NATO

XVI MIRIN

GUIA DE ESTUDOS

BACKGROUND GUIDE

XVI MIRIN

CRISTINA SHAH

GABRIEL ESTILL

GIULIANA MELLO

MARIA CLARA MENDES

MARIANA GONÇALVES

THE KOSOVO WAR

HISTORICAL NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL – NATO (1999)

RIO DE JANEIRO

2019

2

1 Sumário

1 Sumário ................................................................................................................... 2

2 Letter to Delegates ................................................................................................ 4

3 NATO ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 NATO’s Origins ............................................................................................... 5

3.2 NATO’s purposes: .......................................................................................... 6

3.3 Collective Self-Defense & Self-Defense ....................................................... 6 3.3.1 Article 5 .......................................................................................................... 7

4 Historical background ........................................................................................... 8

5 1918 – 1945 ........................................................................................................... 10

6 1945 to 1980: Kosovo and the socialist ideology ............................................ 13

7 1980- 1992: Milosevic’s government ................................................................. 16

8 The 1990 decade and the intensification of the conflict ................................. 17

8.1 Bosnian War and its consequences ........................................................... 17

8.2 Kosovo before the war (1992-1997) ............................................................ 19

8.3 The beginning of the hostilities until now (1997 -) ................................... 20

9 Foreign Policies ................................................................................................... 21

9.1 Belgium .......................................................................................................... 21

9.2 Canada............................................................................................................ 21

9.3 Czech Republic ............................................................................................. 22

9.4 Denmark ......................................................................................................... 22

9.5 France ............................................................................................................. 22

9.6 Germany ......................................................................................................... 23

9.7 Greece ............................................................................................................ 23

9.8 Hungary .......................................................................................................... 24

9.9 Iceland ............................................................................................................ 24

9.10 Italy ................................................................................................................. 25

9.11 Luxembourg .................................................................................................. 25

9.12 Netherlands.................................................................................................... 26

9.13 Norway............................................................................................................ 26

9.14 Poland............................................................................................................. 27

9.15 Portugal .......................................................................................................... 27

3

9.16 Spain ............................................................................................................... 27

9.17 Turkey ............................................................................................................. 28

9.18 United Kingdom ............................................................................................ 28

9.19 United States ................................................................................................. 29

10 References ........................................................................................................ 29

4

2 Letter to Delegates

Dear delegates,

Welcome to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council! This committee is

happening for us to discuss about the Kosovo War. This subject is really important, specially at

the end of 1990 decade and took a lot of effort from the International Community. As an

organization which is prepared to militarily countries in conflict, NATO is trying to end the

hostilities against Kosovo. Considering this we will try to think a better way to neutralize

Yugoslavian and Serbian-Kosovar forces.

By then, in the end of the week we hope you will decide whether NATO will solve this

in a diplomatic reunion or military offense or even a third way to end the conflict. Remember

that what you, as an organization, want to prevent any type of ethnic cleansing and human rights

violation. Since that, the speeches will take a fundamental part on this process.

This Model UN Committee is a good way to introduce you on how diplomats and

policymakers work in real life. Hope you all enjoy this week, practicing your creativity and

interpersonal skills. In case of doubt don’t hesitate to contact any of the directors. We wish a

good debate and that, in the end of the week you can improve in diplomatic adeptness. See you

all in July.

Yours faithfully,

Cristina Shah

Gabriel Estill

Giuliana Mello

Maria Clara Mendes

Mariana Gonçalves

5

3 NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an intergovernmental military alliance

established under the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949. The treaty was signed in Washington by

twelve Western countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Iceland, Canada,

Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, United States of America, United Kingdom and Italy. As of

today, there have been four additions to the member states, which now counts with the presence

of Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

3.1 NATO’s Origins

After the turmoil caused by the Second World War, many European nations became

concerned about their physical and political security. They, then, sought the economic

assistance offered by the US-funded Marshall Plan, as well as the establishment of greater

military cooperation’s within the continent. The American effort had three main objectives: to

rebuild the war-devastated regions, to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe

through a strong North American presence on the continent and to deter Soviet expansion. This

approach permitted the United States to become more closely involved with European affairs.

After some years, it was determined that only a true transatlantic security agreement

could stop Soviet aggression while maintaining the plans for political integration. Subsequently

to an extensive amount of debates, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed on the fourth of April,

1949.

Throughout the years, NATO’s agenda became more military focused according to the

international scenario. Soon after the Soviet atomic detonation in 1949 and the outbreak of the

Korean War, in 1950, this group gained a consolidated command structure with a military

Headquarters based in the Parisian suburb of Rocquencourt, near Versailles.

During the period of economic reconstruction, NATO adopted the strategic doctrine of

“Massive Retaliation” – if there were any Soviet attack, NATO would answer with nuclear

weapons. The effect of this doctrine was clear: both sides became extremely cautious of any

risk-taking. At the end of the Cold War, many where the doubts regarding NATO’s essence.

After all, the Soviet expansion was no longer a threat, and the chances of a full-scale attack to

NATO’s European front was minimal, and thus should not be the focus for the Allied Strategy.

With the common enemy gone, the Alliance’s future became unclear. The Balkan Wars,

6

however, helped reform the Alliance’s ideals and institutionalized foreign operations. It became

evident that the new challenges would be multifaceted and possess multi-directional nature,

emerging from unstable regions with ethnical and religious quarrels.

3.2 NATO’s purposes:

NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of

all its members by political and military means. Collective defense is at the heart of

the Alliance and creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members.

In the political sphere, NATO seeks the promotion of democratic values, consultation

on defense and security issues to build trust and prevent conflicts.

In the military sphere, NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Nevertheless, if all else fails, it has the military capacity needed to guarantee the safety of its

members. These missions are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty in

accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

NATO represents the transatlantic link between the security of North America and

Europe. It provides forums where any member may raise issues, as well as require further

assistance in solving disputes. No country must rely solely on its national capabilities to meet

essential security objectives.

Furthermore, the Alliance strives to secure peace and stability in Europe and in any other

region that may be considered in need. It seeks constant re-evaluation and further development

of member states policies, capabilities and structures to ascertain their position in the forefront

of rapidly developing threats.

