Terrorist, insurgent, liberation army: the labels applied to the KLA and their contexts

In 1998–1999 the same organization was called "terrorist", "insurgent", "guerrilla", "a party to the conflict" and "a liberation army". Each word came from a different actor, at a different moment and for a different purpose. This article separates these labels according to their context, because a political label is neither a timeless fact nor evidence of specific acts.

Why labels matter

Labels have consequences. For a state, calling an armed group "terrorist" justifies police operations and limits negotiation. For diplomats, accepting a group as an interlocutor gives it political weight. For courts, whether a group is sufficiently organized determines whether international humanitarian law applies. For Kosovo Albanian society, the name "liberation army" expresses an understanding of the war as liberation from repression [1].

None of these perspectives can erase another simply by repeating its own word. The historian's task is to explain who used each term, when and why — and what changed afterwards.

Belgrade: the language of "counter-terrorism"

The Serbian and Yugoslav authorities consistently called the KLA a terrorist organization and described their operations in Kosovo as counter-terrorist actions. The same language was used for the operations in Likoshan and Qirez and in Prekaz in 1998, during which many people who were not taking part in the fighting were also killed [2] [3].

Scholars note that this framing served to present the conflict as an internal matter of public order and to resist international involvement. In practice, it did not draw a clear distinction between armed fighters and the civilian population in the areas of operation.

Diplomacy in 1998: from "terrorist group" to interlocutor

On 22 February 1998, in Prishtina, US special envoy Robert Gelbard publicly described the KLA as a terrorist group, and he repeated the assessment in Belgrade the following day [3]. A few days later Serbian police operations in Drenica began. Some scholars and journalists have argued that Belgrade read the statement as permission to act; others stress that the operations had their own internal logic. This remains a matter of interpretation.

Within a few months the international position shifted. As the uprising spread and the humanitarian crisis deepened, US diplomats opened direct contacts: in the summer of 1998 Richard Holbrooke met KLA members in Junik [4]. By February 1999, KLA representatives formed a central part of the Albanian delegation at Rambouillet.

The Security Council: a twofold condemnation

Security Council Resolution 1160, adopted on 31 March 1998, condemned both the excessive use of force by Serbian police against civilians and peaceful demonstrators and acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army. The resolution also imposed an arms embargo [5].

The wording reflects the diplomatic balance of the time: the Security Council did not accept armed rebellion as a lawful means, but nor did it accept the use of state force against civilians. The resolution was not a judicial ruling on the nature of the organization, and the later resolutions of 1998 focused increasingly on the humanitarian crisis [6].

The courts: a party to an armed conflict

International criminal courts are not in the business of assigning political labels. For them the question is legal: did an armed conflict exist, and were the parties sufficiently organized for international humanitarian law to apply? In the Limaj et al. and Haradinaj et al. cases, ICTY trial chambers found that the KLA was an organized armed group and that an internal armed conflict existed in Kosovo during the period of the charges in 1998 [7] [8].

This finding has two consequences. First, it treats the war as an armed conflict, not merely a policing matter. Second, it means that KLA members, like any party to a conflict, were bound by the obligations of humanitarian law. Individuals were charged with specific violations; some were acquitted, others convicted. None of these decisions declared the organization as a whole to be criminal.

Scholars: insurgency, guerrilla war, liberation movement

The academic literature uses different terms depending on the question it asks. Studies in military history speak of insurgency and guerrilla warfare, describing structure, recruitment and tactics [1]. Studies of diplomacy analyse the KLA as an actor that changed the calculations of the great powers [9] [4]. International humanitarian law uses the neutral term "non-state armed group".

"Liberation army" is the organization's own name and the name under which it lives on in Kosovo's public memory. This archive uses the organization's name, recognizes its historical importance and, at the same time, presents the other labels together with their context.

The debate over origins

The labels are also tied to the debate over the KLA's origins. Different accounts place its beginnings in the diaspora networks of the People's Movement of Kosovo, in local armed groups in Drenica and elsewhere, or in the interaction of both. The dates of the first actions and the names of the founders vary by source, and participants' later accounts often also reflect postwar political rivalries [1] [3].

Labels and individual responsibility

No label replaces evidence of specific acts. Calling an organization "terrorist" does not prove that every member committed crimes; calling it a "liberation" army does not prove that none did. Criminal responsibility is individual and is established in court, through due process and with the right to a defence.

That is why this archive keeps the history of the organization, public memory and the trials of individuals separate — while linking all three to their sources.