The Kosovo crisis and the evolution of a post-Cold War European security

Front matter

The Kosovo crisis and the evolution of post-Cold War European security

PAUL LATAWSKI AND MARTIN SMITH

ENOUGH.

Preface

Notes on the authors List of abbreviations Introduction

3 South East European settlements? Democratisation, nationalism and security in former Yugoslavia

5 The EU’s military dimension: a child of the Kosovo crisis?

6 The evolution of the ‘Atlantic Community’

Conclusion

Key documents Select bibliography Index page Vii

Vili

120 143 170

182 215 224

Preface

The origins of this book are rooted during Operation Allied Force in 1999. Even as that conflict raged, the two authors debated the issues and decided that a book was necessary in order to examine a number of the fascinating and important questions spawned by the Kosovo crisis. After considerable deliberation, the present structure was adopted for considering the crisis within the continuum of developments in post-Cold War European security.

The book has been greatly assisted by the inputs of a number of people who deserve special mention and our thanks. Dr Christopher Donnelly, the Special Advisor to the Secretary-General of NATO, kindly arranged a series of very valuable interviews with NATO officials. These greatly illuminated a number of issues examined here. Similarly, Mrs Anne Aldis and other members of the Conflict Studies Research Centre at Camberley assisted the authors in the preparation of our material. An expression of well-deserved appreciation is necessary to Andrew Orgill and his team at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst library. They were very helpful in addressing our bibliographic requests and pointing us in the direction of books, articles and other material useful for coming to grips with the complicated issues raised by the Kosovo crisis. Finally, family and friends gave considerable encouragement and support and they receive our heartfelt thanks — particularly Dorina Latawska who patiently endured much ‘shop talk’ from the authors during the gestation of this book!

The final task to be performed here is to note that the analysis, opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this book are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, the UK Ministry of Defence or any other government agency.

Paul Latawski, Martin A. Smith

Notes on the authors

Paul Latawski is Senior Lecturer in Defence and International Affairs at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He is also an Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London. His principal research interests include contemporary Poland and security in Central and South East Europe. Recent publications in these areas include The Transformation of the Polish Armed Forces: Preparing for NATO (RUSI, 1999) and Britain, NATO, and the Lessons of the Balkan Conflicts 1991-1999, co-edited with Stephen Badsey (Frank Cass, 2003).

Martin A. Smith is Senior Lecturer in Defence and International Affairs at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. His main research interests are in the fields of international and European security. Recent books include NATO in the First Decade after the Cold War (Kluwer, 2000) and Uncertain Europe, co-edited with Graham Timmins (Routledge, 2001). He is currently collaborating on book projects on the European Union, NATO and Russia, and an introduction to the theory and practice of European security.

List of abbreviations

AFOR Albania Force

CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy

CJTF Combined Joint Task Force

FAA Euro-Atlantic Area

EAPC Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council

EC European Community

EDC European Defence Community

EEC European Economic Community

ESDP European Security and Defence Policy

EU European Union

FRG Federal Republic of Germany

FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

G8 Group of Eight

ICG International Crisis Group

IFOR Implementation Force

KFOR Kosovo Force

KLA Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK in Albanian)

KVM Kosovo Verification Mission

NAC North Atlantic Council

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

NOD Non Offensive Defence

NRC NATO- Russia Council

OSCE Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

PfP Partnership for Peace

PJC Permanent Joint Council (NATO-Russia)

RNAC Russia-North Atlantic Council

SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander Europe

UNPROFOR JNSC S

ABBREVIATIONS

Stabilisation Force Treaty on European Union

U U in

U

U

U

U U U U nited Kingdom

nited Nations

nited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees nited Nations Interim Administration Mission Kosovo

nited Nations Protection Force

nited Nations Security Council

nited States

nited States Air Force

nited States European Command

Western European Union Extraction Force

Introduction

The structure and purpose of this book

This volume does not seek to offer a detailed account of the background to and course of the Kosovo crisis, which reached its peak of intensity in 1998-99. A number of highly competent such studies have already been published.’ Nor are the discussions that follow framed principally as a ‘lessons learned’ analysis. The main objective here, rather, is to examine and assess the impact of the Kosovo crisis on the continuing evolution and development of key issues relating to post- Cold War European security overall.