3.3 Collective Self-Defense & Self-Defense

The principle of mutual defense is of extreme importance to NATO since its foundation.

It binds its members together, assuring their safety and promoting a spirit of union within the

Alliance.

The “collective self-defense” right was first defined in Article 51 of the 1945 United

Nations Charter. The article specifies the scope and applicability of collective Self-defense as

well as the definition as follows:

7

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or

collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United

Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain

international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this

right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall

not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under

the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to

maintain or restore international peace and security.

Later, the North Atlantic Treaty defined measures its members could and should take

upon an attack. However, Self-Defense and Collective Self-Defense are still limited by strict

terms. Use of force is prohibited under the UN Charter Art. 2 sub.4:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force

against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other

manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

3.3.1 Article 5

The fifth article of the North Atlantic Treaty was the central pillar maintaining the

military deadlock during the Cold War. It guaranteed that an armed attack against any of

NATO’s members would be considered an attack against them all. However, it never stated that

the support of all members necessarily had to be of military terms. As so, it served as the basis

of union for the treaty’s signatories.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North

America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree

that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual

or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United

Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually

and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the

use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be

reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security

Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace

and security.

Although Article 5 exists since NATO’s creation, it has never been invoked, imposing

a series of difficulties regarding the discussion of its use.

8

4 Historical background

Kosovo is located in southern Serbia. Its population is mixed of various ethnic groups.

During the 1st century AD, the Romans had control over the area, where the alleged forebears

of modern Albanians were placed as a people called Illyrian. Serbs and other Slavic tribes

migrated into the Balkans, including Kosovo, in the 6th century AD. In the late 12th century,

under the leadership of King Nemanja of Serbia, the territory was seized and became the center

of the Serbian state. Nemanja and his successors built many churches and monasteries, some of

which remain key Serb holy sites today. They made Pec the seat of the Serbian Orthodox

Church. Medieval Serbia reached the zenith of its power under King Stefan Dusan from 1331-

1355. His kingdom included all of Kosovo, northern Albania, Macedonia, and much of Greece.

He established his capital at Prizren. During this period of time, Kosovo started being

considered the “cradle of Serbia”.

However, Serbia’s strength soon declined due to disputes among Stefan Dusan’s

successors, and the increasing power of the Turkish-led Ottoman Empire. In the Battle of

Kosovo Polje on June 28, 1389, forces of Serbian Prince Lazar were defeated by a Turkish-led

army. Many details of the battle remain obscure, but some historians say that it is quite possible

that there were Serbs and Albanians fighting on each side. While the historical reality of the

battle may have been more complicated than has sometimes been suggested, the conflict has

nevertheless passed into Serb historical legend as the decisive battle that ushered in over 400

years of Turkish dominance.

The Battle of Kosovo plays an important role in Serbian history concerning Kosovo, as

it has founded the “Kosovo myth”. The myth evokes the idea that “the Ottoman army was the

winner on the battlefield but, at the same time, the Serbian/Christian side emerged as the

ultimate spiritual victor” (Lauer, quoted in Bieber, 2002:96). It became part of the

commemorative calendar of the nation, an event ritually remembered in particular ways once a

year; in this respect, the contrasts between the historical record of the battle and its mythical

representation are not without interest. A second aspect of the myth is the claim to Kosovo. The

insistent remembrance of the battle, in conjunction with the importance of Kosovo for the

medieval Serbian kingdom, serves to ground a territorial claim irrespective of the facts of

population distribution in the region and impervious to subsequent historical developments.

9

The question of whether Serbs or Albanians have the most legitimate claim to Kosovo

has long been an issue of contention between ethnic Albanian and Serbian historians. Serbs

view Kosovo as sacred ground, the "cradle of the culture and State of the Serbian people" (FRY

Oct. 1995; Financial Times 29 June 1989), while Albanians place historic claims on Kosovo

that predate the arrival of Serbs in the region (Hall 1994, 9; Pavkovic Sept. 1997, 428).

In 1689, Austrian forces temporarily seized Kosovo from the Ottomans. Local Serbs

joined forces with them to fight the Turks. The Austrians were routed near Kacanik on January

2, 1690. Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Arsenije and more than 40,000 refugees fled Kosovo for

Hungary. Serb historians claim that the shift from a predominately Serbian population to a

mainly ethnic Albanian one began at this time, as Albanians migrated from the poor,

mountainous regions of northern Albania onto the more fertile plains of Kosovo. Other

historians say the shift started much earlier and occurred more gradually. Most ethnic Albanians

in Kosovo converted from Christianity to Islam (although a largely Roman Catholic minority

continues to exist today). Many conversions were undertaken not due to religious fervor, but in

order to avoid higher taxes and other discrimination that non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire

faced.

During the course of the 19th century, there were some political and geographical

changes in the area that culminated in the uprising of Albanian nationalist movements. After

uprisings from 1804 to 1815, parts of Serbia near Belgrade became a semi-autonomous

principality within the Ottoman Empire. By 1833, Serbia received full autonomy and more

territory as a result of an agreement reached with the Ottomans under Russian pressure. Kosovo

remained in Ottoman hands. In 1877-1878, Serbia and Montenegro seized parts of Kosovo

during the Russian-Turkish War. Russia won a crushing victory and imposed the Treaty of San

Stefano in March 1878, which created a greater Bulgaria and assigned parts of what is now

Kosovo to Serbia and Montenegro. Outraged ethnic Albanian leaders formed the League of

Prizren in June 1878, with the aim of consolidating Albanian-inhabited lands into one province

within the Ottoman Empire. At the Congress of Berlin in July 1878, other Great Powers,

alarmed at Russia’s gains in the region, forced a reduction in the size of Bulgaria and took

Albanian-inhabited lands away from Serbia and Montenegro and gave them back to the Turks.

However, Serbia and Montenegro were permitted to keep other territories they had seized.

Serbia received formal independence from the Ottoman Empire. The demands of the League of

Prizren to group all Albanian-inhabited lands in one state are still advanced today by ethnic

10

Albanian nationalists in Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia.

