Patriotism, not treason
I surprised a Kosovar visitor this morning with an idea I thought I had published long ago but now can’t find on peacefare: Pristina should be represented in Belgrade. So if I have already mentioned it, please excuse the repetition.
If not, here is my thinking.
I would never want to negotiate with a foreign state in whose capital I am not represented. Why? Because it is important to understand the political dynamics there. Even if we are the direst of enemies, there will be a range of political views, with some leaning more in directions I might find useful than others. Having a representative there will help me to understand at least this much: how not to strengthen my enemies. I might even find some allies, especially if I couch my desires in the right terms.
Take Belgrade, for example. Most of the Serbian political spectrum is rock solid in public in wanting sovereignty over Kosovo. There are some who openly disavow that goal, but many more who realize it is not compatible with Serbia’s own ambitions to join the European Union. It is in part a matter of priorities: Serbia has limited resources (especially financial) and needs to limit its commitments. That is why it concurred in Kosovo joining the IMF and World Bank, enabling Serbia to get out from under the obligation to pay some arrears. There are today lots of people in Belgrade who would like more transparency and accountability for Serbia’s subsidies to Serbs in Kosovo. Which is what Pristina should want too. So screaming foul about the subsidies is likely not going to be as effective as calling for transparency and accountability, an objective at least some in Belgrade share.
But would Belgrade agree to Kosovo representation? I don’t know. But I do know that Serbia maintains state institutions inside Kosovo. Reciprocity is the heart of state-to-state relations: if Kosovo regards itself as sovereign and independent, it should ask for representation inside Serbia.
Of course Serbia may say “no,” since it does not regard Kosovo as sovereign and independent. Pristina can’t evict the Serbian institutions, because they are located in the Belgrade-controlled north. A better course would be to accept an unofficial office in Belgrade, one opened by a Kosovar nongovernmental organization. The head would need to be an Albanian who speaks native Serbian and can appear publicly and informally as a spokesman and defender of the Kosovo institutions, just as the Serbian institutions in north Kosovo do for Belgrade.
Belgrade might want that non-office office to be located outside the capital. That’s fine: it should then be in the Albanian-majority Presevo valley. Belgrade won’t like that, but if it refuses, it embarrasses itself.
The real problem with this idea is not Belgrade’s attitude–which we don’t know yet–but rather the Albanians. I am reliably told that it would be hard to find someone to go to Belgrade, since that would be regarded as treasonous. This is of course absurd: representing your country in a hostile capital is patriotism, not treason.
One thought on “Patriotism, not treason”
Comments are closed.
“The real problem with this idea is not Belgrade’s attitude–which we don’t know yet–but rather the Albanians. I am reliably told that it would be hard to find someone to go to Belgrade, since that would be regarded as treasonous.”
Honestly I am appalled to hear this from one of the most expert minds when it comes to the Balkans. Pristina officials continuously declare that their vision is that 2 friendly states while Belgrade officials release one hawkish statement after another. Also it is not Pristina officials who walk out of international meetings where Belgrade officials are present but the other way around. If Serbs find it intolerable to even just be in the same room with Kosovo Albanians where is the logic in your concluding statement? Especially considering that simply reading the Serb press one see pretty much ALL Serb parties accusing each other of being traitors whereas in Kosovo it is only Vetevendosje who does so.