In measuring this impact the discussions begin, logically, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). This was the chosen instrument through which its member states sought to achieve their objective of compelling the government of President Slobodan Milosevic in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) to cease and desist from what the former considered to be unacceptable activities in Kosovo province. Further, the FRY was also compelled effectively to cede authority over Kosovo to an international protectorate. NATO thus sits at the nexus of a number of important debates. Perhaps the most controversial concern the nature of its intervention and the circumstances in which such interventions in international affairs may be considered justifiable and legitimate. Reflecting their importance in most assessments of the Kosovo crisis, these issues are examined here in Chapter 1.

Chapter 2 considers structural issues and looks at the impact of the conduct of Operation Allied Force — the NATO bombing campaign of March-June 1999 — on both the internal workings of NATO and the expansion of its geographical areas of interest and remit within Europe.

This is followed, in Chapter 3, by an assessment of the premises, assumptions and ultimate prospects for success of western-led attempts, through NATO and other international institutions, to bring about social, political and economic reconstruction in South East Europe.’ Such efforts are being undertaken on the basis of trying to transplant western norms and values relating to, for example, liberal democracy and an inclusive — or ‘civic’ — national identity.

Relations between NATO and its members, on the one hand, and Russia on the other, represent arguably the single most important set of links in contemporary European security affairs. The Kosovo crisis can be described as a watershed event in the development of Russia-NATO relations in the period since Russia re-emerged as an independent state in December 1991. Chapter 4 of this volume thus offers a detailed account of the difficult, occasionally tortuous, but ultimately essential diplomatic co-operation between the Russians and NATO members which accompanied the ongoing air campaign in the spring and early summer of 1999. The impact of the crisis, and of this co-operation, on the relationship since that time is also considered here.

One of the favourite ‘lessons of Kosovo’ drawn by commentators and observers since 1999 has been to do with the extent to which Operation Allied Force painted up a military ‘capabilities cap’ between the European members of NATO and the United States. As a direct result of this, it is often argued, the member states of the European Union (EU) resolved to develop an autonomous collective military capability in order to enable them hopefully to avoid such an embarrassing degree of operational dependence on the US in Europe in the future. The discussions in Chapter 5 argue that the impact of the Kosovo crisis in this area has, in reality, been relatively marginal and certainly less significant than the view sketched out above suggests. To be sure, the intra-EU debates on the issue did get going at the same time as Kosovo was reaching crisis point. However, the prime movers in these debates — France and the United Kingdom — were motivated principally by other concerns.

The discussions in Chapter 6, finally, are concerned with the issue of why NATO and its members took such an interest in Kosovo when they appeared to have few if any conventional strategic or economic interests tied up there. The answer, it is suggested here, lies in considering the enduring importance of the post-Second World War ‘Atlantic Community’ that has developed amongst the NATO members, and the de facto extension of its boundaries since the end of the Cold War.

INTRODUCTION 3

Serb activities in Kosovo, it is argued, represented not a territorial threat to NATO but rather a challenge to the core values for which it claimed to stand. A response was thus deemed essential in order not only to defeat this challenge but, in doing so, to uphold the credibility of the institution itself.

Before embarking on these discussions, a brief recap on the background to and the course of the crisis in Kosovo may be useful. As indicated above, it is not our intention to describe or assess them in detail; that task has been ably accomplished elsewhere. The objective here is to provide a sufficient degree of background information in one convenient place at the outset so as to spare both authors and readers the necessity of having to digress in the main chapters with background material.

Kosovo and the crisis

Kosovo was, for a long time, at the margins of European affairs. The problems relating to it that leapt onto the front pages in 1998-99 were, for many, a ‘quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing’ to quote the now infamous words of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938.° The crisis in Kosovo may have been, amongst other things, an indictment of the western public’s knowledge and understanding of South East Europe’s history, politics and geography, but it was far from being a peripheral matter in the evolution of post-Cold War European security. As Roland Dannreuther has observed, the importance of the Kosovo crisis has been that it has acted as a ‘prism through which some of the most contentious and unresolved questions of contemporary international politics have been debated’.*

The historical background

It is safe to say that Kosovo is a land that has not been greatly frequented in the past by outside travellers, or in more recent times by tourists on package holidays. Its inaccessibility, however, is less due to challenging topographical features than a political geography characterised by disorder and violence that has made this corner of South East Europe, in periods of its history, a place best avoided. As Ger Duijzings has observed, ‘Kosovo is an example of a poor, peripheral and conflict-ridden society, where the central authority of the state has been nominal for much of its modern history’.°