In October 1912, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and Bulgaria attacked the Turks, setting

off the First Balkan War. Turkish forces were decisively defeated and virtually the entire Balkan

peninsula was liberated from Ottoman control. Serbian and Montenegrin forces seized Kosovo

and part of what is now Albania. On June 28, 1913, Bulgaria, angry at its meager territorial

gains in the conflict, attacked Greece and Serbia in the Second Balkan War and was defeated

by late July. After pressure by several Great Powers, Serbia and Montenegro were forced to

disgorge some territory, and an independent Albania was created. In part at Russia’s urging,

Kosovo remained in Serb hands. Serbia nearly doubled in size as a result of its gains in the

Balkan Wars.

On June 28, 1914, Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by

Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in July,

touching off World War I. After offering stubborn and effective resistance for over a year, the

Serbian army was defeated when Bulgaria joined the war in September 1915 in hopes of

avenging its losses in the Second Balkan War. The Serbian army made a last stand in Kosovo,

and the army and many Serb civilians retreated across the mountains of northern Albania to the

Adriatic Sea under conditions of extreme hardship. Remnants of the army were evacuated by

Allied warships to the Greek island of Corfu.

After the victory of the Allies in World War I and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian

Empire in 1918, Kosovo became part of the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, ruled

by a Serbian king. As one of the victors in the war, and the only people in the Kingdom to have

had a state of its own before the conflict, Serbia felt it had a right to dominate the new country,

sparking the resentment of other nationalities. Serbia began a large-scale effort to settle Serbs

in Kosovo in an effort to dilute the ethnic Albanian majority in the region. King Aleksandr

declared a dictatorship in 1929 and renamed the country Yugoslavia.

5 1918 – 1945

For centuries, Balkan lands were under the ruling of the Ottoman and Hapsburg

Empires. While Bosnia and Serbia were controlled by the Ottomans, Croatia and Slovenia were

ruled by the Hapsburgs (which later became the Austro-Hungarian Empire). Immediately, after

11

World War I, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs emerged -- which preceded Yugoslavia -

-, the first state created based off a Pan-Slavic ideology.

As the state came about, a clear conflict of interests between its constituents rose to the

surface. The state was dominated by the Serbs, and a major source of tension was the Croatian

wish for greater independence. Thus, the Croatian minority was heavily persecuted by the Serbs

-- on June 20th of 1928, a Serbian deputy shot and killed three member of the opposition

Croatian Peasant Party in the National Assembly, including their leader, Stjepan Radic.

[T]he new state in 1918 was essentially a creation of the victorious powers, France

and Britain. Their ally in World War I, Serbia, was rewarded with new territories,

including the Hungarian Vojvoidina and the Albanian Kosovo, and with a centralist

constitution that ensured that all the important decisions were taken by a government

in Belgrade dominated by Serbs. In effect the new Yugoslav state was a Greater

Serbia, and a major source of tension was the Croatian wish for some devolution of

power.2 These differing perceptions of the common state, with the Serbs favouring

a Yugoslav nation, and the Croats seeing Yugoslavia merely as a necessary step

towards a fully independent Croat nation-state, influenced the nature of

Yugoslavia's collapse both in 1941 under Nazi attack and again in the 1990s.

In an effort to subdue separatist efforts, King Alexander I suspended the constitution,

banned national political parties, assumed executive power and renamed the country

Yugoslavia on January 6th of 1929. However, King Alexander would come to meet a lot of

opposition from many different directions, as neither Nazi Germany, fascist Italy nor the Soviet

Union were fond of his attempts at creating an independent state in central Europe.

In his efforts to silence non-Serb minorities and their claims for self-determination,

Alexander heavily focused his domestic policies on the centralization of Yugoslavia. He,

therefore, abolished the countries historic regions, jailed politicians, banned communist ideas

as well as the flags of Yugoslav nations.

Alexander was assassinated in France, in 1934, by a member of the Internal Macedonian

Revolutionary Organization, in cooperation with a fascist Croatian organization. Alexander was

succeeded by his eleven-year-old son Peter II and a regency council headed by his cousin,

Prince Paul.

Pressured by Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, Prince Paul signed the Tripartite Pact, on

12

March 25th, 1941. However, his alignment with the fascist did not please the popular opinion,

thus impelling the people to orchestrate a coup d’etat in Belgrade, two days later. Army General

Dušan Simović seized power, arrested the Vienna delegation, exiled Paul, and ended the

regency, giving 17-year-old King Peter full powers. Germany and Italy responded by invading

Yugoslavia, with Bulgarian, Hungarian and Romanian assistance, which resulted in its

occupation and division by Nazi forces.

The disunity of the country was quickly revealed, with Croat nationalists seizing upon

the invasion as an opportunity for secession. On 10 April the Croatian Ustasha, a

group of extreme right-wing nationalists, proclaimed an independent state. Hitler, in

his subsequent carving up of the country among his allies, established the so-called

'Independent State of Croatia', which included Bosnia Herzegovina, with Ustasha

leader Ante Pavelic as puppet dictator.

With the Ustashas, however, great terror was brought upon Balkan lands -- “The

Ustashas were seen to combine a racist hatred of Jews and gypsies with a religiously derived

loathing of the Orthodox Serbs, and Pavelic was determined to purify the population of Croatia

[through terror]” (x). It is believed that, from 1941–45, the Croatian Ustaše regime murdered

around 500,000 people, 250,000 were expelled, and another 200,000 were forced to convert to

Catholicism.

Two resistance movements emerged: the communist-led Yugoslav Partisans and the

royalist Chetniks, with the former receiving Allied recognition only at the Tehran conference

(1943). The heavily pro-Serbian Chetniks were led by Draža Mihajlović, while the pan-

Yugoslav oriented Partisans were led by Josip Broz Tito.

The first to emerge was the Chetnik guerilla movement, consisting of Serbian freedom

fighters, loyal to the vision of Yugoslavia as a 'greater Serbia'. The second significant resistance

group was the communist Partisan movement, under the control of the communist leader, Tito,

who drew support from all people across Yugoslavia.

