Research Aim

2/34

1. After 8 years of UN administration, theA Study of International Conflict
Management with an Integrative
Explanatory Model:
A Case Study of the Kosovo Conflict

human rights’ situation in Kosovo is stillcatastrophic. Nevertheless, the Westis supporting independence ofKosovo.

Sasha Zivanovic, PhD Candidate

Construction Management and Infrastructure Systems Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Tokyo

2. This research aims to better explain

the mechanisms behind thiscontradicting situation.

1

Outline of Presentation
1. Background & Objectives
2. Research Methodology
3. Development of Cognitive ConflictModel
4. Development of Integrative
Explanatory Model
5. Conclusion & Future Research

3/34

Kosovo – Basic Data

4/34

 Area：10,887 km2（岐阜県: 10,598 km2）

 Population：ca. 2 Million
 Ethnic Composition：> 90% Albanians< 10% Serbs
 Religion：Muslim,
Serb. Orthodox
 GDP per capita：<1000
EuroDefinition of Conflict

5/34

Historical Overview

6/34

Contested Territory between 2 groups:

1912

Becomes part of Serbia (London Treaty)

Serbia’s Claims: Legal and historical right

1974

Made Autonomous Province under Tito

1989

Autonomy revoked by Milosevic

International
Community:
ConflictManagement

1996-

War: Serb forces v. Kosovo Liberation Army

1999.3

Rambouillet Peace Conference

Kosovo Conflict

K-Albanians Claim:
Rights of Majority & right of first possession

1999.3- 78-day NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia
1999.6- UNMIK administration
2005-

Final status negotiations

2007

Conditional Independence?

by Sasha, June 2006

Current Situation

by SPC, March 2004

7/34

8 years of UNMIK have not brought multiethnic
democracy to Kosovo.
1. 200,000+ K-Serbs （and other minorities) havefled Kosovo and cannot return
2. About 90,000 remaining K-Serbs live inenclaves
3. Destruction of 120+ churches & monasteries
4. March 2004: organized riots throughout
province, violence against minorities

8/34

Burnt Serb houses
by Sasha, June 2006

Destroyed churches
by SPC, March 2004

HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN KOSOVO CATASTROPHIC
IDPs live in container

Albanian boy in burnt Serb houseResearch Objectives

9/34

1. To re-examine the current representationof the ongoing nation building mission in
Kosovo by the International Community
2. To build an Integrative Explanatory Modelin order to uncover the factors which have
led to the current unsatisfactory situation
under UNMIK

Scope of Research

10/34

Rambouillet
ConferenceNATO
Bombing

Before UNMIKUNMIK Conflict Management

Kosovo Conflict
NATO War
Human Rights

Why ishave
K-Serbs been
expelled?
Why
the200,000+
International
CommunityWhy
can K-Serbsindependence
not return to Kosovo
supporting(ofafter 8
years
of
UNMIK?
K-Albanians) under these conditions?


United Nations
Rambouillet
Mission in Kosovo(UNMIK)

Final of
StatusReturnMinorities
Negotiations

Existing Research

12/34

1. Geopolitical Aspect (Imperialism)
Significance of Kosovo, Interests structures
2. Legal Aspect (International Law)
‘Humanitarian Doctrine’ v. State Sovereignty
3. Moral Aspect (Just War Theory)
NATO Bombing
4. Decision-making Aspect (Analogical Reasoning)
Rambouillet Peace Conference
5. UNMIK related research (Identification Theory)
Administration process

Existing Research11Deficiencies in Existing Research

13/34



ArgumentationSimplified premises: (K-Albanians are victims of
ethnic cleansing by Milosevic)
Biased Moral: K-Albanians deserve
independence
Criticised by Thomas, 2003; Bardos, 2005.



