Tag: Balkans
Partition is not the solution
Agron Bajrami, editor in chief of Pristina daily Koha Ditore writes at kathimerini.gr:
The idea that Kosovo and Serbia could reach a comprehensive final agreement within the EU mediated dialogue has sparked a lot of enthusiasm, especially in the West which would like to see the open issues in Balkans closed so that the whole of the region could move towards integration within EU and NATO.
But the discussions that have been incited by the idea of a final Kosovo-Serbia “normalization” deal have so far gone in the opposite direction, away from European solutions.
The most un-European proposal that we heard so far in this debate, was the increasing talk from Serbian side about Kosovo partition. Even the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic, has talked about it, while Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic is publicly favoring partition for quite some time – even calling it “the best solution”.
These Serbian statements were followed by clear signs that Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi might be willing to enter such negotiations. Furthermore, he also used the opportunity to include into discussions the Preshevo Valley – an Albanian-majority region in Southern Serbia.
While most of the political parties and other leaders in Kosovo reject these ideas, claiming rightly that Kosovo status and its borders were permanently settled in 2008, Thaçi and Vucic seem to be ready to agree on some sort of territorial solution, insisting it is the “best” and even the “only” solution.
Nothing could be further from truth.
Once we accept that changing the borders is a solution, it will not stop at Kosovo-Serbia line. It will spread to the whole of the region, from Skopje to Sarajevo, with Bosnia and Hercegovina situation being particularly explosive. Change of borders – which Thaçi and some others euphemistically call “border correction” – will also mean partition on ethnic basis, and exchange of territories. And – as history taught us – where territories cannot be exchanged, population exchange will follow.
Hence, the whole region would return to the time of the conflicts, not unlike the ones we have witnessed during the 1990’s, and all the work done in the last 20 years to bring peace to the people of Balkans will be disregarded overnight.
In this context, it is highly unfortunate, disgraceful even, that EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, under whose facilitation the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue takes place, has kept silent in the face of ethnic partition talks. EU might be tempted to accept any kind of deal that two sides agree, but that would make Brussels equally responsible for the disaster that will certainly follow if Kosovo partition is legitimized as an option.
Because, even if all the negative effects could be limited to Kosovo only, it will be a monumental disaster; it would run against the European idea of multiethnic and multicultural democracies, which is enshrined in the Ahtisaari proposal that served as the basis for Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence.
Of course, Ahtisaari plan has never been fully implemented also due to refusal of Serbia to agree with it, and there are still issues to be addressed related to minority and religious rights. But, giving up on that idea and returning to the ethnic based solutions will only push all of us back to conflicts and further instability.
That should not be allowed to happen.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dear Ms Mogherini,
To my delight, civil society organizations from Serbia and Kosovo (I count 38 of them) are protesting any division of Kosovo in a joint letter to EU High Representative Federica Mogherini:
Dear Ms Mogherini,
Civil society organizations from Serbia and Kosovo are urging you to make an unambiguous statement against the division of Kosovo or the exchange of territories between Kosovo and Serbia on an ethnic principle. More frequent mentions of the possibility of redrawing the borders send a very dangerous message to the citizens of Serbia and Kosovo, as well as to the entire region, that there is a real possibility of legitimizing a dangerous propaganda of ethnic ownership over the territory – a principle that has pushed the region on several occasions into bloody conflicts.
Such developments would inevitably produce a chain reaction in other Balkan states and lead to numerous requests for changes in the borders in the Balkans, which opens the door to new conflicts. Also, this would send a message to most Serbs in Kosovo living south of the Ibar that they should move to “their” ethnic state, which could lead to another exodus of the population in the Balkans.
Civil society organizations have been trying for decades to improve contacts and cooperation between the two communities, primarily looking at the welfare of people living in Serbia and Kosovo and the future of the entire region. It is necessary to establish a lasting peace in the region and to accept interculturality and multi-ethnicity as a prerequisite for development. The ethnically clean countries, the outdated 19th-century model, must not be the goals of any policy, nor should they be tolerated and supported by representatives of the international community.
You, like other representatives of the international community, have a special responsibility to prevent this issue from reaching the agenda of the negotiations. All mediators, in particular the European Union and the United States, are obliged to abide by the rules established by the Badinter Commission in 1991. Those rules that recognize the boundaries of the constituent elements of the former federation and deny the ethnic principle of division must extend to Kosovo as a special case in the process of the dissolution of the SFRY.