With Yugoslavia's mountainous terrain ideally suited to irregular warfare, the

Chetniks and Partisans provided bitter resistance to both the fascist Ustashas

and the occupying forces, with 20 Italian and/or German divisions being tied

up at times in Yugoslavia and Albania. However, hindsight has diminished the

perceived achievement of the Yugoslavian resistance in weakening Hitler's war

effort. The Chetniks and Partisans spent much time fighting each other,

13

especially towards the end of the war as they competed for eventual control of

the country. In September 1944 Russian forces arrived in Yugoslavia, and a

provisional government was nominated in March 1945, with Tito as prime

minister. Savage atrocities had been perpetrated by all sides, although

particularly by the Ustashas. The legacy of the war was certainly inter-ethnic

hatred and deep suspicion, and some of the more notorious massacres have

become part of historical myth. (...) Linked with the religious rivalry and

territorial competition which had existed for centuries, this

wartime legacy has caused some commentators to see the present conflicts as

inevitable, and to regard Tito's Yugoslavia as a volcano of interethnic tension

ready to erupt as soon as communist controls were removed. (x)

6 1945 to 1980: Kosovo and the socialist ideology

The use of violence between the Serbian and Albanian communities in Kosovo

happened during the 20th century, particularly during the First Balkan War, the World War I

and the Second Great War. In order to understand more about the tensions between those two

communities, we have to take a look back to them and their history.

By the end of the World War II in 1945, the communist resistance arose to power with

Josip Broz Tito and implemented a new constitution, that nationalized all the industries, reduced

the private property and organized a system of collective farms. The new Yugoslav state

emerged upon a federalist basis n order to try to stop nationalist tensions. The Socialist Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia was made up of six autonomous republics: Croatia, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Slovenia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia - with two autonomous regions: (i)

Vojvodina, with a large population of Hungarian origin, and (ii) Kosovo, made up mostly of

ethnic Albanians.

14

Annex I: Ethnic map of Yugoslavia

Since the beginning, the ruler Tito formulated the bases of Yugoslav socialism

independently to Moscow. Unlike the other Eastern European countries, Yugoslavia defeated

the Nazi-fascist forces with their own resources. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia, although

declaring itself Marxist-Leninist and participating in COMINTERN, was not a faithful servant

of the USSR.

Tensions and disagreements between Tito and Stalin began in the early years of the Cold

War. In 1948, when Stalin determines the Yugoslavia's exit from the Comintern, breaking

diplomatic relations between the two countries. Alter that, the Yugoslavia became a neutral

socialist country in the world. This isolationism had hard economic consequences.

Throughout the 50's and 60's, lots of policies were developed to change the country's

internal economy. Despite the measures taken by the government, the economy remained

stagnant, increased inflation and, with that, continued the dependence Yugoslav foreign loans.

15

During this economic crisis, Yugoslav unity was increasingly threatened. The Second

World War caused a united effort between the Balkan nationalities to expel the enemy in

common. The first generation of the home-grown communist elite seemed a zealous advocate

for successful integration into the Yugoslav model-state. The integrity of Yugoslavia was not

seriously threatened as long as this generation remained in power - because it was focused on

uniting to defeat. By the 1970s, however, a new generation had grown, more nationalist and

separatist.

The demonstrations of 1968 were the first clear and collective call for human rights and

freedoms for Albanians living in socialist Yugoslavia. Campaigns for more autonomy have

become a frequent political theme, for example the slogan “Kosovo - Republic”. However, Tito

intervened fighting strongly against dissidents and repressed all manifestations of nationalism.

His government made it clear that no republic or nationality gained dominance over others,

because this separatism threatened Yugoslav integrity.

In order to stop the riots and the nationalism thought, Tito improved the political status

of Kosovo with a new Constitution - although this policy put Yugoslav unity at risk. It granted

an expanded set of political rights for those who lived in Kosovo. Along with Vojvodina,

Kosovo was also declared a province and gained many of the powers of a republic, for example:

a seat on the federal presidency and its own assembly, police force and national bank.

The result of the separatist and decentralizing currents of the 1950s and 1960s was to

end with secession, but at the same time to allow to have a federation with a stronger center

than the others. Thus, a less rigid confederation of sovereign and communist entities would be

created, but with a province in the administrative center.

However, despite the positive changes brought forward with the new constitution, the

dissatisfaction of the Kosovar Albanian population with their status in Yugoslavia was

still present. The core cause of their grievance stemmed from the fact that, after all,

they remained a subordinate entity within Yugoslavia. They were not elevated to the

constitutional status of a nation, but were acknowledge as a nationality, which meant

that as such they remained relegated to being a province of Serbia. the latter, herself

a republic, enjoyed a status of being a nation. (BEKAJ, 2010, p. 11)

Despite all efforts, Marshal Tito and members of the government proved inefficient in

building a nationalist Yugoslavian sentiment. Yugoslav unity remained linked to the communist

16

government, but it couldn’t stop the older nationalisms. Tito died in 1980 and after that

everything got more complicated. The gradual end of Yugoslavia and the return of old wars

continued, with new actors and new weapons to contest power or separation.

7 1980- 1992: Milosevic’s government

With the death of Marshal Tito, separatist tensions became stronger than ever. Despite the high

degree of miscegenation among the different Balkan nationalities, ethnicity and regional

nationalism were used politically to challenge the power of the Yugoslav Federation or its

independence. On the one hand, Yugoslavia was a country with diverse ethnic and religious

varieties. On the other hand - the political one, it was a country whose republics were governed

by politicians who emphasized their origins in attacking other communities.

One year after Tito’s death, demonstrations by ethnic Albanians students broke out in Kosovo.

They were doing that not only for better conditions in University, but also for Kosovo’s

independence- because they had a nationalist feeling growing up inside them. The real problems

facing Kosovo were the unequal political status and the socioeconomic crises. Booth resulted

in a deeply division between national communities, and the nationalist sentiments that grew out

of the events of 1981. Many protesters were arrested and the central authorities strongly

suppressed student actions. Analyzing the incidents, it shows us that the idea of a Kosovo

Republic were natural to most Albanians but not for the government.

Serbia was the most powerful of the six republics of Yugoslavia, with the largest

contingent of ethnic Serbs inside and outside its borders. In the Yugoslav federal army, most

officers were Serbs. Serbian political leadership had the support of the Orthodox Church -

which was one of the main catalysts of the atrocities and inhumanities perpetrated during the

Balkan wars - and for that reason it had so much force.

