The Summer 2023 Crisis in Kosovo and International Response

By: Brooke Blosser

Tensions between Kosovo and Serbia have been a long standing reality of the Balkan Peninsula. In the twenty years since the breakup of Yugoslavia, relations have continued to be unstable, often with violent flare ups between the two countries. Tensions remain high because Kosovo used to be a province of Serbia, and Serbia does not currently recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Another point of contention are the pockets of ethnic Serbian minorities in the northern part of Kosovo, while the rest of the country is ethnically Albanian. Violence has taken many forms over the years and has come from both sides, with the most recent incident occurring this summer. Ethnically Albanian town officials were elected to a Serbian-majority area despite a boycott by Serbian civilians, causing a series of violent protests. These protests were a uniquely devastating flare up, warranting international concern over the longevity of the tensions. These tensions, if not resolved, could have significant impacts on each country's chances of gaining European Union membership, something that grows ever more important after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The 2013 Brussels Agreement between Serbia and Kosovo mandated the creation of a majority Serbian district with autonomous Serbian leaders. The Kosovar government called for elections in this district in November of 2022 following a mass resignation of Serbian officials. These officials had been influential in preserving the ‘parallel system’, which allows Serbia to maintain an influence on Kosovar government institutions in Serbian-majority districts and protect the majority Serbian population. When the Albanian government called for new elections, the Serbian majority boycotted the elections and only ethnic Albanians voted.  Thus, when Albanian leaders were elected in this district, Serbs living in the North and the Serbian government in Belegarde took issue. Serbians protested the instatement of these elected officials by demonstrating in front of the municipality buildings. They demanded new elections, in which the Serbians would voice their disapproval with Albanians serving in a position of power over the ethnic Serbian majority. After four days, these protests turned violent and garnered varied international response.

France and Germany were quick to call for new elections, saying that elections with less than five percent of the eligible voters was “not a condition of legitimacy”. This was a call for de-escalation, and an attempt to dissuade citizens from violence. Most international responses followed this logic – halting the violence and promoting compromise would be the best route for both countries involved. The United States, France, and other European Union countries have been extremely involved in creating compromises between the two nations, and have urged both leaders to follow the agreements that they previously created.

Neither Serbia nor Kosovo are currently members of the European Union. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, EU membership has become ever more critical to a country’s security, especially in eastern Europe. Serbia has been in talks with the EU about accession to the organization since 2009, but the continuation of violence between Serbia and Kosovo has drawn out the process and ultimately dampened their prospects of membership. Kosovo has not applied for EU membership, and is only partially recognized around the world. Continuing tensions between these two countries vying for international approval – and an unwillingness to adhere to previous agreements – does not bode well for either of their futures. EU membership is vital for smaller countries for security: if one member is attacked, countries could be required to send military aid and assistance. Countries with smaller populations would benefit greatly from the extra assistance. Russia could become a threat to peace in the Western Balkans in the future, and these countries must be prepared in case they need military assistance.  If these two countries cannot put an end to the violence, prospects of either one gaining EU membership for essential security and economic integration purposes will dwindle, leaving them exposed and isolated from the rest of Europe while Russia invades Ukraine less than a thousand kilometers away. The United States and European Union members must continue to urge restraint between Serbia and Kosovo, and attempt to mediate before tensions escalate to a point of no return.

A Commitment of Humanitarian Aid in an Uncertain Time

By: Alexander Macturk

After the first shipment of humanitarian supplies into the Gaza Strip following the October 7 attacks by Hamas, President Joe Biden expressed his belief that the opening of such an “essential supply route…[was] a critical and urgent need.” Biden and the international community have rightly determined that, in the evolving conflict, managing the Gaza humanitarian crisis is of the utmost priority. While this opinion piece will not speak on the fighting between Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces nor discuss its implications for the Middle East, it should be clear to U.S. policymakers and American citizens that caring for innocent Gazans living in such humanitarian strife must continue to underlie American commitment to and support of Israel in this conflict.

After Israel pursued a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005, Hamas won elections for leadership of the Gaza Strip. Designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. and European Union, Hamas’ self-proclaimed anti-Israel stance seriously deteriorates an already precarious system of humanitarian aid in Gaza. The majority of humanitarian assistance administered in Gaza is in response to immediate challenges, such as poor water quality, education, and protection. Sadly, much of the humanitarian assistance that could prove useful in improving long-term conditions in Gaza is limited due to Hamas’ willingness to use that same assistance for terrorist activities. Dual-use assistance that has both civilian and military applications — such as cement and rebar — cannot easily enter Gaza, effectively limiting Gaza’s ability to rebuild itself and care for Palestinians in need. 

With each new strike on or accidental bombing of important health care facilities and shelters, Gaza stands at risk of further destruction without the ability to improve itself even after military operations cease. Given estimates that the conflict will last anywhere from a few weeks to months, the U.S. must understand the current military situation as unstable and anticipate the potential power vacuum in Gaza which could undermine recovery efforts. The White House and State Department must therefore remain vigilantly committed to an open humanitarian corridor into Gaza. President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken must include humanitarian considerations in the joint discussion between the U.S., Israel, and Egypt concerning the Hamas-Israel conflict. The international community cannot settle for only a handful of trucks entering Gaza a day when hundreds of trucks entered Gaza with required — even then an inadequate amount of — humanitarian goods before October 7.