Civil society organizations invite all actors, domestic and international, to actively oppose attempts to introduce the ethnic principle as the supreme in the building of states in the Balkans. Any state that is based on discrimination and divides citizens on any ground is pre-sentenced to failure. A society that develops on values opposed to respect for basic human rights is condemned to nationalism, isolation, and hopelessness. More and more young people are already leaving our countries, and the territories for which national and political elites are battling today will struggle without the driving democratic forces.
Civil society organizations invite the international community, but above all the authorities in Serbia and Kosovo to devote themselves to the creation of the best possible living conditions for all inhabitants of Kosovo (including the freedom of movement, business and international cooperation) during the negotiations, ensuring that the crimes from the past never happen again (including finding the missing persons as a primary task for both countries) and creating conditions for the development of legal and democratic government systems in Kosovo and Serbia. Only such negotiations are a guarantee for a safe and dignified life for all people, regardless of national or any other differences.
Centar za praktičnu politiku
Građanske inicijative
Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava
YUCOM
Beogradski centar za ljudska prava
Fond za humanitarno pravo
Inicijativa mladih za ljudska prava
Sandžački odbor za ljudska prava
Kulturni centar Damad
Urban In
Akademska inicijativa Forum 10
Centar za nove medije Liber
Centar modernih veština
Dijalog Valjevo
Generator Vranje
Udruženje žena Peščanik
UG Za zdravu opštinu Stara Pazova
Centar za ljudska prava Niš
Centar za kulturnu dekontaminaciju
Integra Pristina
Syri i Visionit
Youth Initiative for Human Rights – Kosovo
GAIA Kosovo
NVO Aktiv
Let’s Do It Peja
CRDP
STIKK
IKS
Kosovo Association Chopin
Lumbardhi Foundation
Centre for Social Groups Development– CSGD
CDF
Trentino con il Kossovo
Kosovo Women’s Network
Kosova Democratic Institute
X40-bunarfest
Numismatic association “Demastion”
Disability Development Centre
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Havoc impends
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?
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.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Appeal by Bishop Teodosije
The Bishop has interesting things to say today, especially against partition of Kosovo, an idea Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić is presumably trying to sell on her trip to Washington this week. He also expresses the Church’s concerns about the behavior of the Kosovo authorities, who need to realize that the presence of Serbs south of the Ibar river is among the best arguments against partition. The bolding is in the original text I received this morning:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What Pristina wants
Gezim Visoka has tweeted in Albanian this Pristina-originated Framework for the Kosovo-Serbia Dialogue, published in Gazeta Express:
I. Principles
- Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state, and as such, participates in the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia.
- Kosovo considers that the dialogue for normalization of relations with Serbia is led by European values and aims at creating good neighborly relationships between the two participating countries, as well as, strengthening regional peace and stability.
- Kosovo participates in the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia, in accordance to the Ahtisari Package, guaranteed and supported internationally, which has served as the basis of Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence on February 17, 2008.
- Kosovo participates in the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia, in accordance to the verdict of the International Court of Justice on 22 July 2010, which affirms Kosovo’s statehood as a sui generis case.
- Kosovo considers the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia as a process that contributes to the overall stability and peace of the Western Balkans.
- Kosovo respects and is committed to implementing existing agreements from the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia.
- Kosovo recognizes and respects, without any doubt, individual and community rights, codified the constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, in line with international rights and the European Union.
- Kosovo guarantees that any agreement which addresses the rights and interests of the Serbian community in Kosovo, will conform to the most advanced international and european standards.
- Kosovo aims to be part of euro-atlantic integrations.
II. Timeline
- Kosovo demands a clear timeline of the dialogue and an implementation schedule of agreements reached during the dialogue.
- The aforementioned schedule shall be respected by the negotiating actors and guaranteed by the mediators.
- The implementation of the dialogue outcomes is mandatory for the actors involved and guaranteed by international mediators, with clear conditions and responsibilities, including sanctions for failure to implement agreements.
III. Aims and Objectives of Kosovo in the Dialogue
- Kosovo seeks to finalize the process of normalizing relations with Serbia, in a long term plan that advances regional peace, good neighborly relations, and mutual respect.
- Kosovo aims, that through this dialogue, integration to Euro-atlantic structures will be easier.
- Kosovo respects Serbia’s aspirations to join the European Union.
- Kosovo seeks full membership to the United Nations.
- Kosovo desires mutual respect among the two countries, respecting each other’s integrity and sovereignty.
- Kosovo and Serbia shall join the European Union, without challenging each other, without any outstanding issues, and recognizing each other as two neighboring countries that respect European values, principles, and responsibilities.