Until 1989, Kosovo enjoyed certain degree of autonomy within the former Yugoslavia.

However, a skilled politician of the League of Serbian Communists ascended to the presidency

of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, and altered the status of the region, removing

its autonomy and bringing it under the Serbian control. Supporter of Serbian nationalism and

the Pan-Slavic project of Greater Serbia, Milosevic extinguished in 1989 the autonomous

condition of Kosovo and Vojvodina. Defending the maintenance of the Yugoslav Federation

17

within its borders, Milosevic gained the sympathy of the United States and the European

Community. Meanwhile, Slovenes and Croats read the Federation's defense as a threatening

Great Serbia emerging.

In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence from Yugoslavia. The

reaction of the central government was to send federal troops to prevent secession. The

Slovenes succeeded in their separatist yearnings more easily than Croatia. Milosevic

concentrated the federal army against Croatia, because unlike Slovenia, 600.000 of the 4.5

million inhabitants were of Serbian origin.

In early 1992, Slovenia and Croatia gained international recognition as independent

states, leading the UN to intervene in the conflict. The UN, in turn, has imposed an embargo on

the delivery of weapons anywhere in Yugoslavia and the deployment of a Protection Force,

UNPROFOR.

This Force was the first UN peacekeeping force in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina

during the conflict. It was placed in a war situation without the authority or ability to war and

in the hope that it could fulfill its tasks - despite the wars that were waged in its zones of

operation. It was an operation of a kind never undertaken by the UN Security Council.

8 The 1990 decade and the intensification of the conflict

8.1 Bosnian War and its consequences

The decade of 1990 had the eruption of the conflicts of the Yugoslav Civil War which

involved the majority regions of this Communist country. This conflict initiated in Slovenia and

Croatia, republics where the emancipation process towards Yugoslavia initiated in the middle

of 1980 decade. Their major opponents in this conflict were the Serbs who wanted to perpetuate

the unification of the Socialist system. After years of hostility between the parts, armed Battles

started at the beginning of the 1990 decade. In Croatia it has extend from 1991 to 1995,

especially at places where Serbs were the majority of the country. Meanwhile in Slovenia the

war lasted for only 10 days because there is no expressive Serbian community in the country.

At the year of 1992 it had been started the Bosnia War, one of the worst conflicts so far

after the end of the Cold War. The hostilities were rested on the ethnic and religious disparities

18

among orthodoxy Bosnian-Serbs, catholic Bosnian-Croatians and Muslim Bosniaks (BURG;

SHOUP, 2000, p.6). This brutal conflict separated the country in three major different groups

willing to go govern the whole Bosnia area.

In this Civil war occurred many types of issues between the three main paramilitary

forces and International organizations like NATO and UN. All this lack of military and

humanitarian preparation to contain the animosities during the conflict years resulted in the

Srebrenica genocide in 1995 where 8.000 bosniaks men and teenage boys were killed by the

Bosnian Serb Army1.

As it arrives the genocide information measures are taken by NATO countries. Part of

the guilt lays on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as four of its members which were at

the Contact Group decided to deny military assistance for the UN peacekeepers in this region

months before the genocide (HARTMANN; VULLIAMY, 2015). Since that terrible fact the

organization took a 180o turn and NATO supported their allies bombing the area took by

chetniks2.

With the air strikes and more commitment by peacekeeping forces, at the end of the year

of 1995 took place the end of Bosnia War when the International Contact Group3 imposed a

peace deal for the Balkans countries in this conflict (CHANDLER, - p. 124). At the same year

in Dayton, the international community and the involved parts crated the Dayton Peace

Agreement for Bosnia. In this Treaty the three parts involved Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia, agreed

that: It is understood and agreed that NATO may establish such a force, which will operate

under the authority and subject to the direction and political control of the North

Atlantic Council ("NAC") through the NATO chain of command. They undertake to

facilitate its operations. The Parties, therefore, hereby agree and freely undertake to

fully comply with all obligations set forth in this Annex. c. It is understood and agreed

that other States may assist in implementing the military aspects of this Annex. The

Parties understand and agree that the modalities of those States' participation will be

the subject of agreement between such participating States and NATO.4 After the Agreement NATO started a more active help at the Balkan Issue in order to

save civil human lives, whose are not in the battle and prevent others ethnic cleansing attacks.

1 Data of United to end genocide foundation. 2 Paramilitary Bosnia-Serb Organization. 3 Countries most concerned with the Balkan issues compound by US, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia. 4 Available at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe website, article I of the Dayton Agreement.

19

8.2 Kosovo before the war (1992-1997)

While all of this happened around their neighbourhood, in Kosovo tensions got higher

each moment.

Serbia government under Slobodan Milosevic administration withdrew the benefits as

an autonomous territory. At the same time Kosovo- Serbs started to have more assistance by

the local government, so as jobs, education and healthcare over Kosovo-Albanians, the bulk of

the region. Kosovo-Serbs had political help from Serbia Communist Republic5.

The scenario made from this segregation caused huge repercussion for the Ethnic

Albanians. Seeing that this part of the Kosovar population created a parallel government

(WOEHREL,1999). Due to this fact on the 1990, Kosovo Albanians established a new

Constitution by the LDK6, an Albanian political party for a new government. The first

movements of the new group were very peaceful. They began their work approving a

Constitutional Declaration that proclaims Kosovo’s status as an Yugoslavian republic with the

same rights as the others six (BEJAK, 2010, p. 12). LDK hoped that the international

community would support their actions, but it wasn’t what happened.

With the rejection by Serbia and the other countries, LDK found itself on the other side

of the system, having only the Albanian diaspora as their financial patron. They created their

own health care, welfare and education organizations (BEKAJ, 2010, p. 13). Years later, in

1993 specifically, a military group was conceived as a arm of LDK. This one was named KLA,

but only after 1995 this paramilitary organization got powerful, not only militaristic but also in

in a political way.