The physical geography of Kosovo is easy to understand. The mountains ringing Kosovo make it a natural geographical unit. On its southern rim are the Sar mountains — the highest range — bordering Albania. On the western side are the Prokletije (Accursed) mountains, so called because of the difficulty in crossing them. On Kosovo’s eastern side stand the Skopska Crna Gora and, in the northern reaches, the Kopaonik mountains form the border with Serbia proper. The interior of Kosovo is a kind of high plain divided into two roughly equal parts by a range of hills running from east to west. The rivers in Kosovo either flow north or south from this line of hills. The largest city and administrative capital is Pristina in the northern part of the territory.°

As a political unit, Kosovo formed part of the medieval Serb Kingdom. By the second half of the fifteenth century, it had become part of the Ottoman Empire’s conquests in the region. It remained in the Ottoman Empire until the First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, when it became, once again, a province of Serbia. Apart from the period of the Second World War, Kosovo remained in Serbia’s ‘successor’, Communist Yugoslavia.’ Whether as part of the Ottoman Empire, Serbia or Yugoslavia, Kosovo was one of the poorer regions of those states. Apart from some mineral wealth, agriculture was the mainstay of economic activity."

Ethnic composition of Kosovo

From the nineteenth century onwards, the competing national movements of the Albanian and Serb inhabitants of the province increasingly shaped the story of Kosovo. For each group, the province was associated with historical events seen as central to the development of their national identities. The Serbs have historically seen Kosovo as the cradle of their medieval Serb Kingdom; a land of monasteries, castles and the resting place of great kings. In terms of Serb national mythologies, there is no more important event than the Battle of Kosovo (Kosovo Polje), fought between the Serb Kingdom and the Ottomans in 1389. Less a defeat than a draw, Kosovo Polje, however, marked the beginning of the end of medieval Serbia. The legends and myths associated with Prince Lazar, the Serb leader at Kosovo Polje, provided an important link between the medieval kingdom and the

INTRODUCTION 5 emergence of a modern Serb national consciousness from the nineteenth century onwards.’ Regardless of its ethnographic composition (discussed below), Kosovo was regarded as a key part of the Serb national patrimony.

For the Albanians, Kosovo also occupies an important place in the development of Albanian nationalism. In one of its southern cities, Prizren, the development of the Albanian national identity received a powerful boost. In Prizren, during one of the innumerable crises of South East Europe that involved the European great powers, the Albanians formed a political organisation called the ‘League of Prizren’ in 1878 to support the Ottoman Empire’s control of the Albanian inhabited parts of the region. One of the leading figures in the League was Abdul Frasheri, who inspired united political action amongst the Albanians of the Ottoman Empire. The aim of the League was to try to prevent the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by the great powers; particularly the Albanian inhabited territories of South East Europe. Although supporting the Ottoman government, the League of Prizren would eventually be suppressed by Ottoman forces because of its nationalist tendencies. The League, however, marked an important moment in the awakening of an Albanian national identity.'°

With Kosovo thus important to both the Serb and Albanian national identity, it was almost certain to be a contested piece of territory. In nationalist conflicts of this kind, demography plays an important role in formulating claim and counter-claim. The ethnographic composition of Kosovo and its evolution since the nineteenth century, form an important backdrop to the contemporary conflicts between Albanian and Serb for control of it. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the population of Kosovo had an Albanian majority, with the Serbs as a sizeable minority.'! Although statistical data must be treated with some caution in these situations, it is clear that, even allowing for political distortion, the Serb community was diminishing in terms of its overall numbers. After Kosovo became part of Serbia in the twentieth century, colonisation programmes did little to arrest the trend of a growing Albanian majority. During the period of Communist Yugoslavia, the Albanian majority continued to grow as illustrated in Table Intro.1.

On the eve of the 1999 conflict, the Serb minority was estimated as forming about 10 per cent of the population. In the wake of the Serb exodus following the June 1999 withdrawal of FRY military and police forces, the number of Serbs living in Kosovo may have been cut by as much as three-quarters of its pre-conflict total.”

Table Intro.1 Ethnic composition of Kosovo, the censuses of 1961, 1971 and 1981 (%)

Source: M. Vickers, Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo (London, Hurst and Co., 1998), p. 318.

