In March 2007 the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy for Kosovo emphasized that, “Kosovo is a unique case that demands a unique solution,” and recommended independence as “the only viable option” for Kosovo, which involved an initial period of supervised independence from Serbia. The recommendation made by Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland to the UN, was remarkable in the light of the fact that the UN had for many years been a strong advocate for protecting state territory and state interest. Interestingly, between 1948 and 1991 the only case of independence recognized by the UN was that of Bangladesh.
Ahtisaari’s observed that, “Upon careful consideration of Kosovo's recent history, the realities of Kosovo today and taking into account negotiations with the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the only viable option for Kosovo is independence to be supervised for an initial period by the international community.” This was a radical and historical departure from conventional peacemaking approaches, as well as one that demonstrated political astuteness in addressing deep-rooted conflicts of self-determination. He went on to say that his recommendation provided “the foundation for future independent Kosovo that is viable, sustainable and stable and in which all communities and their members can live a peaceful and dignified existence.”
This recommendation comes across as quite progressive, even revolutionary, in contrast to the current trends of political diplomacy and negotiations which have largely been state-centered with the intent to ensure the continued status-quo of state national security over human security. Clearly this demonstrates that if one is deeply committed to peace, then using pragmatic and realistic approaches are essential in order to break away from traditional approaches. This unique recommendation served as a milestone reaffirming the point that it is the denial of self-determination that is the cause of conflict. And, hence, the restoration of the right to self-determination forms the basis of a negotiated peace.
History has shown that rigid positions and dogmatic approaches to deep rooted conflicts have not just proved to be futile efforts, but have only threatened possible viable solutions. Therefore, one key implication of Ahtisaari’s recommendation showed the constant presence of possibilities when creative and imaginative ways are derived to resolve conflicting interests. Peacebuilding requires foresight and willingness to co-create and implement alternatives in the midst of violence and division. This proposal revealed that the more important resolution was regarding how people exercise their independence, and not necessarily the status they arrive at.
The spirit of Ahtisaari’s approach to a peaceful intervention and creatively finding ‘out-of-the-box solutions’ is still relevant today. It would do this world some good to have more courageous and pragmatic diplomats with strong political convictions to pursue justpeace based on values of human security and inclusion, rather than on fear and violence.
As the Nagas enter 2016, it would be prudent on our part to courageously and wisely take steps into an uncertain future by creating out of the box solution based on values and principle, rather than sustaining an unjust status quo.