This status quo of a non-recognized Republic lasted during all years of Bosnia and

Croatia wars (1991-1995). The end of the wars and the formulation of the Dayton Peace

Agreement made Kosovar Albanians even more resentful with the fact that Kosovo status was

not even on the international agenda (ROGEl, 2003, p. 175).On the deal United Nations just

warned Serbia republic to not continue their current actions towards Kosovo. However, no

sanction was decreed. Looking at this event retrospectively, to have expected that the Kosovo issue was

going to be discussed at any meaningful length in Dayton seems like a clear sight of

delusion. It can perhaps be explained by the desperate, albeit completely unfounded

and hopeless expectation that somehow Kosovo would finally come to the forefront

5 Data from Minority rights Group International. 6 Democratic League of Kosovo

20

of the international agenda. That obviously did not happen, and from then on the

peaceful resistance movement lost its momentum and became increasingly stagnant.7

The disappointment of LDK led them to the conclusion that pacific methods for archive

its goal in this case will take it to nowhere. At this point the country was involved in a

widespread poverty, unemployment and state terror. The ambition of a possible establishment

of the independence and the dream about the Republic of Kosovo drove “young Kosovar

Albanians hotspurs and “old” radicals, for the first time since the dramatic years old 1989 to

1992, openly discussed the organization of a Kosovar Albanian intifada movement against

Serbian occupation-type rule” (BIEBER, 2003 , p. 11).

KLA improved its member’s number and in 1996 initiated a guerrilla activity (ROGEL,

2003, p 175) against Serb officials. Concurrent, EU and US tried to establish Information

Service offices in Pristina, the capital. The Europeans were unsuccessful while the Americans

succeeded on their goal.

8.3 The beginning of the hostilities until now (1997 -)

The escalation of violence in the region got worse after all the Serb assassinations by

Kosovar Albanians and the aggressive repression by the Serbian government. Meanwhile KLA

was getting really popular among the civilian Kosovar population who were tired due to the

lack of attention that the pacific program had received years prior.

The armed cell and the Serbian government, the both sides of this conflict by the end of

the decade, 1998, “were determined to try to solve it by violent means” (BIEBER, 2003, p. 12).

Milosevic strategy was an ethnic cleansing against Kosovar Albanians while not only KLA but

other armed cell attacks against Serbs were getting bigger. The return of this unmeasured

violence on the Balkans territory alarmed the West World and the international organizations

such as UN and NATO.

After a failed attempt by the British government to make a deal With Milosevic and

moderate Albanians when Serbia agreed to implement a monitoring force for Kosovo, the

KDOM. NATO tried as well when its realization of the “Determined Falcon” exercise what had

the objective to demonstrate its “capability to project power rapidly into the region”.8 The end

of 1998 United Nations Security Council promulgated the resolution 1199 demanding that That all parties, groups and individuals immediately cease hostilities and maintain a

ceasefire in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which would enhance the

prospects for a meaningful dialogue between the authorities of the Federal Republic

7 Available at “KLA and the Kosovo war”. 8 Available at NATO’s exercise Statement page at NATO’s website.

21

of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo Albanian leadership and reduce the risks of a

humanitarian catastrophe;9

The resolution was not obeyed by both parts for a long time. Considering this fact, as a

parallel arrangement, NATO countries started to debate about the legitimacy of the use of force

in this case to end this new humanitarian crisis on the Balkans as fast as possible.

9 Foreign Policies

9.1 Belgium

A NATO founding member and headquarter of the organization, Belgium is a strong

proponent inside the North Atlantic Organization, cooperating closely with the United States

and supporting European defense efforts. Belgium has suffered through two invasions in two

world wars and, with that background, was aware of its security needs and the limitations of its

means for self-defense.

With that in mind, Belgium is expected to utter incisive and audacious proposes on the

conflict established in Kosovo, as it does not hesitate to take more radical measures when the

matter in question is a western cooperation to solve armed conflicts. Those measures could

mean diplomatic resolutions or even a military enforcement in the area, always in great steem

of reaffirming the political power the West has over the conflicts in the East.

9.2 Canada

A great supporter of multilateralism, Canada has been known for being a world leader

peacekeeper in the last century, especially after its former Minister of Foreign Affairs won the

Nobel Prize in 1957. The country is committed to disarmament and is noted for its leadership

in 1997 Convention In Ottawa on the prohibition of the anti-personnel mines.

Therefore, regarding the hostilities in Kosovo, Canada plays a conciliator role, always

aiming for a peaceful and diplomatic resolution. However, the country has to look for their most

successful relationship, the one with the United States of America: Canada and the USA have

established, for the last two centuries, a high volume trade and migration between the countries,

9 Available at United Nations Security Council website.

22

despite continued Canadian fears of being overwhelmed by its neighbour, which is ten times

larger in population, wealth and debt.

9.3 Czech Republic

Until 1989, the foreign policy of the Czech Republic (in the time, Czechoslovakia)

followed that of the Soviet Union, as the country was aligned to the former socialist camp.

Since the revolution and its mutually-agreed peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the

Czechs have made reintegration with Western institutions and have been slowly trying to

develop its economy based on alignment with the United States.

An invited member, the Czech Republic sees the reunion as an opportunity to be closer

to the West and its military actions, giving effect to its new foreign policy and drastically

improving bilateral ties with the U.S through increasingly extensive cooperation in areas

ranging from counterterrorism to cultural exchanges.

9.4 Denmark

Before World War II, Denmark has established a two-hundred-year-long policy of

neutrality, being involved in coordinating Western assistance to the Baltic States, and a great

enthusiast of peacekeeping. However, in 1949, Denmark commits to the founding of NATO

and, with the end of the Cold War, has been supportive of the U.S policy objectives in the

Alliance.

Now giving effect to a foreign policy based on its “duty” to the West, Denmark is very

active in both Kosovo and Afghanistan. The country is also an active coalition partner in the

War on Terrorism and was the only Scandinavian country to approve the U.S invasion in Iraq.

With that in mind, the new Dutch policy reflects on the NATO reunion regarding the conflicts

in Kosovo as the country now stays open to contribution in military action or non-diplomatic

measures to be taken.

