Havoc impends

Posted in Daniel Serwer - August 6, 2018 - 0 Comment

Here are some of the reactions I’ve gathered to President Thaci’s “border correction” proposal, in addition to the comments on my Thursday post:

Veton Surroi writes from Pristina:

Evidently, the Macedonian referendum on Greek accord will be hard hit by discussions on border changes. The vote relies heavily on Albanians in Macedonia, and they are a target of this maneuver. “If Preshevo can why can’t Tetovo”- that’s an immediate question that arises in a debate that should be actually about North Macedonia becoming a NATO member! (Hint: I don’t doubt someone is smiling in Moscow right now)

Sinisa Vukovic at Voice of America says:

Postavlja se pitanje i da li je to rešenje u skladu sa strateškim interesima obe strane, a odgovor je ne. Pre svega ne treba smetnuti sa uma da se na severu nalaze resursi za Prištinu poput vodosnabdevanja. Drugo, opšte je poznato da većina Srba živi južno od Ibra, dakle problematizuje se budućnost manjina”,rekao je on.

This Google translates as

The question arises whether this solution is in line with the strategic interests of both parties, and the answer is no. First of all, one should be disturbed by the fact that in the north there are resources for Pristina, such as water supply. Second, it is widely known that most Serbs live south of the Ibar, so the minority’s future is being problematized.

Father Sava, the Abbott of Decani monastery, tweets:

Ripple Effects already – Bosnian Serbs Seek Same UN Status as Kosovo

An old friend writes from Pristina:

I think you already pointed out reasonably so many arguments against partition. There is nothing new to add there. It is a lose/lose situation that has been elaborated so many times.
What I am worried about is the third party: the international community that is mirroring the strange world we live in. Neither Thaci,nor Vucic will ever dare to open the partition issue if this was not silently endorsed in some form or another. This is what worries me.
Another thing is that I guess two presidents are somehow moving ahead with their agenda, and that’s not only partition. Partition could be a fog for many other issues, like the association of Serb municipalities or some sort of Republika Srpska, the general amnesty for all crimes in and around Kosovo, etc.
Petritsch’s reaction worried me a lot: correction of borders with few villages.
I believe the point should be why at all somebody would have opted for partition in principle when this was so many times elaborated as nonstarter agenda?
Question for Petritsch and Company: why is a small correction of borders needed? Is this to save face for Vucic?  Why would  a few villages of Kosovo save the face of a Serbian President?
And definitely a question for Washington and Brussels if they support partition or “correction of borders” agenda? They need to declare themselves in public. Have Brussels and Washington abandoned their previous red lines? Prishtina and Belgrade are not talking for the first time…So, what is happening now?
And a little reminder: was all this famous “normalization” dialogue started as technical dialogue? Now that Serbia is a front-runner for EU Integration, the  so called Copenhagen criteria (that nobody dares to mention in Brussels because of the 5 non-recognizers), Prishtina has to play a technical role of the dancing partner that will not be qualified. But, how can Prishtina save the face of Vucic who wants to go in Europe but needs “few villages” of Kosovo to sell a historic deal back home? Before the mandate of Mogherini and friends end their mandate, because who knows later?
And let’s say everything will be OK and Serbia gets a green light for the EU. Who can than guarantee that Kosovo can have its wanted UN seat? Brussels? Belgrade? Not sure.
There is also a Special Court issue that obviously is postponed for some time, or better to say after the negotiations are concluded. Why?
I am reliably informed that the US government now sees local ownership as key and will reserve judgment until it sees what emerges from the EU-sponsored talks, to which Washington is not a party. This is a change from previous policy, which unequivocally supported Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as defined in its constitution and (not incidentally) drawn in its flag.

The US and EU working together have a superb track record in the Balkans. Local ownership has a truly terrible track record there, especially when it comes to issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to mention treatment of minorities and rule of law more generally. Someone in Washington needs to wake up. Havoc impends.

Tags : , , ,
Tweet