Thousands of displaced Albanians arrive at refugee camp Blace in the Kosovo-Macedonia border area. Getty Images
Thousands of displaced Albanians arrive at refugee camp Blace in the Kosovo-Macedonia border area. Getty Images

1998 - Conflict in Kosovo

Short Url
Updated 19 April 2025
Follow

1998 - Conflict in Kosovo

1998 - Conflict in Kosovo
  • The plight of the mainly Muslim ethnic Albanian population during the war drew humanitarian assistance from across the Islamic world

DUBAI: By the standards of many recent conflicts, the Kosovo war in 1998 and 1999 was brief. It began with an armed uprising by the Kosovo Liberation Army against Serbian rule over the Kosovo region of rump Yugoslavia. 

President Slobodan Milosevic’s regime in Belgrade responded with overbearing force, spawning a massive refugee crisis and raising the specter of a Bosnia-like slaughter of Kosovar Muslims. 

NATO intervened with a prolonged campaign of bombing, leading to a peace accord and an end to the fighting. In February 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia amid unprecedented scenes of joy and jubilation. 

The US and several EU member countries recognized Kosovo as an independent state, but Serbia, backed by Russia, did not. Since then Kosovo, a parliamentary democracy with a lower-middle-income economy, has been in a kind of limbo. 

As someone who grew up a child of the Bosnian war in Sarajevo in the 1990s, the events in nearby Kosovo are etched forever in my mind. I am all too aware of the ancient hatreds that lay beneath the events there. Historically, Kosovo lay at the heart of the Serbian empire, having been the site of the coronations of a number of Serbian kings during the Middle Ages. 

How we wrote it




Arab News’ front page covered escalating Serbian assaults on Albanian villages in Kosovo.

Despite gaining a measure of autonomy under the former Yugoslavia in 1974, the mainly Muslim ethnic Albanian population of the province chafed at the continued dominance of ethnic Serbs. In the late 1980s, the leader of the Kosovars, Ibrahim Rugova, initiated a policy of non-violent resistance to the abrogation of the province’s constitutional autonomy by Milosevic. 

The president and members of Kosovo’s Serbian minority had long fretted about the fact that ethnic Albanians were in demographic and political control of a region that held deep significance to Orthodox Christian Serbs. During the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia, and even after the break-up of Yugoslavia, Kosovars began to be viewed with growing suspicion by Serb nationalists. 

Popular support, meanwhile, swung in favor of ethnic Albanian radicals who were convinced their demands for autonomy could not be secured through Rugova’s peaceful methods. In 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army emerged, carrying out sporadic attacks against Serbian police and politicians in a campaign that grew in intensity over the following two years. 

The heavy-handed response of the Serbian police, paramilitary groups and army triggered a massive refugee crisis that drew the attention of the international media and community. An informal coalition made up of the US, the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Russia, known as the Contact Group, demanded an immediate ceasefire, among other things. 

Key Dates

  • 1

    Kosovo conflict begins with armed uprising by the Kosovo Liberation Army.

    Timeline Image March 5, 1998

  • 2

    NATO launches campaign of airstrikes against Serbia.

    Timeline Image March 24, 1999

  • 3

    NATO airstrikes end 11 weeks after they began.

    Timeline Image June 10, 1999

  • 4

    Yugoslavia ceases to exist, renamed State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Montenegro declares independence on May 21, 2006.

    Timeline Image Feb. 4, 2003

  • 5

    First direct talks since 1999 between ethnic Serbian and Kosovar leaders on future status of UN-run Kosovo take place in Vienna.

  • 6

    Kosovo unilaterally declares independence from Serbia, a move still contested by some to this day.

    Timeline Image Feb. 17, 2008

The UN Security Council condemned what it described as an excessive use of force by Serbia and imposed an arms embargo but this failed to halt the violence. On March 24, 1999, NATO began a campaign of airstrikes targeting Serbian military targets. In response, Serbian forces drove hundreds of thousands of Kosovars into Albania, Macedonia (now North Macedonia) and Montenegro. 

Though the wartime suffering of the Kosovars elicited sympathy and support from the Islamic world, some leaders criticized NATO for sidestepping the UN and labeled its military campaign a “humanitarian war.” 

