Tue, May 09, 2023 page8

• Lessons from NATO’s intervention in Kosovo

  • By Arbenita Sopaj
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in March 1999 has been the subject of much debate due to the issues of legitimacy and territorial integrity. A major reason for this can be found in the voting system, in which permanent members hold a stronger say than those with temporary memberships. In the case of Kosovo, China and Russia were the permanent members of the UN Security Council hostile to the intervention. The independence of Kosovo from Serbian rule did not sit well with Beijing and Moscow, as it would have threatened their so-called “territorial integrity.”

  However, internal conflicts lie at the root of this, like in China with Taiwan and in Russia with its ongoing war in Ukraine. Yet, there are key differences when secession can be either endorsed or condemned by an international organization, such as the UN. However, in Kosovo, the situation warranted an immediate response, owing to the atrocities committed by the Serbian military. Consequently, NATO launched an aerial bombing campaign against Serbia on March 24, 1999, in an effort to avert conflict. The action was deemed legitimate under Chapter VII, Article 42 of the UN Charter, which calls for any action by air, sea or land to be taken if there is an imminent threat to peace.

  Although Kosovo’s intervention raised many questions regarding future intrastate conflict, much of it has been overlooked under the belief that the 21st century would be a “peaceful” century. However, this only held true until February last year, when Russia invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO from gaining a foothold in the country.

  While the UN did not take action in Ukraine as in Kosovo, it assured that it would provide its full support through humanitarian and military means, totaling 75.2 billion euros (US$83.1 billion) last year. A primary reason for inaction is Article 5 of collective defense due to Russia’s veto power, which has been greatly aided by China. In reality, this has led to an influx of countries joining NATO with common security objectives, with Finland being one of them. This partnership paved the way for the alliance to foster democracy.

  The growing hostility between China and Taiwan is considerably motivated by Russia’s offensive in Ukraine. However, while many have claimed that the next Ukraine would be Taiwan, the reality is far more complicated. Attacking Taiwan would be like confronting the US, which China might not be able to deal with. At the same time, while NATO’s readiness to intervene in Taiwan is essential, unknown factors hamper the alliance’s ability to play a role in a China-Taiwan conflict. This can be attributed to the following underlying factors:

  First, China is a permanent member of the UN, which, with help from Russia, could block any intervention.

  Second, NATO could justify an intervention when civilian lives are at stake akin to what happened in Kosovo, something Taiwan has not encountered.

  A US NATO-led intervention in Taiwan might be hindered by China’s isolation of the island, which would disable any external military force coming to Taiwan.

  Lastly, the threat of nuclear weapons remains a hazard that the international community strives to avoid at all costs.

  While identifying the complexities, former NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen encouraged Europe to equip Ukraine to fend off Chinese attacks on Taiwan. His remarks stemmed from the assumption that if Russia trumps Ukraine, it would give China a sense of security in its ability to seize Taiwan. This assertion was strengthened when China commenced three-day drills around Taiwan following the meeting between President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and US House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

  Recent tensions in Taiwan have also shed light on China’s position toward NATO, as Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Tan Kefei (譚克非) claimed that the US has been using Taiwan to gain a foothold in Asia. Nonetheless, Taiwan once again demonstrated its steadfastness when it announced that it has created a Taiwanese civilian defense force, a joint initiative created by the government and the public.

  Some believe that intervention in Taiwan is impossible as it is not a NATO or UN member, but few realize that Kosovo was not a member either. Taiwan has forged stronger ties with NATO, as the US is the country’s largest international arms supplier and the leading member of the alliance. Although the US has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, one thing is certain: If necessary, the US would step in.

  Arbenita Sopaj is a researcher at the Research Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs and a board member at the Global Peacebuilding Association of Japan.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taiwan thanks Japan for family registry change

  • 2

    MAC warns of PRC arrests, detentions

  • 3

    Taiwan blacklists two Chinese schools

  • 4

    US exempts security funds for Taiwan

  • 5

    Inter denied top spot in Serie A by rivals Juve