9.5 France

Although France is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the

country excluded itself from the joint military command to protest the “special relationship”

between the United States and Britain and to preserve the independence of French foreign and

security policies. Strengthened by its influence in Western Europe (that being established due

23

to France’s economic and military key force inside Europe), France has been trying to settle

itself in multiple European organizations, setting the goal of spreading the its political influence

not only in Europe, but in the world as a whole.

Therefore, the NATO reunion shall be used by France to reaffirm its political influence

in Western Europe and to continue its project of spreading its influence. However, the French

government might hesitate when it takes to more direct actions, such as military intervention,

accordant to its non-participation in NATO’s joint military command.

9.6 Germany

One of the world’s leading countries in industrialization, Germany is recognized as a

major power in European and global affairs. The development policy of Germany is an

independent area of foreign policy, seeing development policy as a joint responsibility of the

international community.

Germany hasn’t sent troops to combat since 1945 and is giving increased attention to

coordinating its policies with the European Union. However, the German position can change

drastically as it depends as well on the U.S position: Inside NATO, Germany has insisted in

giving priority to its relationship with the United States. Recently reunified, the country has

often been called a “partnership in leadership” as the U.S emerged as the world’s sole

superpower.

It is also interesting to point out that, originally, the German constitution restricted its

military action as defensive only. However, in 1994, the Federal Constitutional Court extended

the meaning of the word “defense” to also include crisis reaction and conflict prevention.

Thereby, Germany’s military forces are likely to be seen taking action outside its territory soon

enough.

9.7 Greece

Due to its political and geographical proximity to Europe, Asia, the Middle East and

Africa, Greece is a country of significant geostrategic importance and is considered to be a

middle power. It has for long developed a regional policy to help promote peace and stability

in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East, being a key player in the eastern

Mediterranean region. Greece also has the largest economy in the Balkans, where it is an

24

important regional investor. As a member of NATO, the Greek military participates in exercises

and deployments under the auspices of the alliance, although its involvement in NATO missions

is minimal.

Regarding the conflicts in Kosovo, the Greek position is expected to be of strictly

conciliation, remaining as neutral as possible and trying to establish peace through non-military

actions and diplomatic measures.

9.8 Hungary

Hungary holds considerable influence in Central and Eastern Europe and is a middle

power in international affairs. The foreign policy of the country is based on four basic

commitments: to Atlantic cooperation, to European integration, to international development

and to international law. However, this policy taken by the government is very recent:

Hungary’s foreign policy generally followed the Soviet lead from 1947 to 1989. After the

dissolution of the USSR, the country oriented more towards the West, having integration into

Western economic and security organization as its main goal since then.

As an invited member, Hungary, alongside with Czech Republic, sees the reunion as a

chance to finally participate in Western affairs and dynamize its economical and political goal.

This goal, however, will only be achieved with strict alignment with the US and the NATO

founding members.

9.9 Iceland

A NATO founding member, Iceland maintains diplomatic and commercial relations

with practically all nations and standing as neutral country when it comes to taking military

action. Iceland does not have a standing army, but a Coast Guard.

During the Cold War, Iceland had a close but contentious relationship with the United

States, leading some scholars to describe Iceland as a "rebellious and reluctant ally". Iceland

repeatedly threatened to leave NATO or cancel the US defence agreement during the Cold War.

As a consequence, the United States provided Iceland with extensive economic assistance and

diplomatic support.

25

Thereby, Iceland is one of the fewest countries that dares to defy U.S’s impositions and

incisive discourse, always aiming at a peaceful and diplomatic resolution instead of taking

military action.

9.10 Italy

Italy has been considered a major Western power since its unification, being a founder

of both United Nations and NATO. After World War II, Italy became a strong and active

transatlantic partner which, along with the United States, has sought to foster democratic ideals

and international cooperation in areas of strife and civil conflict. Toward this end, the Italian

government has cooperated with the United States in the formulation of defense, security, and

peacekeeping policies.

With such power (specially as it holds the center of the Catholic Church, giving Italy a

status of influence around the Western world), the country has the complete capacity to start a

military intervention in Kosovo, especially when regarding to the Italian Navy, an important

piece of in many coalition peacekeeping operations around the world under the UN or NATO

flag.

9.11 Luxembourg

Luxembourg has long been a prominent supporter of European political and economic

integration. the majority of Luxembourgers have consistently believed that European unity

makes sense only in the context of a dynamic transatlantic relationship, and thus have

traditionally pursued a pro-NATO, pro-US foreign policy.

The ties with US have been strengthened since the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization, and the government of Luxembourg is willing to take any action in order to

strengthen those ties even more and establish itself not only as a symbol of worldwide

organizations, such as the UN, but also as a political and military power. However, due to its

size and little political influence, Luxembourg often stays in the background and tries to build

ties and alliances inside the organization.

26

9.12 Netherlands

Known for its neutral foreign policy, the Netherlands was one of the founding countries

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, relying on the idea of establishing diplomatic

relations with countries within the Atlantic and healing conflicts with humanitarian aid and non-

military interventions. However, the country has also supported American military intervention

multiple times, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Netherland are very likely to oppose to taking military action in Kosovo, rather

choosing more peaceful and diplomatic measures as long as it doesn't affect its relations with

the United States.

9.13 Norway

Since the end of the Cold War, Norway has developed a model to foreign policy known

as the "Norwegian model," the goal of which is to contribute to peace and stability through

coordinated response among governmental and non-governmental organizations; acting as an

honest broker in international conflicts.

Norway's strategic importance for waging war in the North Atlantic became important

in the failed neutrality policy of World War II. Norway became a founding member of NATO

in order to ally itself with countries that shared its democratic values. Both through diplomatic

and military cooperation, Norway has played a visible role in the formation and operations of

NATO. It allowed a limited number of military bases and exercises to be based in its territories,

which caused some controversy when NATO decided to put forward bases in Northern Norway

in preparation for a conflict with the Soviet Union. A number of scholars have argued that

Norway has engaged in status-seeking through its foreign policy. Through an activist foreign

policy, Norway has sought to elevate its standing among the international system's small powers

and middle powers and earn recognition from the great powers.

Although Norway has aligned to Western countries and its armies, the countries position

will be always a neutral one, aiming at a democratic and non-violent resolution regarding the

hostilities in Kosovo.

