|
Regional Instability Question StringMacedoniaThe former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a multiethnic state with a sizeable Albanian population. It borders on Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and the province of Kosovo. In 2001, armed Albanian separatists, who received support from Albanians across the border in Kosovo, challenged the central government. The Macedonian government attempted to contain the violence and to seek political accommodation through negotiations with moderate Albanian parties. Violence, however, continued, and commentators called Macedonia the next Balkan "powderkeg" about to ignite. The head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Lord George Robertson, stated on 2 March 2001: "I strongly condemn the violent incidents occurring in the border area of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As reiterated by NATO's Ministers of Foreign Affairs earlier this week, I want to emphasise that NATO is fully committed to supporting the security, stability and territorial integrity of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ("Statement by the Secretary General on the Situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia," North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 2 March 2001 <http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-032e.htm> [24 April 2001]). For background on Macedonia, visit CNN's Web site, which provides a comprehensive overview of Macedonia, with maps, profiles, and audio reports on the region. Why would the military alliance of NATO support the territorial integrity of Macedonia, a non-NATO state?
According to NATO, the "fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries." Since Macedonia is not a NATO member, the alliance's strict military obligations to protect each other are not an issue. And yet NATO members such as the United States feel the alliance must involve itself in the Macedonian civil conflict, as President George W. Bush stated in a 3 March 2001 press conference. A focus on which variable would cause the NATO alliance to involve itself in Macedonia? BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
The violence within Macedonia by itself would not directly affect the security of NATO members. NATO has not involved itself in every civil conflict in the world, even when they involved mass killing. The genocide that occurred in Rwanda during the 1990s was not sufficient to precipitate NATO involvement. The humanitarian impulse to stop the violence in Macedonia is not sufficient explanation for why NATO is taking action. It is the broader concern over regional instability that is driving NATO decisions. The internal violence could create instability along several borders, including that with Greece (a NATO member), and raise regional tensions beyond the point of control. What lens considers the power dynamics of a region as an explanation for the involvement of international organizations? BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
A focus on domestic Macedonian political stability, a Second-Lens viewpoint, would look at the interaction between the central government and ethnic minorities. Albanian groups took up arms in 2001, making a series of demands for the restructuring of the Macedonian constitution, with some rebels advocating the breakup of the state. But why would such domestic instability precipitate NATO action? BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
To understand why Macedonia might collapse, a Second-Lens analysis of population and ethnic conflict would be a good place to start. However, the question here is why NATO is committed, not why Macedonia is collapsing. The Third Lens focuses attention on the balance of power and the involvement of institutions. The key to explaining NATO's commitment is regional instability even though the immediate precipitant of a crisis would be found inside Macedonia. Thus, the Third Lens helps us see a systemic rationale for NATO involvement. It is the only power in the region capable of containing the spread of ethnic violence. It stationed troops in Bosnia (in 1995) and Kosovo (in 1999) to end ethnic conflict. A mission in Macedonia would fit the pattern of these previous operations. While the immediate result might be less killing, the overall goal is to prevent a wider war. The distribution of power in the region favors NATO and, therefore, it can take action when and if it wants to. For further background, read the Macedonian government's official statement on minority rights. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
To understand why Macedonia might collapse, a Second-Lens analysis of population and ethnic conflict would be a good place to start. However, the question here is why NATO is committed, not why Macedonia is collapsing. The Third Lens focuses attention on the balance of power and the involvement of institutions. The key to explaining NATO's commitment is regional instability even though the immediate precipitant of a crisis would be found inside Macedonia. Thus, the Third Lens helps us see a systemic rationale for NATO involvement. It is the only power in the region capable of containing the spread of ethnic violence. It stationed troops in Bosnia (in 1995) and Kosovo (in 1999) to end ethnic conflict. A mission in Macedonia would fit the pattern of these previous operations. While the immediate result might be less killing, the overall goal is to prevent a wider war. The distribution of power in the region favors NATO and, therefore, it can take action when and if it wants to. For further background, read the Macedonian government's official statement on minority rights. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
In September of 1992, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which comprises fifty-five countries dedicated to preventive diplomacy, created the Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje. The name of the mission indicates clearly the concern of the OSCE that ethnic conflicts in one country might spill over because ethnic groups are living across international borders. Albanians live in Albania, the Kosovo region of Serbia, and Macedonia in concentrated pockets. The Second Lens would focus on different ethnic groups and splintered populations, but the question here is why NATO is committing itself. A broader, Third-Lens viewpoint focusing on regional dynamics and instability is key. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
To discover whether a humanitarian crisis was occurring, we would have to look inside a state and focus on variables such as population cohesion and ethnic tension. To explain NATO involvement, however, focus on the broader principal of human rights and the legal basis for international intervention would have to be examined. Whether there is a humanitarian crisis is a different question than whether NATO should intervene. A focus on institutions and law can be found through the Third Lens. For further background, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
It is important to keep your research question clear, when examining it through different lenses. The question posed is why NATO is intervening in Macedonia. To explain NATO's action, it may help to examine the nature of the threat inside Macedonia. Although the country is not a NATO member and, therefore, NATO members are not obligated to defend the government, the threat inside the country could pose a danger to some NATO members. A Second-Lens analysis of the source of conflict in Macedonia would focus on which variable?
BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
A Second-Lens focus reveals that Macedonia's population of 2 million is divided between two main ethnic groups: 67 percent are ethnic Macedonian and 23 percent are Albanian. A full analysis would examine how governmental structures shape minority representation and whether economic and political disparities between groups are a source of tension. The Second Lens would focus attention on the domestic political condition of instability and ascertain why certain Albanian groups have worked through the political system and others have organized armed groups to wage war against the government. The fact that there is an armed Albanian insurgency within Macedonia creates what rationale for NATO intervention? For further background, read the Macedonian government's official statement on minority rights. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
A focus on President Trajkovs would concentrate attention through the First Lens on individual decision making and interests. While President Trajkovs certainly has an interest in the stability of his country and government, his personal connection to NATO leaders would have to be assessed. Perhaps it is at this personal level that he has been able to convince NATO's leaders, such as Lord George Robertson, to commit to NATO support. Which Lens would concentrate on the general principals of human rights, rather than personal connections, to justify NATO involvement? BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
A Second-Lens focus on ethnic makeup and tension provides a context for analyzing NATO's interests, but it does not by itself reveal the cause of NATO involvement. NATO has not intervened strictly for humanitarian reasons in other conflicts, even when greater violence was threatened. NATO action is driven by an indirect security concern over regional instability. The crisis has less to do with Macedonia itself than with what a collapse of Macedonia might mean for the region. NATO members, particularly Greece and Turkey, would be affected if conflict spilled across Macedonia's borders and affected the region. Since a local event in the Balkans in 1914 precipitated the First World War, many policy makers see such a conflict spiraling out of control as a real possibility. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
Although NATO leaders talk about a humanitarian rationale, NATO does not intervene in every civil conflict in the world. In fact, NATO has not intervened in conflicts that have involved worse violence than Macedonia. But a Second-Lens focus on ethnic makeup and tension can provide the background for a Third-Lens analysis of NATO's interests. The Third-Lens focus on international organizations, the balance of power, and international law would provide a good place to start an examination of NATO's commitment to a non-NATO country. Support for international human rights law would certainly be involved, but a Third-Lens analysis would have to answer why such support leads to intervention in some countries and not in others. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
To discover whether a humanitarian crisis was occurring, we would have to look inside a state and focus on variables such as population cohesion and ethnic tension. This would be a Second-Lens analysis. However, to explain NATO involvement, the broader principals of human rights and the legal basis for international intervention would have to be examined. A focus on institutions and law can be found through the Third Lens. For further background, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
To discover whether a humanitarian crisis was occurring, we would have to look inside a state and focus on variables such as population cohesion and ethnic tension. This would be a Second-Lens analysis. However, to explain NATO involvement, the broader principals of human rights and the legal basis for international intervention would have to be examined. A focus on institutions and law can be found through the Third Lens. For further background, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. BACK TO PREVIOUS QUESTION. BACK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION.
|