Kosovo 1989-99: conflict, diplomacy and conflict

The proximate background to the Kosovo conflict of March-June 1999 was the mounting Albanian-Serb tension and violence of the previous decade. The Albanians, who had enjoyed a measure of autonomy in Communist Yugoslavia; controlling such things as local administration and education, saw this swept away from the late 1980s. This happened in the face of resurgent Serb nationalism and, more particularly, the policies of President Milosevic who exploited it to strengthen his political position in Serbia. The Albanian response was initially non-violent. A semi-clandestine parallel society and political life developed in Kosovo despite intermittent pressure from the Serb authorities.

By the late 1990s, however, non-violent protest began to give way to armed Albanian resistance to what was seen as Serb oppression. This manifested itself in the emergence of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which, by the late 1990s, was gaining support within Kosovo and international attention, even if its military achievements against the FRY security forces were modest.'* As the dispute became violent, it led increasingly to deaths, displacement of Albanians and destruction of property.

Although some outside observers had become concerned about the growing tensions in Kosovo, the initially relatively low level of violence, as compared with that seen in Bosnia in the first half of the 1990s, meant that these did not register high up on the agendas of European security organisations such as NATO. In 1998, however, as fighting intensified between FRY security forces and the KLA, Kosovo did move up the political agenda of a NATO determined to stop the crisis escalating to a level of violence seen earlier in Croatia and, especially, Bosnia.

INTRODUCTION 7

By autumn 1998, the violence in Kosovo had resulted in a situation where an estimated 250,000 Kosovar Albanians had been ousted from their homes; roughly one fifth of their number lacking proper shelter. In the context of this situation, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 1199 in September 1998, calling for a cease-fire, withdrawal of most FRY security forces and talks between the parties in conflict. It also issued a warning about a looming ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ resulting from the fighting.'* In an effort to increase pressure on the Milosevic government in Belgrade, NATO threatened airstrikes in order to induce his compliance with the terms of the UN Resolution.

A combination of diplomacy and this military pressure persuaded the FRY President to agree to comply in October. An agreement with Milosevic was brokered by US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Holbrooke. He was the man widely credited with successfully bringing about the negotiation of the Dayton agreement, which had ended the Bosnian civil war three years previously. FRY compliance with the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement was to be verified by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). This was the only outside monitoring agency that Milosevic was prepared to accept in Kosovo. The OSCE created an unarmed, civilian ‘Kosovo Verification Mission’ (KVM), which began operating in November 1998. A small, French-led NATO military ‘Extraction Force’ was deployed to neighbouring Macedonia in case the KVM required emergency evacuation.

By the beginning of 1999, the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement was beginning to unravel. The FRY authorities began to move forces back into Kosovo claiming, not entirely unreasonably, that their efforts to comply with the UN Resolution had done little but give the KLA a breathing space in which to regroup and occupy positions formerly held by FRY forces. On the Albanian side, allegations were made of fresh killings and atrocities being committed by the FRY forces.

In the face of this deterioration, a final diplomatic effort began in January 1999 when the parties in conflict were summoned to Rambouillet outside Paris. These high-level negotiations sought a general settlement in the manner of the Dayton process for Bosnia. The ‘Contact Group’, consisting of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Russia and the United States, aimed for a settlement that NATO was prepared to underwrite with a major peace support force in Kosovo. The proposals at Rambouillet offered substantial autonomy for the Kosovar Albanians and held out the eventual prospect of a referendum that might lead to independence. The Kosovar Albanians, with some reservations, eventually accepted the formula, but the FRY delegation walked away from the draft proposals. The FRY’s refusal to sign, and the deteriorating situation inside Kosovo, led to the withdrawal of the KVM in March and, within a week, NATO’s decision to finally use coercive airpower.

Operation Allied Force, March-June 1999

When NATO launched Operation Allied Force on 24 March 1999, its members and planners expected air operations to be successfully concluded within a few days. In the event, NATO’s military effort lasted for over two months. In this exercise in military coercion, the United States publicly ruled out, at the start, the idea of committing forces to a land invasion of Kosovo. When the FRY refused to be cowed by the air onslaught, this thus called into question NATO’s strategy of what some had called ‘immaculate coercion’.'°

As in most modern armed conflicts, the media was an important factor, with the protagonists fighting a second battle across the airwaves.” NATO’s well-publicised targeting mistakes, such as the accidental bombing of Albanian refugees and the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade,’* illustrated the importance of effective media management in modern conflict and the consequences when this proved difficult or impossible.