Another pressing matter is that humanitarian assistance funding in Gaza has historically fallen short of what the crisis demands. The short-term assistance focused on water quality, education, and protection falls considerably short of what the U.N. estimates as necessary. Humanitarian assistance relies on the well intentions of wealthy countries; highlighting the consequences of relying on these intentions, in 2018 the U.S. cut humanitarian funding for Palestine, forcing organizations like the World Food Programme to reduce aid to Gaza. Gazans cannot lose the already insufficient aid during the current, intense military hostilities. The U.S. must not only ensure the continued entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, but policymakers and politicians should also expand funding for humanitarian assistance. President Biden’s requested 9.15-billion-dollar aid package must be funded by Congress. During a period in which other nations and independent groups challenge America’s role as the world’s leader, Congress can prove continued American commitment to international norms and stability abroad by responding vigorously to Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.

Most importantly, the American public must recognize its pivotal role in fighting the worsening humanitarian crisis. Support for humanitarian aid administered in Gaza cannot wane. The majority of Americans have already displayed their capacity for resilient empathy and support for a people negatively impacted by an overseas conflict in the case of Russian aggression in Ukraine. With widespread calls for humanitarian considerations in the response to the Hamas-Israel conflict from the White House, State Department, and Congress, American citizens can stem the tide of deteriorating humanitarian conditions.

The Hamas-Israel conflict is fraught with uncertainty for Gazans, and the international fallout from Israel’s response is yet to be determined. What is certain is the severe threat to the previously underfunded, inadequate, and limited system of humanitarian assistance that the outbreak of violence presents. The U.S. must fight the humanitarian crisis during such vulnerability and ensure the welfare of and swift recovery for Gazans.

Diving Deep: Renewable Energy’s Marine Future

By: Wyatt Dayhoff

A centerpiece of President Biden’s policy has been to incentivize the push for implementing and improving access to renewable energy, both domestically and internationally. His effort has been admirable, especially in the face of a divided legislature. However, these  efforts may be in vain if more of the materials necessary for clean energy cannot be found, placing the United States and potentially the world behind the renewable energy race. 

In 2022, the White House estimated that demand for rare earth minerals, or REMs, is set to increase from 400 to 600 percent over the next several decades. While mineral recycling could be the future of REM production, the necessary technology will not be ready for at least a decade. Until then, we can expect continued Chinese dominance in the market and repeated human rights violations in the resource-rich nations where mining takes place. Aside from investing in domestic sources of production, what else can the United States do? 

The answer could very well come from the depths of the Atlantic Ocean. Deep-sea mining, a practice in which machines move along the seafloor and extract football-sized nodules of crucial minerals like cobalt and lithium, has recently garnered significant attention for its potential to act as a sustainable alternative supply. Commercial mining has not yet been approved, as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is still deciding on the terms for its regulatory code, which will be finalized come 2025. 

     However, there is one catch: the United States is not part of the ISA. The ISA falls under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which the United States  infamously has not signed onto. Instead, the United States has been relegated to an observer role, unable to vote on the code or propose any commercial projects of its own. Put simply, America has no skin in the game yet, but the United States can take on the initiative to be a leader and bring new regulations to the international table.

Deep-sea mining, aside from being a potential boon to the United States’ competitive advantage and commitment to renewable energy, is an industry that needs American leadership. The practice is not without its flaws: many ISA member states, nonprofits and scientists have come out against the practice due to its worrisome connotations for marine wildlife. Deep-sea ecosystems, whose value is still not fully known, are frequently devastated by the extraction machines. Aside from directly trampling organisms, mining machines suspend sediment in the water, smothering deep-sea species like anemones and sponges. Additionally, after the minerals are transported to the surface vessel, the vehicles must pump the excess sediment back into the ocean. This sediment is often released near 1,000 meters above the ocean floor and spreads over vast distances, suffocating midwater species that serve as the backbone of commercial fisheries. The region is so understudied that other damage may be present that we are not even aware of: an entire ecosystem hangs in the balance. 

In the face of these pressing concerns, the ISA has been unable to come to a decision. When the small island nation of Nauru declared its intent to mine in 2021, the ISA vowed (under the rules in its UNCLOS charter) to produce a mining code by 2023. When the General Assembly convened this year, however, they delayed a verdict until 2025. Having only provided exploratory permits to this point, the ISA has control over the direction of this nascent industry but, without guidance, could easily fail to set the right terms, or any at all. 

The Biden Administration can cement its status as a global sustainability leader and bolster its credibility by filling in the leadership vacuum. While ratification of UNCLOS would take ⅔, or a super majority  of the Senate to pass, the economic and geopolitical opportunities of diversifying our REM supply ought to be highly supported by both sides of the aisle. Once a signatory, America can take charge and propose common-sense regulations to the industry, including waste-disposal requirements and imposition of additional environmental havens, or APEIs. These sorts of regulations, while cumbersome for miners, fall in line with Biden’s policy priorities and strike a firm balance between economy and ecology. 

Even if the ISA fails to come to an agreement in 2025, this industry will not still nascent forever. Mining will start, whether the United States is involved or not. With enormous environmental and geopolitical ramifications, it is incumbent upon America to be a player in the decision-making process behind the future of deep-sea mining. President Biden, the ball is in your court.