Reciprocity is vital, but not everything

A visit last Saturday from a group of Albanian citizens of Serbia got me thinking again about the Belgrade/Pristina dialogue. It is stuck. While French President Macron and German Chancellor Scholz are supposedly working on a new grand proposal, I’m inclined to think that neither President Vucic nor Prime Minister Kurti (this originally said ”Thaci,” apologies to both!) wants to do anything big at the moment. They are both busy consolidating power, using their mutual hostility as a means. I’ll be the first to applaud if the Macron/Scholz initiative succeeds. But if something big isn’t possible, smaller propositions may be worth considering. Here are a few, ranging from the mundane to the daring.

Reciprocity should be the rule

Reciprocity is a fundamental diplomatic principle. My visitors told me people at the State Department prefer the term “symmetry.” I confess I don’t understand the difference. The point is that whatever you ask of someone else you should be willing to give something equivalent in return, if an equivalent exists. So if there are ten reserved seats for Serbs in the Kosovo parliament (there are), Belgrade should be prepared to offer some proportional number of reserved seats to Albanians in the Serbian parliament (where there are none today).

This principle should apply as well to the Association of Serb Majority Municipalities, which Belgrade wants formed inside Kosovo. It should have no more executive authority than a comparable association of Albanian communities inside Serbia.

Reciprocity should also apply to military forces along the boundary/border between Serbia and Kosovo. The international community has restricted Kosovo from deploying its Security Force in the northern Serb-majority municipalities. Serbia should be likewise restricted from deploying its Army in Albanian-majority municipalities of southern Serbia. That is not the case today:

Lack of reciprocity is a mistake

The international community violated the principle of reciprocity/symmetry in establishing the Special Chambers to investigate crimes that occurred 1998-2000. Their mandate was limited to the territory of Kosovo. That was a serious mistake, not only for Kosovo but also for the United States. Serbian forces killed three Albanian American brothers (the Bytyqis) shortly after the war on Serbian territory. Despite Belgrade’s many promises, its prosecutors have not indicted those who ordered the murders. Two lower-level indictees have been acquitted. Washington should be telling Belgrade that it expects Serbia to prosecute the commanders or to accept the jurisdiction of the Special Chambers.

Some more reciprocity propositions

Here are a few more reciprocity propositions that would enliven the moribund dialogue process. They could also become steps towards eventual mutual recognition in any future Macron/Scholz proposal. Belgrade and Pristina should

1. initiate military to military relations consistent with OSCE principles. Their chiefs of staff should be meeting regularly to exchange information on equipment, training, and deployment of their forces.
2. agree and demarcate the boundary/border between them, without prejudice to the ultimate outcome of the dialogue. Good fences make good neighbors, as Kosovo discovered when it agreed and demarcated its border with Macedonia.
3. base the Open Balkans initiative on equality among the entities participating, again without prejudice to the ultimate outcome of the dialogue. Kosovo would participate without the infamous asterisk (*) and footnote.

It’s not all about reciprocity

Reciprocity won’t settle everything between Pristina and Belgrade. There are some inherent asymmetries.

Belgrade has persistently harassed Kosovo Serbs who join the Kosovo Security Forces. The Serbian secret services and their proxies threaten both them and their families. The EU should be telling Belgrade that if the harassment doesn’t cease Serbia’s progress towards EU accession will stop. The Americans should end Serbia’s cooperation with the Ohio National Guard if the harassment continues.

The rape of tens of thousands of Kosovo women and girls by Serbian forces during the 1999 war has no comparable crime committed by Albanians in rebellion against Serbia. Belgrade should make a formal apology and offer compensation. The 1998/99 expulsion of Albanian civilians from Kosovo, and the murder of close to 10,000 of them, was a clear breach of the laws of war. On that issue too an apology and compensation would go a long way.

The historic Serb churches, monasteries, and other monuments in Kosovo have no comparable Albanian equivalent inside Serbia. The Kosovo government needs to be prepared not only to protect them from harm but also to convince the remaining Serb population in Kosovo that they will be fairly treated.

It’s not all about reciprocity. These items require political courage and unilateral action. But Serbian apologies and compensation would vastly improve Kosovo Albanian attitudes towards the country’s Serb population as well as its religious institutions. If Vucic is truly concerned about the welfare of Serbs in Kosovo (as he claims), he should consider apologies and compensation as a means to that end.