Historical facts: Insufficient understandingPerceptional factors: Misrepresentation

Research Methodology(e.g. Policies of Tito & Kosovo in the past)(e.g. Non-cooperation of Serbs under UNMIK)

NEED FOR NEW HOLISTIC APPROACH

Interpretivist Methodology

15/34

14

Model Building Process

Enhanced Case Study
Field Study• Direct (Face-to-Face)
Interview• Observation

Theories
on CA&R

Understanding

Literature Review• Review applicable existing
theories and models• Secondary source of material

Start

Categorization

Qualitative(Qualitative Coding)
CodingLiterature Review 
Influence
Diagrams
Databaseof Kosovo
Conflict

Field Study
Interviews
Yes

Satisfied

Theories on Conflict
Analysis andResolution

Understanding

No
Find
Applicable
Theories
Formulate or Revise
Relationships(Model)Reveal Inconsistencies
Combine data with applicable theories
FinishCreate new integrative explanatory model

16/34

Model Building with
1. Cognitive andNoNo
2. Rational
ValidateTheories
SatisfiedSatisfied
Formulate or Revise
Relationships(Model)

Yes

Model

Yes

Formulate or Revise
Relationships(Model)Model
Rel.ships

Model Building

18/34

1. Mental Model Approach

Development of Cognitive
Conflict Model

Creation of Influence Diagram
Validation of relationships throughGuided interviews

2. Extension of individual [cognitive]models to state/organisational levelApplications of Prospect Theory to Political
Science (Levy, 2003)
The Gains Debate: Framing State Choice(Berejekian, 1997)

17

U.S. Military BaseOil Pipelines from
Caspian regions
NATO
enlargement
Past experience
with Serbs

Serbia traditional
ally of Russia

Influence Diagram 19/34

Geostrategical
Importance ofBalkan Region

U.S. favours
Albanian
KosovoGeopolitical
Factors

U.S. wants to get
rid of Milosevic

Factors related
to UNMIK?

UNMIK

??

FIELD STUDYMedia &
PR influence

Wars in Bosnia
and Croatia

Perception of Serbs
as aggressors,
perpetrators
Perception of ‘Moral
Right to SelfDetermination’Oppression of KAlbanians during
Milosevic regime
Tito’s ‘Federalism’
praised in the West

Oppression of KSerbs during Tito’s
Yugoslavia notperceivedWest‘supports’
K-Albanians

Cognitive /Perceptional
Factors

Perception ofhistoricalevents byWest

Field Study – Check Influence Model 20/34
Perform interviews in Kosovo and Belgrade
Divide interviewees into 3 groups:

Group 1: People with powere.g. K-Serb & K-Albanian politicians,
UN officials
Group 2: ‘Intelligentia’e.g. scholars, lawyers
Group 3: Affected people
e.g. IDPs, refugees

Field Study Results
Kosovoshould be
independent

21/34

UN
officials

K-Albanian
Politicians
Correlation of UN
and K-Albanian
Positions

Cognitive Evaluation of UNMIK

K-Albanians
are only
victims,
Serbs only
perpetrators

JUNE 1999

22/34

People avoid psychologically uncomfortabledissonance in their knowledge/behaviour
StrongOpposition
from Serbia

UNMIK’s
Perception

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

UNMIK’s
Cognitive
dissonance

UNMIK in
‘Gains Frame’

K-Albanians
are victims,
Serbs
perpetrators

Serbs arevictims,
K-Albanians
perpetrators
TIME

Better stayon KAlbaniansside, than‘risk’ toprotect KSerbs

23/34
UNMIK’s‘Exit strategy’

Reconfirm
the faitaccompli that
Kosovo is defacto
independent.

