Pacifist Spain Abandons NATO Allies in Kosovo
From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2009-03-27 10:13
Spain’s pacifist defense minister, Carme Chacón, has ignited a firestorm of criticism for her surprise announcement that Madrid will pull its 630 troops out of the NATO-led KFOR peacekeeping mission in Kosovo by the end of summer. During a visit to the Spanish base at Istok in Kosovo on March 19, Chacón unilaterally declared: “Mission accomplished. It’s time to go home.” Her decision, which came almost completely out of the blue, not only breaks solemn commitments that Spain has with NATO, it also leaves Spanish allies in the lurch and further reinforces Spain’s image as an unreliable partner.
Chacón’s announcement burst like a bombshell at NATO headquarters in Brussels, where the alliance’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, complained that she had acted unilaterally and had failed to inform the alliance through the proper channels. He said that any significant changes to KFOR’s structure “should take place as a result of a decision within the alliance” once the political and security conditions in Kosovo permit, and “this moment has not yet arrived.”
The reaction in Washington was far more critical: State Department spokesman Robert Wood said (not only once, but four times) that the Obama administration was “deeply disappointed” in Spain. Wood added that when the KFOR mission began in 1999, the NATO allies agreed on the principle of “in together, out together.” He said that Spain’s decision “doesn’t help what we’ve been trying to do in Kosovo. And we regret it.”
But the most politically damaging fallout came from within Spain itself, where Chacón’s gaffe made front page news all across the country. Some of the harshest criticism came from media closely aligned with the government of Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The Madrid-based El País newspaper, for example, which often serves as a mouthpiece for the Socialist Party, ran a devastating editorial titled “Leaving Kosovo.” After systematically demolishing each one of the government’s justifications for the troop withdrawal, the paper admonished the Zapatero government to “scrupulously respect the procedures” of international organizations like NATO. The paper summed up its reprimand by charging that Chacón’s action “damages Spain’s image as a reliable ally.”
Zapatero has responded to the criticism by arguing that it makes no sense for Spanish troops to continue to help Kosovo, which declared independence in February 2008. Spain, unlike most of its European Union partners, rejects Kosovo’s sovereignty as a violation of international law and a dangerous precedent that could encourage separatists elsewhere, especially in Spain’s own Basque and Catalan regions. And indeed, there is broad support for that policy across Spain’s political spectrum (although insightful analysts say that the Basque and Catalan secessionist movements are hardly comparable to Kosovo).
What confounds many Spaniards is the abrupt timing of Zapatero’s move. Why now? If Zapatero was genuinely concerned about Spain’s continued presence in Kosovo, why did he not withdraw Spanish troops the moment Kosovo declared independence? Had he seized the opportunity then, Spain would have had a credible explanation for its position as well as the necessary political cover to bring the troops home.
Spaniards are also wondering why Zapatero failed to consult the Spanish Parliament about Kosovo. After all, his government made changes to the National Defense Law, making it mandatory for the executive branch to confer with the legislative branch on military missions abroad. Zapatero said the changes were designed to increase transparency on military matters.
But longtime observers of Zapatero say his foreign policy decisions are always driven by domestic politics. And with Spain deep in recession and saddled with the highest unemployment rate in Europe, Zapatero is understandably worried about elections in June, when Spanish voters choose their representatives to the European Parliament.
During regional elections in March, the opposition People’s Party defeated the Socialists in the north-western coastal region of Galicia. Political analysts say the PP’s victory points to a future nationwide trend, and the Socialists are clearly worried; as the bad economic news piles up in Spain, Zapatero’s poll numbers are dropping fast.
By pulling out of Kosovo, therefore, Zapatero seems to be throwing a bone to voters on the far left, who are militantly pacifist and virulently opposed to Spain’s membership in NATO. They are also anti-capitalist and upset about Zapatero’s economic stimulus plan, which they say only serves to extend the life of a capitalist system they hate so much.
But Zapatero’s political calculations have backfired spectacularly. And in the process, Spain’s international credibility—and its global ambitions—have suffered a major blow.
Spanish officials had had high hopes for a closer relationship with the US government after the election of President Barack Obama. Spain’s bilateral relationship with the United States has been in a deep freeze ever since 2004, when Zapatero abruptly withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. Many Spaniards are baffled that Zapatero would make the same mistake all over again.
The diplomatic fiasco could not have come at a more inopportune moment for Spain. In less than two weeks, Obama is set to travel to Europe for a series of meetings with European leaders. Spanish newspapers have already been chock full of articles about how Zapatero will have no less than four opportunities to shake hands with “the most powerful man in the world” and to try to rebuild Spain’s broken relationship with America. Has Zapatero now jeopardized his chances of becoming Obama’s new best friend?
Published by Pajamas Media on March 24, 2009
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group
Kosovo # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2009-03-30 22:31.
@ monarchist
1) I don't think that the adjective "super-democratic" is applicable here. Democracy is always a 'matter of degree', unlike say 'pregnancy', and involves a rather difficult judgement. Compared with much of the rest of the world, the "West" is broadly democratic, but its democracy is today under great strain in many places, and virtually no Western country today qualifies (in my book) as "superdemocratic". Perhaps the current New Zealand government might qualify, but I am not sure. As you well know, my major 'yardstick' is genuine freedom of political speech, or absence of restrictions thereupon.
2) It is always wise to "distrust" regimes in general, including democratic ones, and to be guided in such matters by historical observations (where possible). In the case of democratic regimes, the proper distrust should be based on the fickleness (and the short-term memory) of electorates. Nevertheless, democratic regimes tend to be more reliable (in the sense of respecting their freely-undertaken external commitments) than nondemocratic ones, because democracy is based on 'respecting nonarbitrary rules' and less on power concentration. On the other hand, it is often easier for autocracies to make external commitments because the decisonmaking process is (shall we say) very limited and short. But, in the end, what matters is not the ease by which one can make commitments, but whether - once made - one can stick to them.