The legitimacy of organization’s unilateral decision to launch airstrikes was questionable under international law. However, the UN secretary-general at the time, Kofi Annan, supported the intervention on principle, saying: “There are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace.” 

Arab countries such as Libya and Iraq, which had close relations with Yugoslavia, predictably insisted on a political solution. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, maintained a focus on the provision of humanitarian assistance and efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. 

Saudi Arabia was the first country to respond with aid, dispatching two relief flights that delivered more than 120 tonnes of aid, including tents, dates, blankets and carpets, according to official statements at the time. A Saudi C-130 Hercules relief plane carrying aid flew daily from Jeddah or Riyadh to Albania’s capital, Tirana, where Saudi Embassy and air force personnel handled the cargo. 




Hundreds of displaced Kosovars queue up at Cegrane refugee camp in Macedonia to get supplies after their arrival. AFP

The Kingdom also provided a field hospital in Tirana, which opened on May 24, 1999, and 10 other health centers across Albania and Macedonia. A Saudi telethon appeal on April 16 raised almost $19 million. The Islamic Relief Organization in Jeddah, which helped organize it, said it sent $12 million in humanitarian aid. 

A separate Kuwaiti TV fundraising initiative raised $7 million in one day, with the emir, Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah, personally donating $1 million. 

Organizations from the UAE set up one of the largest relief camps in Kukes, near the Albanian border, which provided about 10,000 Kosovar refugees with food and access to basic amenities, including a fully equipped field hospital. The Red Crescent set up refugee camps in Macedonia and Albania. 

The NATO bombing campaign lasted 11 weeks and eventually expanded to Belgrade, causing heavy damage to the city’s infrastructure and the inadvertent deaths of many civilians. In June 1999, the Yugoslav government accepted a peace proposal mediated by Russia and Finland. 

NATO and Yugoslavia signed a peace accord outlining plans for the withdrawal of troops and the return of nearly 1 million refugees and 500,000 internally displaced Kosovars. Most ethnic Serbs left the region. 

NATO’s humanitarian military intervention saved the lives of thousands of innocent Kosovars. 

  • Emina Osmandzikovic, is a former contributor on refugee issues for Arab News. She grew up in Sarajevo in the 1990s during the Bosnian war. 


Darfur civilians ‘face mass atrocities and ethnic violence’

Darfur civilians ‘face mass atrocities and ethnic violence’
Updated 3 min 12 sec ago
Follow

Darfur civilians ‘face mass atrocities and ethnic violence’

Darfur civilians ‘face mass atrocities and ethnic violence’
  • Medical charity warns of new threat from escalation in fighting in Sudan civil war

KHARTOUM: Civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan face mass atrocities and ethnic violence in the civil war between the regular army and its paramilitary rivals, the charity Medecins Sans Frontieres warned on Thursday.

The paramilitary Rapid Support Forces have sought to consolidate their power in Darfur since losing control of the capital Khartoum in March. Their predecessor, the Janjaweed militia, was accused of genocide in Darfur two decades ago.

The paramilitaries have intensified attacks on El-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state which they have besieged since May 2024 in an effort to push the army out of its final stronghold in the region.
“People are not only caught in indiscriminate heavy fighting ... but also actively targeted by the Rapid Support Forces and their allies, notably on the basis of their ethnicity,” said Michel-Olivier Lacharite, Medecins Sans Frontieres’ head of emergencies. There were “threats of a full-blown assault,” on El-Fasher, which is home to hundreds of thousands of people largely cut off from food and water supplies and deprived of access to medical care, he said.


Egypt on alert as giant dam in Ethiopia completed

Egypt on alert as giant dam in Ethiopia completed
Updated 17 min ago
Follow

Egypt on alert as giant dam in Ethiopia completed

Egypt on alert as giant dam in Ethiopia completed

ADDIS ABABA: Ethiopia moved on Thursday to reassure Egypt about its water supply after completing work on a controversial giant $4 billion dam on the Blue Nile.

“To our neighbors downstream, our message is clear: the dam is not a threat, but a shared opportunity,” Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed said.