2007

4 ways to reduce Cognitive Dissonance:(1) removing (existing) dissonant cognitions(2) adding new consonant cognitions(3) reducing the importance of dissonantcognitions(4) increasing the importance of consonantcognitions

Cognitive Conflict Model
UNMIK does not
UNMIK doesstop discrimination
prevent
ofnot
K-Serbs

24/34

usurpation of K-Albanians
K-Serbs
K-Albanians
K-Serbproperty K-Serbs
UNMIK/KFOR
West
perceive
expel Kperceive
boycott
does not
UNMIK
assupports
Serbs
andsupportas cut flow
cooperation
anti-Serbianof people/weapons
eradicate“greenlight”KUNMIK/KFOR
andcreateandsidingfor oppression
historicalfrom
Albaniadoes
not prevent
Albanians
parallelK-destructioninstitutions
ofwithK-Serbs.
of traces
Albanians
UNMIK
notSerb doeshouses,UNMIK/KFOR
churches,
neutralise
sourcesmonuments
doesUNMIK/KFOR
not extractof hatemongering
illegalarmsK-Serbs
ethnocentricevacuates
riots
from during
Kosovopropaganda

Cognitive Conflict ModelWest
supports
KAlbanians

25/34

K-Albanians
perceive
support as“green light”
for oppressionof K-Serbs.

Strategic
West
level
supports

K-Serbs
K-Albanians
perceive
expel KUNMIK
Rational as
Loop
Serbs andanti-Serbian
eradicate
Cognitive ConsonanceLoopand siding
historicalwith Ktraces
Albanians

Cognitive Consonance

Cognitive Conflict Model

KAlbanians

K-Serbs
boycottcooperationand create
parallelinstitutions

K-Albanians
perceive
support as“green light”
for oppressionof K-Serbs.

26/34

K-Serbs
K-Albanians
perceive
expel KUNMIK as
SerbssupportsandWest
anti-Serbian
eradicate
Independence
ofand siding
historicalwith Ktraces
KosovoAlbanians

Rational Loop
Cognitive Consonance Loop

K-Serbs
boycottcooperationand create
parallelinstitutionsWest criticises
K-Serbs

West criticises
K-Serbs

Cognitive Consonance Loop

27/34

‘Human Rights situation for Serbs in Kosovo unsatisfying’ dissonant with UNMIK’s own statements.
(1) remove dissonant cognition, i.e. Improve Human
Rights situation or Change cognition about it.
(not existent, economic problem…etc.)(2) Believe that expulsion of K-Serbs is better for solutionof problem. ‘They deserve it, they are guilty’.
Statements: Peterssen + Ahtisaari‘The Serbs are guilty as a nation.’(3) Outbreak of new hostilities/war is more catastrophic
than problems of minorities.
(4) Believe that what has been achieved by KAlbanians is more important than problems ofminorities.

Consequences of Cognitive Consonance

28/34

K-Albs + UNMIK position:①Economic Situation responsible for minorities
fleeing②K-Serbs do not cooperate with UNMIK/K-Albs.
Big Problem③Independence only ‘realistic’ solution.

K-Serbs + Serb Gov. position:①Minorities face discrimination, attacks② Non-cooperation is result of ①.
③Broadian sovereignty
Autonomy under Serbian sovereignty
only
acceptable
solution
Serbia.
only
acceptable
solution
forforSerbia.

U.S. Military BaseOil Pipelines from
Caspian regions
NATO
enlargement
Past experience
with Serbs

Development of Integrative
Explanatory ModelMedia &
PR influence

Serbia traditional
ally of Russia
Geostrategical
Importance ofBalkan Region

29

Integrative Explanatory Model
Importance of Balkans
Serbiatraditional allyof Russia

USA wants to prevent
Russian influence inBalkans

U.S. Military Base‘Camp Bond Steel’s
Oil Pipelines from
Caspian region
NATO enlargement

U.S favours‘Albanian’ Kosovo

U.S. wants to get
rid of Milosevic

U.S.
allieswith
KLA‘Peace Talks’ atRambouillet ‘fail’

Perceptions of Kosovo Conflict
Oppression towards
Perception of
K-Serbs not perceived
Serbs asduring Titoaggressors,
Yugoslavia
perpetrators