3) Your simplistic assertion does not mean anything or, if you will, can mean everything. For instance, it could be interpreted - as the author of this article surely would - that a 'democratic' country like Spain cannot be trusted because it is running away (after having made a prior commitment to its partners about 'Kosovo'). It could equally be interpreted - as CristophPoitiers would - that the West is unreliable because it is pursuing specific goals in Kosovo that he personally does not agree with. So, frankly, I have no idea what you are trying to say, beyond gratuitously attacking 'democracy'.
Perhaps, you could try to explain and 'reason', instead of merely repeating your worn-out mantra?
Spain?
Submitted by Frank Lee on Sat, 2009-03-28 22:26.
Who had any reason to think of Spain as a loyal ally in the first place?
Kosovo # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2009-03-28 22:17.
@ CristophPoitiers
Whatever the pros and cons of the "occupation" of Kosovo, I detect dangerous confusion in your piece. You refer early on to an "illegal" occupation, and later to a "UN occupation", which is at first sight somewhat contradictory. It would be interesting to know what you would consider a "legal" occupation, as opposed to an "illegal" one?
I personally think that the occupation of any country by foreign forces has nothing to do with legality, but is by definition 'extra-legal' or 'beyond the law'. Legality has to do with the laws of a 'body politic', and whether something is legal or illegal can only be measured against the logic of the legal system of that particular 'body politic'. To the extent that countries make external (or foreign) commitments (that are 'legal' in terms of their own internal legal system), one could rationally talk about 'international law'. But such 'law' would require prior consent of those who are committed to uphold it. Clearly, no country will consent to being "occupied" by foreign forces. Frankly, I find it even difficult to consider any formal external commitment by nondemocratic regimes as part of 'international law', because such regimes cannot be relied upon to respect their own 'commitments'.
So, I fear that your reference to "illegal occupation" is a form of parroting a media mantra which is highly selective, ideological, and always politically motivated.
The occupation of Kosovo was undertaken by the major Western powers acting as an 'alliance'. Spain's unilateral decision (to 'run away' and abandon its allies) has nothing to do with legality, nor illegality. It simply illustrates that Spain is an unreliable alliance member, something one should remember before embarking on any common ventures with such a fellow member.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Mon, 2009-03-30 21:13.
Frankly, I find it even difficult to consider any formal external commitment by nondemocratic regimes as part of 'international law', because such regimes cannot be relied upon to respect their own 'commitments'.
We exactly see how super-democratic regimes of the west respect their commitments. You must be joking, Kosovo is the best example how democratic regimes should be distrusted.
Kosovo
Submitted by ChristophPoitiers on Sat, 2009-03-28 17:20.
It may well be that Spains defense minister is a pacifist coward. But pulling out of an illegal NATO occupation of a sovereign piece of Serbian territory is hardly unprincipled. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The illegal declaration of independence last year by Islamist, Narco-terrorists the UCK/KLA in Pristina was predicated on the 78 day NATO bombing campaign of a sovereign Serbia (in '99), whose only crime was a police action against a small band of islamo-fascists trying another round of ethnic cleansing and separatism in Serbias southern province. Thats right the Albanians of Kosovo had declared independence several times in the past century, and actually acheived this as WWII proxies of the fascist Axis Powers.
Their success this time was helped by KFOR and UN occupation of Kosovo i Metohija and their unwillingness to protect Serbs and other non-Albanians from a violent campaign of church demolition, desecration of graveyards, poisoning of wells, rape and murder. The culmination of ethnic cleansing under UN and NATO auspices was the March 17th 2004 orchestrated pogroms, in which half the non-Albanian population fled, never to return.
With the Serbian christians largely culled from their territory, the remaining ones living in ghettos (within their own country!!!), and with a gigantic int'l military presence providing cover for their violent tendencies, the Albanians were unmolested in this gross act against int'l law and state sovereignty.
So gracias to Spain, for finally pulling its troops out of NATO structures in Kosovo. Conservative should rejoice. Only because of the machinations of the likes of Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Javier Solano did NATO transform from a defensive alliance to an overtly offensive one. I'm for national sovereignty, not for internationalist alliances that destroy nations and national sovereignty. NATO actions in the balkans were the West's most disgraceful hour. We fought for the unreconstructed heirs to the Fascist great powers of WWII, and on behalf of Muslims minorities carving out Muslim only states on Europes Southern flank. And most shamefully we betrayed Serbia, our ally in WWI and WWII.
Self-Interest Can Be A Good Thing, But..
Submitted by Steve Atkinson on Sat, 2009-03-28 17:04.
How best to see the deepening of sovereign issues that plague European countries, than through a pair of "Spanish eyes"?
Were it not for the congealing influence of NATO, and EU membership, Spain would go quietly into the night, ravaged by home grown separatists, and absolutely rendered incapable of defending herself from very extreme Muslim "ecnomic warriors" who have vowed to make Spain theirs once again.
This is why the EU shall fail. There are no strong, charasmatic leaders around who will take the "Toro" by the horns.
Daniel Hannan, now is your time!
A Question for Helena Christofi
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2009-03-28 17:01.
b, the 'Toxic Avenger' recently had a very 'interesting' investment question for President Obama, and I'm just wondering how a sharia banking expert like yourself might address the same question. Here's what 'Toxic' wanted to know.
"Will there be an opportunity for individuals with only a small amount of money to invest in your toxic bailout plan?...
See the rest of Toxic's question here:
http://openforquestions.blogspot.com/
ps This just isn't my day.