- In function to the long term normalization of relations between the two countries, Kosovo and Serbia, should work towards reconciliation, deal with the violent past and crimes that were committed during the war in Kosovo.
IV. Red Lines
- Kosovo will not negotiate its statehood, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
- Kosovo will not accept dialogue outcomes that violate individual rights and freedom, or those that belong to a group, community, or ethnicity.
- Kosovo does not accept a third layer of governance that challenges the functioning of its institutions.
- Kosovo will not accept outcomes that will create a negative precedent for peace and stability in the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No thanks
I have been trying to avoid wasting time commenting on the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies call for partition of Kosovo in its ill-considered report ironically entitled “West Side Story.” But the partition idea never seems to die. Last week’s “fake news, wishful thinking” is the latest example of the Belgrade press spinning up the idea. And more than one friend has suggested to me in private that there must be something cooking.
The CEAS report is a transparent effort to make the West more palatable to Serbian President Vucic by suggesting NATO might lead an effort to give him northern Kosovo as compensation for normalizing relations with Pristina. It fails not only as a strategic concept but also on the merits.
CEAS proposes “adjustment” of what it considers the administrative boundary with Kosovo to incorporate Northern Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok and Leposavic into Serbia, without any exchange for Albanian populated communities in southern Serbia. This comes (and here I have to quote because the assertion makes no sense at all)
…as a consequence of the opinion that neither the West itself nor the UN have managed to clearly determine the exact amount of punishment Serbia should sustain for the crimes of Milosevic’s regime in Kosovo…
So far as the West of which I am a part is concerned, the independence of Kosovo has nothing to do with punishment for Milosevic’s crimes. The proper venue for that was the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, where Milosevic unfortunately died before the expected guilty verdict was delivered.
Serbia after the war with NATO had every opportunity to try to “make unity attractive” (in the Sudanese phrase) to Kosovo Albanians in anticipation of the decision on final status foreseen in UN Security Council resolution 1244. It failed to do anything whatsoever in that direction, and even adopted a new constitution by not counting Kosovo Albanians on the voters rolls, because if they were counted the requirement that 50% of voters come to the polls could not be realized. I won’t pretend Serbia would likely have been successful in convincing Kosovo’s Albanians that they could return safely to Serbian sovereignty. The important fact is that Belgrade after Milosevic never even tried.
After proposing its idea of uncompensated territorial partition, described as one among “small concessions to authorities in Belgrade,” CEAS is still vague about what Kosovo would get in return. It
…could possibly facilitate the process of achieving a comprehensive agreement on the normalization of Serbia’s relations with Kosovo…
It doesn’t get much airier than that, and the subsequent argument against Putin being able to use this “correction” as an argument helping him to justify the annexation of Crimea is unintelligible. The fact is he would use it, just as he has used Kosovo as justification for what he did in the first place.
Later in the report there is mention of a possible “community of Albanian municipalities in southern Serbia.” That’s rich, since Belgrade has not regarded such a community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo as sufficient for full normalization of relations. Why would Albanians accept something Serbs have found inadequate, especially as it is something they haven’t asked for?
The CEAS report simply ignores the obvious geopolitical risks involved in its partition proposal, claiming they are “low.” It offers no discussion of
- the likelihood that Republika Srpska would try to follow northern Kosovo into Serbia or declare independence,
- the possibility that Albanian nationalists would take the opportunity to try to chase Serbs from south of the Ibar river and thereby create conditions for a greater Kosovo or greater Albania,
- the implications in Georgia for South Ossetia and Abkhazia or in Moldova for Transnistria,
- the consequences for Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine,
I could go further afield to Iraqi Kurdistan and Tibet, but that’s enough to show why NATO would not want to consider the West Side Story proposition as anything but an effort to butter up Vucic. It is a sign of the weakness and desperation of pro-NATO advocates in Serbia that they come up with this poorly thought through proposal. So let me help them out:
Only sovereigns can cede territory. Serbia would have to recognize and establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo before Pristina could negotiate any change in the border. This is something Presidents Vucic and Thaci understand. Pristina would not agree without getting the Albanian communities in southern Serbia in exchange. Any partition, with or without exchange, would put at risk the Serb communities and religious sites south of the Ibar. Those countries that have recognized Kosovo would oppose such an exchange, because of the risk to Serb communities and religious sites as well the irredentist implications for Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia as well as Russian aggression in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
But we don’t have to go there, because that’s where we already are. West Side Story is shameful effort to enlist NATO in a proposal that would benefit Russia, deprive NATO of cohesion, and reduce the Balkans as well as several countries beyond once again to ethnic nationalist chaos. No thanks.
RSS - Posts