“The energy and development it will generate stand to uplift not just Ethiopia. We believe in shared progress, shared energy, and shared water. Prosperity for one should mean prosperity for all.”

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is 1.8 km wide and 145 meters high, and is Africa's largest hydroelectric project. It can hold 74 billion cubic meters of water and generate more than 5,000 megawatts of power — more than double Ethiopia’s current output. It will begin full operations in September.

Egypt already suffers from severe water scarcity and sees the dam as an existential threat because the country relies on the Nile for 97 percent of its water. President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Sudan’s leader Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan met last week and “stressed their rejection of any unilateral measures in the Blue Nile basin.” They were committed to safeguarding water security in the region, Sisi’s spokesman said.


Over 100 former senior officials warn against planned staff cuts at US State Department

Over 100 former senior officials warn against planned staff cuts at US State Department
Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

Over 100 former senior officials warn against planned staff cuts at US State Department

Over 100 former senior officials warn against planned staff cuts at US State Department
  • State Secretary Rubio faulted for recklessness in amid "unprecedented challenges from strategic competitors, ongoing conflicts, and emerging security threats"

WASHINGTON: More than 130 retired diplomats and other former senior US officials issued an open letter on Thursday criticizing a planned overhaul of the State Department that could see thousands of employees laid off.
“We strongly condemn Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announced decision to implement sweeping staff reductions and reorganization at the US Department of State,” the officials said in the letter.
The signatories included dozens of former ambassadors and senior officials, including Susan Rice, who served as national security adviser under President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
The timing of the cuts remains unclear, with the US Supreme Court expected to weigh in at any moment on a bid by US President Donald Trump’s administration to halt a judicial order blocking the firings.
The administration in late May notified Congress of a plan to overhaul its diplomatic corps that could cut thousands of jobs, including hundreds of members of its elite Foreign Service who advocate for US interests in the face of growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia.
Initial plans to send the notices last month were halted after a federal judge on June 13 temporarily blocked the State Department from implementing the reorganization plan.
The shake-up forms part of a push by Trump to shrink the federal bureaucracy, cut what he says is wasteful spending and align what remains with his “America First” priorities.
“At a time when the United States faces unprecedented challenges from strategic competitors, ongoing conflicts, and emerging security threats, Secretary Rubio’s decision to gut the State Department’s institutional knowledge and operational capacity is reckless,” the former officials wrote. 

 

 

 


US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight

US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight

US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
  • Trump administration has sought to deport 8 migrants to unstable South Sudan
  • District judge had said the deportation attempt violated his injunction

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump’s administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan.
The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy’s April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called “third countries” where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out.
The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy’s separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The US State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation “due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.”
Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision.
The court said that Murphy should now “cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.”
Murphy’s May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the US government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-US citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety.
After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy’s April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order “remains in full force and effect.” Calling that ruling by the judge a “lawless act of defiance,” the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy’s May 21 decision as well.
Murphy’s ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its “lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan,” and disrupted diplomatic relations. Its agents are being “forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict,” it added.
Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation.
The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal members dissented from the June 23 decision pausing Murphy’s injunction, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor calling it a “gross abuse” of the court’s power that now exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”
After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face.
In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there “without the need for further procedures.”
Murphy found that the administration’s policy of “executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims” likely violates due process requirements under the US Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.
The Justice Department on Tuesday noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture.”
The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration’s treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.

 


Explosive drone intercepted near Irbil airport in northern Iraq, security statement says

Explosive drone intercepted near Irbil airport in northern Iraq, security statement says
Updated 03 July 2025
Follow

Explosive drone intercepted near Irbil airport in northern Iraq, security statement says

Explosive drone intercepted near Irbil airport in northern Iraq, security statement says
  • The “Flight operations at the airport continued normally,” the Irbil airport authority said

IRBIL, Iraq: An explosive drone was shot down near Irbil airport in northern Iraq on Thursday, the Iraqi Kurdistan’s counter-terrorism service said in a statement.

There were no casualties reported, according to two security sources.

The “Flight operations at the airport continued normally and the airport was not affected by any damage,” the Irbil airport authority said in a statement.

The incident only caused a temporary delay in the landing of one aircraft, the statement added.