As the operation dragged on, NATO increased the numbers of aircraft and widened the targeting list to strike at the heart of the FRY’s infrastructure, government and media apparatus. By June 1999, it was increasingly clear that NATO would use whatever level of force was necessary for it to prevail. The use of ground forces was, at last, being seriously considered. There was also mounting evidence that the air attacks were causing serious damage and that unrest was beginning to surface inside Serbia. By then also, NATO’s diplomatic pressure was being actively supported by Russia.

In early June, President Milosevic indicated his acceptance of the international demands, compliance with which was necessary to end the bombing.” After brief negotiations with NATO, represented by Lieutenant General Sir Michael Jackson, the FRY leadership agreed to withdraw its security forces and accept a NATO-led peacekeeping force and a UN international administration mission in Kosovo. These

INTRODUCTION 9 points were incorporated into Security Council Resolution 1244, which was passed shortly thereafter. On the question of the future status of Kosovo, the Resolution was deliberately ambiguous. Unlike in the Rambouillet drafts, there was no clear signal that a referendum on eventual independence would be organised.” Kosovo’s future thus remained uncertain.

The best are I. Daalder and M. O’Hanlon, Winning Ugly: NATO’s War to Save Kosovo (Washington DC, Brookings, 2000) and T. Judah, Kosovo: War and Revenge (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2000).

In this volume, the geographical descriptor ‘South East Europe’ is preferred to the loaded designation ‘the Balkans’. It covers the successor states to the Cold War Communist Yugoslavia: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which embraces Serbia and Montenegro. It also covers their immediate neighbours: Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Romania. On the problems of using the term ‘the Balkans’ see J. Gow, ‘A region of eternal conflict? The Balkans — semantics and security’, in W. Park and G. W. Rees (eds), Rethinking Security in Post-Cold War Europe (London, Longman, 1998), pp. 155-8.

R. Dannreuther, ‘War in Kosovo: history, development and aftermath’, in M. Buckley and S. Cummings (eds), Kosovo: Perceptions of War and Its Aftermath (London, Continuum, 2001), p. 13.

G. Duijzings, Religion and the Politics of Identity in Kosovo (London, Hurst and Co., 2000), p. 5.

For full geographical descriptions of Kosovo see N. Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History (Basingstoke, Papermac, 1998), pp. 1-21 and R. Osborne, East Central Europe (New York, Praeger, 1967), p. 205ff.

For detailed accounts of Kosovo’s history see Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History and M. Vickers, Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo (London, Hurst and Co., 1998).

Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History, pp. 4-5.

B. Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide (London, Hurst and Co., 1999), pp. 11-31; T. Judah, The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 29-47 and S. Ramet, ‘The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Ends: Kosovo in Serbian perception’, in Buckley and Cummings, Kosovo: Perceptions of War and Its Aftermath, pp. 30-3.

T. Zavalani, ‘Albanian nationalism’, in P. Sugar and I. Lederer (eds), Nationalism in Eastern Europe (Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1973), pp. 61-6.

Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History, pp. 193-5.

E. Cody, ‘Out of work and hope, Serbs evacuate Kosovo’, Washington Post (17 February 2000).

For a comprehensive study of the KLA see A. Heinemann-Gruder and W-C. Paes, Wag the Dog: The Mobilisation and Demobilisation of the Kosovo Liberation Army (Brief 20) (Bonn, International Center for Conversion, 2001).

Resolution 1199 (1998). Website reference www.un.org/Docs/scres/ 1998 /sres1199.htm.

On the Rambouillet negotiations see M. Weller, ‘The Rambouillet conference on Kosovo’, International Affairs, 75:2 (1999), 211-51.

For a highly detailed account of NATO military operations see A. Cordesman, The Lessons and Non-Lessons of the Air and Missile Campaign in Kosovo (Westport, Praeger, 2001).

See P. Hammond and E. Herman (eds), Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis (London, Pluto Press, 2000).

D. Priest, ‘NATO concedes its bombs likely killed refugees’, Washington Post (20 April 1999) and D. Williams, ‘Missiles hit Chinese Embassy’, Washington Post (8 May 1999).

The nature and evolution of these demands is discussed here in Chapter 4, pp. 100-3.

Resolution 1244 (1999). Website reference www.un.org/Docs/scres/ 1999 /99sc1244.htm.

Chapter 1

NATO?’s employment of military power against the government of Slobodan Milosevic over Kosovo has been among the most controversial aspects of the Alliance’s involvement in South East Europe since the end of the Cold War. The air operations between March and June 1999 have been variously described as war, ‘humanitarian war’, ‘virtual war’, intervention and ‘humanitarian intervention’ by the conflict’s many commentators and critics. Key features of the debates over NATO’s employment of military power have been concerned with its legality and legitimacy (i.e. the role of the UN and international law), its ethical basis and its impact on the doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states. The conceptual debates that have raged over these issues are important not only within the context of European security but more generally for their impact on the international system as a whole. This chapter examines these issues by focusing on three broad questions. Why did NATO undertake military action over Kosovo? What kind of armed conflict did it engage in? Can such a resort to force be justified?

‘Dirty Harry’ or ‘a knight in shining armour’? NATO's decision to use military force over Kosovo

An implicit UN mandate?

NATO members first declared a willingness to use force over Kosovo in autumn 1998. The pivotal event at this time was the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement, reached in October. Holbrooke had been explicitly dispatched to Belgrade by then American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to ‘underscore [to President Milosevic] the clear requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1199 and to emphasize the need for prompt and full compliance’.’ Further, his mission to Belgrade was announced on the day after publication of a report to the Security Council by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan dealing with the FRY’s lack of compliance with previous UNSC Resolutions. In this report Annan ‘appealed to the international community to undertake urgent steps in order to prevent a humanitarian disaster’ in Kosovo during the winter.* The close proximity of timing suggests that this call provided both a spur and justification for the Holbrooke mission. The UN, via Resolution 1199, was, therefore, centrally if indirectly involved in the framing of the terms of reference for the Holbrooke mission, the accompanying NATO airstrike threat and, later, NATO’s military action between March and June 1999.

It can also be argued that the UN Secretary-General gave a de facto green light to military action on a visit to NATO headquarters in January 1999. In his public remarks before meeting the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s top decision-making body, Annan said that ‘the bloody wars of the last decade ... have [not] left us with any illusions about the need to use force, when all other means have failed. We may be reaching that limit, once again, in the former Yugoslavia’.’ According to Bruno Simma, he also told a press conference that ‘normally a UN Security Council Resolution is required’ [emphasis in the original] to authorise military action by UN member states; suggesting, perhaps, that one might not be with regard to Kosovo.* Indeed, Tomas Valasek has claimed that NATO members purposely ‘sought and obtained an indirect endorsement’ of the right to use force over Kosovo from Kofi Annan in January 1999, two months before Operation Allied Force was launched.°

The launch of Operation Allied Force was, nevertheless, accompanied by a major international controversy over the fact that NATO members had not obtained, or sought, an explicit mandate in the form of a UNSC Resolution. During the course of the operation, NATO members spent a good deal of time and effort justifying it, usually within a frame of reference to the UN.° Reference was made to NATO’s role in helping maintain the Dayton peace regime in Bosnia (where it was operating under a UN mandate), that could be threatened by uncontrolled violence in Kosovo. Further, it was asserted that NATO had received the implicit authorisation of the Security Council for military action on account of its support for the Holbrooke-

Milosevic agreement, which had, as noted, been concluded with the threat of airstrikes in the background.

An especially commonly cited argument was that NATO was acting ‘in the spirit? of the UN Charter in attempting to compel the Milosevic government to cease and desist its repressive activities in Kosovo. The then NATO Secretary-General, Javier Solana, encapsulated this argument at his first press conference after Operation Allied Force got underway. He declared that ‘the NATO countries think that this action is perfectly legitimate and it is within the logic of the UN Security Council [sic] ... we are engaged in this operation in order not to wage war against anybody but to try to stop the war’.’ This line of argument was bolstered by reference to key UNSC Resolutions. The first UN Kosovo Resolution — 1160 — had been passed by the Security Council in March 1998. It spoke of ‘the serious political and human rights issues in Kosovo’. In September, Resolution 1199 used stronger language. It spoke of the need to ‘avert the impending humanitarian catastrophe’ in the province.’ In addition, as noted above, the UN Secretary-General had called upon member states to take action to prevent a ‘humanitarian disaster’ in Kosovo. Given the inclusion of such phrases, there is some basis for the NATO claim to have been acting in the spirit of the Resolutions and of the UN Charter more generally.