Kosovo: Seen Through the Eyes

Kosovo: Seen Through the Eyes of Structural Realists and Constructivists After the dissolution of the bipolar structure of international relations with the end of the Cold War, the former communist countries of Europe begin became embroiled in seemingly intractable age-old ethnic conflicts. One of the most tragic of these conflicts occurred in the former nation of Yugoslavia. However, while no theorist would deny that the ethnic cleansing that occurred in Kosovo was tragic, structural realists and constructivists would offer different explanations as to why it took place.

In evaluating the cultural roots of the conflict, and the structural deficits that initially facilitated it and then strove to remedy it in the international community, the weaknesses and dangers of even reformed structural realist theory become apparent. At its best, structural realist theory offers a self-fulfilling prophesy without a real, effective program of action for regional state and non-state actors. Kosovo is a small province in southern Serbia and has a mixed population, although the majority of its residents are ethnic Albanians.

Kosovo was relatively autonomous until 1989 when the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic placed Kosovo under the direct control of Belgrade, the Serbian capital. Relations between Serbs and Albanians were always tense, and unsurprisingly the Albanian population began to agitate and organize. Finally, in 1998, "open conflict between Serbian military and police forces and Kosovar Albanian forces resulted in the deaths of over 1,500 Kosovar Albanians and forced 400,000 people from their homes" (NATO's role in relation to the conflict in Kosovo, 1999, Kosovo).

Structural realists that regard states 'black boxes' pursuing their interests would say that Serbia believed it was in its interest to dominate the province. Note that structural realists would phrase the invading country as 'Serbia,' given that according to the theory, individuated human cognitive processes are not assumed to influence state action. Rather, the international 'system' is an anarchic playing-ground where nation-states must engage in a quest for power.

This survival-of-the-fittest has "no higher authority that sits above the great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will not attack another, it makes eminently good sense for each state to be powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked" (Mearsheimer, 2006, p.72). The power-play by Serbia is thus viewed as inevitable, and the unique psychology of its leadership or of nationalist forces within the government is seen as irrelevant.

The Balkans have long been called a kind of 'tinder box' of ethnic conflict, most famously spawning the 'war to end all wars,' World War I. It could be argued against structural realist theory that in World War I entangling alliances running against states' long-term rational interests gave rise to the conflict. This was also true to the post-Cold War Balkans. For example, Germany was historically friendly with Croatia, and when it recognized Croatia, Serbia grew fearful, especially given that many Croats were German sympathizers during World War II.

Serbia lashed out and when the international community made a weak response to its aggression, it turned its venom on Kosovo as well. Realists would argue that this must be seen as in Serbia's interest, to demonstrate its power before the new world order. However, such a reading ignores a number of cultural factors that contributed to Serbia's specific relationship with its neighbors and the Albanian people, in addition to its presumed desire to acquire power within the region.

Structural realist theories ignore cultural differences among states but animosity between Albanians and Serbs runs deep throughout the century. To understand the level of hatred that exists between the two groups, a historical review is required. As early as 1912 when Serbia and the other independent Balkan states joined together to drive the Turks from the region, it massacred the ethnic Albanians with a ferocity comparable to that of the Turks.

A series of successive assumptions of power and brutal massacres of the Albanians, then the Serbs, ceased only when Tito exercised a strong armed power upon the region, stifling the regional conflagrations (History, bloody history, 1999, BBC). When the Balkans began to become independent once again, old ethnic rivalries reasserted themselves. Then, "1998, nine years after the abolition of Kosovo's autonomy, the Kosovo Liberation Army -- supported by the majority ethnic Albanians -- came out in open rebellion against Serbian rule.

The international community, while supporting greater autonomy, opposed the Kosovar Albanians' demand for independence" (History file: Yugoslavia and the Balkans, 2003, BBC News). Yet Milosevic reacted with disproportionate levels of aggression. Structural realism makes no allowance for the level of violence with which Serbia carried out its expansionist program, engaging in efforts of ethnic cleansing. Serbia's efforts make even less rationalistic sense, given the international community's previous hostile reaction to Serbia's brutal, genocidal actions in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"Serb attacks increased after NATO began its bombing campaign, and summary and arbitrary killing spread throughout Kosovo... Among the worst incidents...were reports of the deliberate killing of children, and of elderly and disabled people being shot or burned alive....children decapitated in front of their parents" (Horrors of Kosovo revealed, 1999, BBC).

The conflict in Kosovo was only stemmed when the United Nations intervened, NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia in March 1999, the first attack on a sovereign European country in the alliance's history, were the only way to make Serb (and Albanian retaliatory) atrocities cease. Since then, conflicts between Serbs and ethnic Albanians have only been eased when other nations intervened. When hostilities threatened to erupt in late 2000, mediated dialogue between Albanian guerrillas and the new democratic authorities in Belgrade caused tensions to evaporate.

An outbreak of ethnic conflict in Macedonia in 2001 involving the Albanian minority was contained by NATO peacekeepers and ultimately resolved through negotiation (History file: Yugoslavia and the Balkans, BBC News, 2003). The important role of non-state organizations such as the United Nations and NATO in stemming the irrational levels of violence in the Balkans is testimony to the fact that the power dynamic of the world community does not need to be based upon pure power politics, nor only viewed in terms of state actors.

While according to structural realists, states exist in a state of anarchy, governed by power needs, "constructivist theory rejects the basic assumption of neo-realist theory that the state of anarchy (lack of a higher authority or government) is a structural condition inherent in the system of states" and instead suggests that this must be rigorously questioned, along with the presumed supremacy of the nation-state (Constructivism, 2009, IR Theory).

"The condition of the system of states today as self-helpers in the midst of anarchy is a result of the process by which states and the system of states was constructed. It is not an inherent fact of state-to-state relations. Thus, constructivist theory holds that it.