First, let me be clear: the two cases are not similar in some critical & fundamental ways. But what is interesting is the political international repercussions that a secession implies.
At heart, the dilemma facing both cases is quite similar: Kosovo & Santa Cruz want autonomy from their respective states (Serbia & Bolivia). Though Kosovo has pushed for outright secession (Santa Cruz has not, rather it is pushing for something like Catalan or Scottish autonomy), the dilemmas of what to do w/ the central state are similar. Or, rather, the questions are similar: Under what circumstances does a central state recognize—and accept—a division of itself?
While clearly Kosovars & Serbs have not been able to live together for some time, a division of Serbia has previously been unacceptable—even to international powers. During the various Yugoslav wars, the European powers & the US insisted that previous borders be respected. For that reason, Bosnia (torn between Croat, Serb, and Bosniak communities) should not be divided but would remain a single state (though a look at today’s Bosnia shows how superficial that “unified state” is). Interestingly, where NATO powers previously rejected a division of the territorial integrity of a pre-existing state, they are willing to accept one now, for Kosovo.
Serbia, which protested the loss of Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Montenegro, is now also protesting the loss of Kosovo. Further, there is an insistence that Kosovo is the historical cultural “heart” of Serbia. While the same can’t be said of Santa Cruz for Bolivia, the feeling of victimization which now plays an important part in Serbian nationalism is also a key component of Bolivian nationalism. Yet another similarity.
In the end, of course, what matters is what foreign powers choose to do. While Russia protests, it is unlikely to wage a war against NATO over the question of far away Serbia. Though it will likely use the issue to further expand anti-NATO sentiment among a population who increasingly looks nostalgically to the USSR. It’s also clear that Kosovo’s independence is only viable under a NATO protectorate.
How does this relate to Bolivia? Certainly not in the details. But there are some interesting lessons. The most important one is that foreign powers w/ local interests in political stability may interfere in ways that clearly violate a state’s sovereignty (it’s interesting that the issue of Serbia’s “inviolable” sovereign right wasn’t defended by some of the same people that defended Iraq’s). Which raises questions for Bolivia. The neighboring ABC countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile) are all developing economies that are energy hungry. At what point does instability w/in Bolivia (a natural gas exporter) become a concern that merits intervention? Would Venezuela come to Bolivia’s assistance (the two don’t share a common border)? What would be the US role? What would other international powers (China, Russia, Japan, the EU) do?
I’m certainly not suggesting that Bolivia will be carved up like Yugoslavia/Kosovo (though it is interesting that several foreign & Bolivian commentators have over the years referred to Bolivia as a “balkanized” country). I’m only curious about the upward limits of political instability that neighboring powers would tolerate before intervention. This is a particularly interesting question for Brazil, which is angling to become a major foreign power. A (successful) intervention in a neighboring country’s political dispute would be one way to show the world that it has arrived as a power (much like Australia’s intervention in East Timor).