Tito’s ‘Federalism’
praised in the West.
Media & PR
influenceWars in Croatia
and Bosnia

K-Albanians fightfor independence,create Kosovo
Liberation Army
(KLA)
Oppression of KAlbanians during
Milosevic regime

KFOR has noorder to protect
K-Serbs

Mission Related Factors

UNMIK has no
defined mission
strategy

Democratisation
Efforts failed

Democratic Standards not
fulfilled by K-Albanians
Expulsion of K-Serbs
by K-Albanians
Destruction of Serbian
Churches, Houses

NATO
Bombing

Serbs expel
K-Albanians
in NATO war

KAlbanians
attack Serbs

Attacks on UNMIK /KFOR by K-Albanians

UNMIK
transforms KLA
into KPCUNMIK seeks‘Exit Strategy’

UNMIK’s perception
Perception of KAlbs. ‘Moral
Right to SelfDetermination’
Perception of
Albanians as
aggressors
andperpetrators

UNMIK-FRY
document

Serbs’ Perception of UNMIKUNMIK’s
fears KAlbanianattacks

West ‘supports’
KosovoAlbanians

West ‘supports’
Independence ofKosovoSerbs stop
to cooperate
with
UNMIK

West
Integrative
Factors related‘supports’
UNMIK
COGNITIVE
CONFLICT
MODEL
to UNMIK?
Explanatory
K-Albanians
Model
Wars in Bosnia
and Croatia

Perception of Serbs
as aggressors,
perpetrators
Perception of‘Moral Right to SelfDetermination’Oppression of KSerbs during Tito’s
Yugoslavia notperceived

Conclusion I

Cognitive /Perceptional
Factors

Perception ofhistoricalevents by
West

32/34

Serbs create
parallelinstitutions

1. This research has highlighted problems ininternational conflict management byanalysing the Kosovo Case.
2. Reasons for support of independent Kosovo
by the International Community have been
investigated.
3. Important issues found out from this researchare:

UNMIK / KFOR does
not protect Serbs
UNMIK indirectly
responsible for
expulsion of Serbs

Geopolitical
Factors

March 2004 – 2007

Mission becomestoo costly

Geostrategical
Importance ofBalkan Region

Personal Factors of Importance
US/West’s ‘negative’
experience with Serbs
during Ex-YU wars

31/34

10th June 1999 – 2004

before UNMIK (–June 1999)

U.S. favours
Albanian
KosovoU.S. wants to get
rid of Milosevic

Oppression of KAlbanians during
Milosevic regime
Tito’s ‘Federalism’
praised in the West

Influence Diagram 30/34

March
2004 riots


UNMIK

K-Albanians’ Perception of UNMIKUNMIK slows down
way to independence

K-Albanians. frustrated
with UNMIK

Serbia/K-Serbs

UNMIK / KFOR does
not protect Serbs

K-Albanians perceive
possibility for
oppression of K-Serbs

K-Albanians



Simplistic characterisation of the causes ofconflictInsufficient consideration of historical evidence
Catastrophic human rights of K-Serbs notaddressed

Conclusion II

33/34

4. Cognitive Conflict Model has been
constructed.


Uncovers inherent Cognitive Consonance Loop.
Shows that West by its own actions exacerbates
the conflict.

5. Integrative Explanatory Model of theKosovo Conflict has been constructed.
Holistic representation of the important factors
which led to current outcome.
Integrates cognitive perceptional and rational
geopolitical factors.