27

9.14 Poland

An invited country, Poland has tried to forge strong and mutually beneficial

relationships with its seven new neighbors since the fall of Communism in 1989. Its new foreign

policy goes from international trade to close cooperation with a strong partner, since its tragic

historical experience with aggression of powerful neighbors. This creates the background of

Poland's tight relations with the USA and their sensitivity in relations towards its partner within

the European Union, Germany. At the same time, the equally burdened attitude towards Russia

results in very tense diplomatic relations, which have been constantly worsening.

Alongside with the other invited States, Poland could use the reunion as an opportunity

to strengthen their ties with the US, as well as seek space as a NATO permanent member,

willing to take military or non-military action in Kosovo.

9.15 Portugal

Historically, the focus of Portuguese diplomacy has been to preserve its independence,

the political stability of the Iberian Peninsula and the affirmation of Portuguese interests in

Europe and the Atlantic. Aiming for its goals, the country was a founding member of NATO

and is an active member of the alliance by, for example, contributing proportionally large

contingents in Balkan peacekeeping forces.

The country is willing to take military action in the area of Kosovo, reaffirming its

interests of growing inside NATO and the inside the Western world as a whole.

9.16 Spain

Basically, since 1975, Spain's foreign policy priorities is to break out of the diplomatic

isolation of its dictatorial years and expand diplomatic relations, enter the European

Community, and define security relations with NATO, joining the organization in 1982.

Spain has established itself as a major participant in multilateral international security

activities, and its European Union membership represents an important part of the country's

foreign policy. Even on many international issues beyond Western Europe, Spain prefers to

coordinate its efforts with its EU partners through the European political cooperation

mechanisms.

28

With that in mind, Spain relies on a conciliation policy and rather a non-violent action

to be taken in Kosovo.

9.17 Turkey

European Union–Turkey relations warmed during the Cold War period and the post-

Cold War period has seen a diversification of relations, with Turkey, at various moments,

seeking to strengthen its regional presence in the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus,

as well as taking steps toward EU membership.

Turkey has close historical, cultural, economic and political ties with some of the Balkan

states, which are important for Turkey as they are the country's gateway to continental Europe.

Turkey attaches importance to the creation of an atmosphere of mutual understanding and

peaceful co-habitation through closer ties with the Balkan countries, which would lead to the

preservation of peace and stability in the region.

Thus, the country is one of the most concerned about the Kosovo issue and wishes to

establish its influence in the region, alongside with strengthen its relations with the EU

members, aiming for its membership.

9.18 United Kingdom

One of the most influential countries present in the NATO reunion, the United Kingdom

have always aimed at total influence in the Balkans and West Europe as whole, and it doesn’t

change much when regarding the Kosovo situation. Foreign policy initiatives of UK

governments since the 1990s have included military intervention in conflicts and for

peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance programmes and increased aid spending, support for

establishment of the International criminal court, debt relief for developing countries,

prioritisation of initiatives to address climate change, and promotion of free trade. The British

approach has been described as "spread the right norms and sustain NATO"

Using all its diplomatic power and incisive discourse to get to its goal, the United

Kingdom goes towards a military action to be taken in the region, not hesitating when it comes

to reaffirming their political role as a world leader.

29

9.19 United States

Head of the North Atlantic Organisation Treaty, the United States influences all

countries present in the reunion, using them as chess pieces to achieve its own goal. All

countries inside NATO have strong economical and political relations with the U.S and

threatening those relations could mean "suicide" inside the international community.

Toward the end of the Cold War, an American political consensus began to emerge

suggesting that democratic transition should be actively supported – a consensus only more

firmly established following the dissolution of the Soviet Union when the United States found

itself in less of a difficult position balancing security concerns and promotion of its ideals. This

was based in part on democratic peace theory, which added a security element to democracy

promotion. With that new foreign policy to be implemented, the country is now known for its

countless military interventions inside peripheral countries with the excuse of "establishing

peace" in the country or "taking down authoritarian leaders", especially in the Middle East and

North Africa. Critics have also charged that the U.S. helped local militaries overthrow

democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances.

The NATO reunion is one more opportunity to the U.S reaffirm its political, economic

and military leadership in the world, not hesitating when it comes to military intervention to

protect its interests. The country, then, plays the role of implementing more urgent and direct

measures instead of playing a diplomatic and conciliatory role.

10 References

BEKAJ, Armend. The KLA and the Kosovo War. Berlin: Berghof Conflict Research,

2010.

WOEHREL, Steve. Kosovo: Historical Background to the current conflict. CRS

Report for Congress. 1999.

HOW Britain and the US decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. The Guardian.

2015. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/how-britain-and-us-

abandoned-srebrenica-massacre-1995. Access: may 5 2019.

Available at: http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/the-bosnian-war-and-

srebrenica-genocide/. Access in: may 5 2019.

30

Available at: https://minorityrights.org/country/kosovo/. Access in: may 5 2019

BEKAJ, Armend. The KLA and the Kosovo War. Dsiponível em: <https://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Papers/Transitions_Series/transitions8_kosovo.pdf>. Acesso em 02 jun 2019.

CRS. Kosovo: historical background to the current conflict. Disponível em: <https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS20213.pdf>. Acesso em 02 jun 2019.

NATO. NATO’s role in relation to the conflict in Kosovo. Disponível em: <https://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm>. Acesso em: 02 jun 2019.

TRANSCONFLICT. 1981 demonstration in Kosovo. Disponível em: <http://www.transconflict.com/2013/04/1981-demonstrations-in-kosovo-264/> Acesso em: 02 jun 2019.

WAR ON THE ROCKS. The Kosovo war in retrospect. Disponível em: <https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-kosovo-war-in-retrospect/>. Acesso em: 02 jun 2019.

http://afa.at/modelun/studyguidekosovo.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kosovo

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18331273

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS20213.pdf

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/mundo/ft13069906.htm

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.522.424&rep=rep1&type=

31

pdf

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Balkan-Wars

http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/EastEurope/FirstBalkan.html

https://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Papers/Trans

itions_Series/transitions8_kosovo.pdf

https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a80c0.html

https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rp/1995-96/96rp14.pdf (x)

11