by much of the world? This examines historical, institutional, and systemic explanations for Kosovo’s independence. It concludes that while all three explanations have some merit, only the systemic explanation has sufficient explanatory power to stand on its own. This explanation holds that, by pursuing a “Standards before Status” approach, the international administration of Kosovo exacerbated the existing polarization between Serbs and Kosovar Albanians by failing to provide incentives for concessions. Contrary to stated goals, this approach contributed to the creation of a de facto independent Kosovo state. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Balkans, Ethnic Albanians, European Union, The Federal Republic of 15. NUMBER OF Yugoslavia, Independence, Kosovar Albanians, Kosovo, Kosovo Force, KFOR, North PAGES Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, Self-Determination, Serbia, Sovereignty, Standards 109 before Status, United Nations Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited MIXED SIGNALS: THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ON KOSOVO’S INDEPENDENCE James M. Trachier Major, United States Air Force B.S., The University of Texas at Austin, 1996 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES (DEFENSE DECISION-MAKING AND PLANNING) from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2010 Author: James M. Trachier Approved by: Zachary S. Shore Thesis Co-Advisor Kenneth R. Dombroski Thesis Co-Advisor Harold A. Trinkunas, PhD Chairman, Department of National Security Affairs iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT Under provisions of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1244, elements of the UN, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the European Union (EU) became the de facto government of Kosovo following NATO’s 1999 air campaign against Serbian forces suspected of committing atrocities against the province’s ethnic Albanian population. On February 17, 2008, after just under a decade of international administration, Kosovo declared its independence and was recognized by the United States and other Western powers in the following days. Given the emphasis placed on respecting Yugoslavia’s sovereignty and preserving its territorial integrity in numerous official texts, including Resolution 1244, why is Kosovo now recognized as an independent state by much of the world? This examines historical, institutional, and systemic explanations for Kosovo’s independence. It concludes that while all three explanations have some merit, only the systemic explanation has sufficient explanatory power to stand on its own. This explanation holds that, by pursuing a “Standards before Status” approach, the international administration of Kosovo exacerbated the existing polarization between Serbs and Kosovar Albanians by failing to provide incentives for concessions. Contrary to stated goals, this approach contributed to the creation of a de facto independent Kosovo state. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1 B. PURPOSE.........................................................................................................3 C. IMPORTANCE................................................................................................4 D. PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESIS ................................................................5 1. Unintended Consequences?.................................................................5 2. Whence Kosovo? ..................................................................................6 E. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................7 1. Historical Literature............................................................................7 2. Institutional and Systemic Literature ..............................................11 F. CHAPTER OUTLINE...................................................................................14 II. BAD BLOOD: A HISTORICAL EXPLANATION ..............................................17 A. BACKGROUND: KINGS, PRINCES, SAINTS, AND MARTYRS ........17 1. History’s Contours.............................................................................17 2. Dynastic Serbia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Cult of Prince Lazar ...................................................................................................18 3. Under the “Ottoman Yoke”: The Ottomans Advance, Lazar Retreats, and the Kosovar Albanians Descend ...............................19 B. SERBIA IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY .............................................21 1. Kosovo, Gained and Lost ..................................................................21 2. “Balkan West Bank”: The Rise of Nationalism, the Collapse of Yugoslavia, and the Return of Lazar ...............................................23 3. Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, and Kosova.........................................24 C. EVALUATING THE HISTORICAL EXPLANATION............................26 III. GOOD GOVERNANCE AND THE COMPETING PRINCIPLES OF STATE-BUILDING: AN INSTITUTIONAL EXPLANATION..........................33 A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................33 B. COMPETING PRINCIPLES: SOVEREIGNTY ......................................34 1. Sovereign States .................................................................................34 2. Sovereignty: The Westphalian System?..........................................35 3. Dimensions of Sovereignty ................................................................37 4. Sovereignty as an “Essentially Contested Concept”.......................37 C. COMPETING PRINCIPLES: SELF-DETERMINATION .....................41 D. READY FOR STATEHOOD? KOSOVO’S GOVERNANCE CAPACITY ....................................................................................................43 1. Charging the Conceptual Breach .....................................................43 2. Rebuilding Kosovo: