Last week, when Brenda posted her column condemning the recognition of Kosovo's independence by the US and (most of) the EU, I expressed skepticism as to the strength of her case while agreeing that not enough attention was being paid to the risks posed by recognition. Recent events seem to be indicating that Brenda was absolutely right. Regardless of declarations that Kosovo's independence was merited due to its unique historical circumstances, other independence movements don't seem to be getting the message, and it's leading to a worrying increase in instability around the world.

Clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia over an ethnic Armenian province that declared independence from Azerbaijan in the 1990s but has gone internationally unrecognized. Russia nodding toward recognition of a de facto independent but also internationally unrecognized region of Georgia. Those are just two examples of heightened in the wake of Kosovo's independence. Some of the other consequences are discussed here.

This may all seem like small-scale stuff, but they are frightening indications of what the future holds. These sorts of ethnic conflicts can ultimately lead to all sorts of nightmarish human rights abuses and the straining of important international alliances, as they of course did in the former Yugoslavia itself. International recognition of Kosovo may be of interest to only a limited audience, but there are more broadly relevant lessons that we can take from these problems.

One is that the United States needs to take far more care when contemplating its actions abroad. This point was alluded to by Brenda in her column: "The propensity of the West to interfere in the affairs of certain countries but not others is as confusing as it is frustrating and frankly unfair." But beyond the moral implications of American interventionism, it's also important to recognize the long-term damage to national interest because of the unintended consequences of our actions. That isn't to say we need to isolate ourselves from the world. It is to say that international relations are really, really complicated. Anything we do will invariably produce results even top experts could never have predicted, and therefore any action abroad, particularly one of military intervention, needs to be approached with extreme caution.

This also relates to what I think is an even more important lesson: the importance of global international cooperation and the United Nations. The UN takes a lot of crap, a fair share of it coming from Americans afraid that giving the UN too much importance will tie our hands and impede our strategic goals. But this overlooks the enormous benefits that the UN can provide. Unlike regional international organizations (which of course are incredibly important in their own right) and certainly unlike unilateral action, the UN provides a platform for global negotiation, creating an invaluable opportunity to examine the broader international reactions of our friends and enemies alike. The mere process of acting through the UN allows actors to head off what might otherwise have been disastrous unforeseen consequences, and any resulting action that has gone through the UN gains immediate credibility. Note that this should give us pause not just before engaging in unilateral action, but even action taken through a multilateral organization like NATO if it faces objections from important, unrepresented international actors.

It is, of course, unrealistic and unwise to think all American intervention abroad must meet with the consent of the international community on a global scale, but the presence of that consent reaps invaluable benefits and the lack thereof at least provides fair warning of the degree to which the United States may be damaging its long-term interests and its image in the world.

Labels: Brian, foreign policy