Future Research

34/34

1. Generalisation of Cognitive Conflict
Model to other conflicts
2. Analysis of Influence on UNMIK by U.S,
EU etc.
3. Analysis of Decision-making process of
UNMIK (e.g. Cognitive analysis on personallevel)

4. Analysis of Final Negotiation Process

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

35

Extra Material

36

Alternative Explanations

37/34

Rational Choice Explanation vs.
Cognitive Choice Theory

Conflict Resolution
When is a conflict solved? *Definition of UNMIKGoverning Body
• Rational calculation frombeginning.
• UNMIK behaviour
depending on US etc.
• UNMIK officials knew they
were instrumentalised.

or

Administrative Body
• UNMIK officials went into
mission with believe tocreate multiethnicity.
• There was no ‘plan’ to seize• UNMIK’s failure result of its
actions and the pressure
from K-Albanians.

UNMIK. UNSCR 1244:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

38/34

39/34

perform basic civilian administrative
functions;promote the establishment of substantial
autonomy and self-government in Kosovo;
facilitate a political process to determine
Kosovo's future status;
coordinate humanitarian and disaster
relief of all international agencies;
support the reconstruction of key
infrastructure;
maintain civil law and order;
promote human rights; andassure the safe and unimpeded return of
all refugees and displaced persons to theirhomes in Kosovo.

Both sides decide to live in a new ordervoluntarily without pressure
Both sides feel as stakeholders in process
and solution
Conflict not likely to arise again in sameor other form, does not cause traumas
Solution does not affect others(sustainability)* Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, Sweden

Standards before Status (2002)

40/34(1) the existence of effective, representative andfunctioning democratic institutions;(2) enforcement of the rule of law;(3) freedom of movement;(4) sustainable returns of refugees and displaced
persons, and respect for the rights ofcommunities;(5) creation of a sound basis for a market economy;(6) fair enforcement of property rights;(7) normalized dialogue with Belgrade; and(8) transformation of the Kosovo Protection Corps(KPC) in line with its mandate.

Interview PerformanceGroup

Posed Question

41/34
Intented Result

How is the situation in Kosovo?
What are the problems in Kosovo?
How can/could they be solved?
How many Serbs have fled Kosovo?
What are the reasons for which the Serbs flee Kosovo?
What they think about UNMIK/the internationals?
What a resolution of the conflict would look like?
How they evaluate their (own) work?
Does Kosovo deserve independence?
What is the situation of minorities?

understandperceptions
andpositions; on whatis theArgumentation
based

Group 2

What are the reasons for the conflict?
Why does UNMIK not protect the Serbs?
Is UNMIK/KFOR not able to protect the Serbs or can’t it?
What would be necessary to happen for the conflict to be solved?
What if Kosovo became independent?

get a knowledge
about thedegree and way ofanalysis ofarguments

Group 3‘Tell me about’ questions, guided follow-up, depending on the responses‘Tell me’ how they feel?
‘Tell me’ why you are here?
‘Tell me’ what has happened to your house?
How are the relationships between you and the Albanians?
Would you like to go back to Kosovo?
(If yes) Why can’t you go home?
What was the relationship between you and the Albanians before the war?
‘Tell me’ what do you think about the Serbs?
‘Tell me’ why you think they (the Serbs) don’t need to come back?

Group 1

Open Beginning,
how they feel
Follow-up
questions

INTERVIEW RESULTS
Group

Questioned Person

42/34
Obtained Answers

Serb Politician

1. Situation is an instable peace. IC, eager toimplements its ‘exit strategy has forgotten why itcame to Kosovo.
2. Negotiations have begun, but there is no humanrights basis for this.
3. Standards before Status have not been performed,
but this is the last ‘compartment’ to democracy in
Kosovo.
4. Albanians have successfully managed to delete
all hope of IC to approach Standards before
Status. (Message: Violence Pays)

Group 1

K-Albanian Politician

1. Destruction of churches is Serbian propaganda.
There are only some, in the riots.
2. Kosovo is multiethnic
3. Serbs flee out of economic reasons
4. Kosovo deserves the last ‘compartment’ todemocracy in Kosovo.

Group 3

K-Serb refugees / IDPs

1. Afraid to talk Serbian
2. Have no freedom of movement
3. Albanians always wanted ethnically clear KosovoGroup 1