The West’s Hypocrisy: Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic on Kosovo Independence and the Ukrainian Crisis
Photo: Reuters
On Thursday, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic voiced his accusations against the Western powers, alleging hypocrisy regarding their recognition of Kosovo’s independence, drawing parallels with Russia’s war against Ukraine. In an unprecedented critique of international diplomacy, Vucic argues that the justification for the recognition of Kosovo’s independence is no different from that of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Kosovo, a former Serbian province, unilaterally declared independence in 2008 following a bloody conflict in the late 1990s that ended with NATO intervention. The majority of EU member states, the United States, and around 100 other countries recognized Kosovo’s independence. Serbia, backed by Russia and a handful of other countries, has refused to do so, asserting the illegality of Kosovo’s secession. Vucic’s argument is grounded on the principle of territorial integrity, a cornerstone of international law. He argues that the West’s recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence contradicts the principle of territorial integrity, the same principle they advocate for in the context of the Ukrainian crisis.
Since 2014, Ukraine has been embroiled in a conflict with Russia, primarily over the status of Crimea, which Russia annexed, and the Donbass region, where separatists, allegedly backed by Russia, have declared independence. The West has staunchly supported Ukraine, condemning Russia’s actions as violations of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. In Vucic’s perspective, the West is applying a double standard. They condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine, citing the principle of territorial integrity, but simultaneously endorse Kosovo’s independence, which, according to Serbia, infringes upon its own territorial integrity. This critique exposes the complex and often contradictory nature of international diplomacy. The West, in Vucic’s view, is picking and choosing when to apply the principle of territorial integrity, bending international law to fit their geopolitical interests. The West, for its part, has traditionally argued that the cases of Kosovo and Ukraine are fundamentally different. They contend that Kosovo’s independence came after a long history of repression and severe human rights abuses by the Serbian state, culminating in the war of the late 1990s. In contrast, they argue, Russia’s actions in Ukraine were unprovoked aggression. However, critics like Vucic argue that this is an oversimplification that does not justify ignoring the principle of territorial integrity in one case while fiercely advocating for it in another. This ongoing debate underlines the tension between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity in international law. It also underscores the geopolitical complexities of the modern world, where international power dynamics often influence the interpretation and application of these principles. As the dialogue continues, it is clear that the resolution of these issues will shape the future of international diplomacy, the credibility of international law, and the fate of nations caught in the crossfire of geopolitical power struggles.
By Roberto Casseli
