Russian news network, RT has published an article titled “Why isn’t Nato bombing Madrid for 78 days?”. This question is of course rhetorical, and is an attempt at exposing the “hypocrisy” of the EU between how it reacted to the Yugoslav crisis and subsequent independence of Kosovo, and the Catalonia crisis today. Although it cites NATO in the main headline, the first paragraph reads:
“It is a little bit late for the EU to remember the international law on its Western border [Catalonia in Spain] when it was ignoring it on its Eastern border [Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia]”
Which quotes Marko Gasic, an international affairs commentator who spoke directly to RT.
It is no secret that the Russian owned and supporting RT has anti-EU leanings. And naturally, they would give voice and platform to such comparisons, even if they are false.
The risk of attempting to point out the hypocrisy between two different situations always lies in the details. While its true that both cases deal with the possible disintegration of the state, there are crucial differences.
The Yugoslav Wars and involvement of the United Nations
The key and most pertinent detail is the war in the former Yugoslavia.
The break down of the Yugoslav state, and subsequent turmoil within its six constituent republics caused a series of wars from 1991 through to 2001. Insurgencies, military sieges, ethnic cleansing and ethnic infighting were common. So great were the crimes committed, that an international criminal tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY) was formed. This is the point through which the international community found a mandate to act, as it involved violations of international norms.
The notion of self-determination was truly tested, as the Serbian government fought for strong central governance, while the Croatians and Bosnians fought for independence. In turn, Serb minorities within those regions took up arms in a spate of conflicts within conflicts.
More pertinent are the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions that authorised the use of force to end the conflict, among them resolution 836 of 1993. None of the permanent members vetoed such action, not even Russia or China. In a newly post-Soviet-Union world, the deadlock between the permanent members, the United States and USSR (now Russia), was broken. Therefore, the UNSC was able to pass a tangible resolution without a veto from this or that side, in a conflict where everyone had an interest in acting.
UNSC Resolution 1244 of 2001 further established an interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK), one of the six republics, and tasked with day to day governance and enforcing public powers. A necessary step after the region was devastated by war to the point that governance and the rule of law broke down.
On the 17th of February 2008, the Kosovo Assembly declared independence. And on the 8th of October 2008, the United Nations General Assembly sought the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue non-binding an advisory opinion on the legality of this declaration of independence within international law.
The current Catalonia crisis
Although Spain is made up of different regions, all of which have devolved powers, the crisis remains concentrated in Catalonia. Unlike Yugoslavia, there aren’t multiple regions within Spain wishing to secede. The two main parties are the Catalonian government and central Spanish government.
While the Spanish government has deployed police in order to prevent the referendum from taking place, and there has been reports of violence, there has not been an armed conflict. Therefore the crisis is of a political nature, not humanitarian. Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, displayed open defiance by signing a unilateral independence declaration recently. But then suspended it, favouring negotiations with the central Spanish government instead.
Given the above, the stance of the EU has been to encourage both parties to come to the table and negotiate, in order to avoid conflict. At this stage, as there is no armed conflict through which international norms may be violated (be they crimes against humanity or war crimes), it is a matter for the Catalan and Spanish governments to settle in accordance with Spain’s constitutional law and its interpretation.
Yet RT has seen fit to make equal comparisons between both situations in a likely display of wilful ignorance, so that it may pander to its anti-EU audience. It may be that this political crisis does not get solved, and it descends into armed conflict. It may be that this hypothetical armed conflict represents a threat to regional or global peace. It is only under these conditions that the international community may find a mandate to get involved. And it is under these conditions that the EU can be observed to see if they are indeed hypocritical or not.
Sources
Law
United Nations, International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, (Adopted 25 May 1993 by Resolution 827)
International Court of Justice, Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect to Kosovo (Advisory opinion) 2010
UNSC, Resolution 836, S/RES/836 (1993)
UNSC, Resolution 1244, S/RES/1244 (1999)
Spanish Constitution, Part VIII on Territorial Organization of the State (ratified 6 December 1978)
Other
RT, ‘Why isn’t NATO bombing Madrid for 78 days? – former British diplomat‘ (4 October 2017)
Pesnic, V., in the United States Institute of Peace ‘Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis‘ (1 April 1996)
United Nations Press Release, ‘Backing request by Serbia, General Assembly decides to seek International Court of Justice ruling on legality of Kosovo’s independence‘ (8 October 2008)
El Nacional, ‘Thousands of Spanish police and Civil Guards deploy across Catalonia‘ (1 October 2017)
BBC, ‘Catalonia independence declaration signed and suspended‘ (10 October 2017)
BBC, ‘Catalonia Crisis: What are the options for Spain now?‘ (11 October 2017)
One Internationalist 