Away from the limelight and with other world events getting the media's attention, the situation in Kosovo has been getting worse and worse. And it all started so well with the EU managing to get a consensus for its ESDP mission and two-thirds of EU states backing the province's independence.
Now, the Serbs, supported by Belgrade, have taken control over the rail lines and much else besides in the north. Pristina has no control over the northern border, and has established customs checkpoints south of the Ibar River. Belgrade and its proxies control the north, and that domination will be further cemented following the 11 May local and parliamentary elections in Serbia, which are to be held in the north as well.
As for the EU's mission, it relied on the closure of the UN operation to establish itself. But with the UN Secretary-General not authorized to close down UNMIK, the EU is having to delay the arrival of its staff and procure kit on the open market. Months of delays can now be expected.
More fundamentally, the EU is unable to establish itself in the north and NATO appears unwilling to aggressively support the establishment of the mission, as well as the structures proposed in the UN plan.
In the run-up to NATO's Bucharest summit, experts said the Alliance would be done for if its Afghan mission failed. But the same can be said for the EU. For what kind of ESDP can be expected if the EU cannot hack Kosovo? Europe therefore has to make a decision - either to accept partition (with potential consequences elsewhere, for example in Bosnia-Herzegovina) or deal with the situation. Waiting for things to get better - as the international community prefers to do in the Balkans - is unlikely to expand the number of options or solve the problem.
Controlling in Mitrovica
If the international community, led by Europe, decides to do the latter then the EU and NATO need to take a collective in-take of breath and go for broke. First, they need to regain control over the north and pave the way for EU mission to move in. To do so, NATO will need to shut the northern border with Serbia, use KFOR to impose the Pristina government's customs and border controls on the northern border, and take-over day-to-day policing north of the Ibar River in the short-term.
But this will not be enough. NATO will need to protect EU offices around the clock - like in Iraq - and use KFOR to take back the telecoms, power grid and other infrastructure elements not under the control of the relevant authorities. Any violence against NATO has to be met firmly, but also intelligently. Civilians have to be protected and ethnic entrepreneurs singled out. The clumsy handling of the occupation of the Kosovska Mitrovica court on 16th 2008 March must be avoided at all costs.
The Mitrovica Condominium
Once control has been re-established, then the international community needs to develop a new plan for the north. This may include even further decentralization that what the UN plan envisaged or perhaps even some kind of a "condominium" of Kosovo and Serbia.
Condominiums, while rare, are not without precedent. Chandigarh is the joint undivided capital of two neighboring Indian states. Before 1956, Sudan was a condominium of Britain and Egypt. For more than 70 years, Vanuatu was under the joint undivided sovereignty of Britain and France. And for more than 700 years, Andorra was under the joint undivided sovereignty of French and Spanish "co-princes". In 1999, an international arbitrator, appointed by the International Court of Justice ruled that the Bosnian municipality of Brcko would be a condominium of Bosnia's Serb Republic and Muslim-Croat Federation, with its own local administration.
A Mitrovica Condominium should allow for a local administration with ties to the Kosovo state, but perhaps with Condominium Guarantee Powers - e.g. Kosovo, Serbia, Russia, the US, the UN and the EU - appointing a representative each to meet regularly and oversee progress.
The four U's
But to set up a condominium, the international community must insist on four conditions: the four U's. First, that NATO remains unique source of military authority throughout Kosovo, until a follow-on mission can be agreed by all parties. Second, that there must be unity of policing. That means no parallel police structures answering to Belgrade. If necessary, a Police Authority in North Mitrovica could be created to include Kosovar Serbs, EU, UN and KFOR, plus Kosovo Police representatives.
Third, there must be unity of border control with an emphasis on free trade. That means no internal customs points and an all-Kosovo border service, including the border with Serbia proper. But a premium must be on free trade between throughout Kosovo and Serbia. Finally, there must be budgetary unity. Belgrade must be transparent about the funds it sends to the Kosovo Serbs. EU will provide financial aid too, but conditioned on transparency to avoid duplication.
The international presence
Parallel with a process to agree on the north's status - perhaps led by a new UN negotiator - should be preparations for a long-term international presence north of the Ibar under an international envoy, similar to the role of Pieter Feith, the EU Special Envoy based in Pristina.
This means solving the UN's status and sorting out the UN-EU relationship. One idea is for UNMIK to maintain its role in the north and for the UN SRSG to act as a constitutional monarch under Resolution 1244 with the EU playing the active, day-to-day role. If the next SRSG was non-resident, perhaps situated in New York (much like Roberts Owen, the Brcko Arbitrator mentioned above) then all the better.
What remains clear is that unless Europe wakes up, decides what it wants and takes decisive action, more will be lost than a sliver of territory in Europe's newest state.
|
|
Tweet |
How well did European foreign policy perform over the last year?
From a major exporter of goods to a major exporter of capital
To Chongqing or Guangdong? China’s big development decision
Instead of lecturing Ukraine the EU must show that it means business
Algeria is at risk of turmoil without EU-backed reform
Learning to deal with a changing Russia under a familiar leader
What price will Europe pay for China's help in rescuing the euro?
The impossible is also necessary if the euro and Europe are to be saved
Spain's election, caught between the euro crisis and Arab revolutions
The EU's role in building accountable societies in North Africa
Building sustainable EU military power at a time of defence cuts
Regards Citoyens cover our Scorecard 2012
Armenia's News.am discusses the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute's appearance in the Scorecard
El Pais has written a blog on the Scorecard
Global Dashboard discusses the Foreign Policu Scorecard
Comments for this entry are closed.
I didn’t know NATO was having such large problems in Northern Kosovo still. It seems that the author proposes to cut them off from Serbia which sounds like a good idea. Cutting them off from Serbia could force them to cooperate with NATO.
“EU and NATO need to take a collective in-take of breath and go for broke. First, they need to regain control over the north and pave the way for EU mission to move in. To do so, NATO will need to shut the northern border with Serbia, use KFOR to impose the Pristina government’s customs and border controls on the northern border, and take-over day-to-day policing north of the Ibar River in the short-term.”
My god… Despite the big words, colonial mindset of European policy makers hasn’t changed. To “impose” Albanian government over the Serbs in Kosovo and close the borders with Serbia???
Where do you see principles there? Why didn’t you help Serbia impose Serbian government over Albanians?
Don’t get me wrong - I do believe that Kosovo could never be functional part of Serbia - but to present an open support to the secession as a international law compliant act?
You westerners keep on doing this like this. Then don’t be surprised if you start recieving the same USA labels from the Third world you treat like this…
Your colonial forefathers were better than you. At list they were sincere. Of course - they also had their lies (cultural elevation of undeveloped world), but at list they were very clear on our position in their world. You are talking us in as equal - and then, a minute your interest are jeopardized - boom. You show your true face…
Cool. Not a single candle ever burned through the night. We survived worst things, and we would survive you. And a moment you start falling (and your only alternative is to turn into authocratic entities such as US and Russia) - you fall down would be much deeper than our ever was. Unfrotunatelly, we’re not acustomed to anything better…
Contrary to the second comment above, Daniel and I are not advocating latter-day colonialism.
Although we argue that NATO must act from a position of strength, we then suggest that it use this strength to make a settlement that respects the Kosovo Serb community’s desire for continued links with Belgrade: creating a condominium in north Kosovo which would (i) sustain Serbian co-sovereignty up there and (ii) let the region benefit from a new influx of European aid. Not a bad deal overall. It’s entirely true that this is a pragmatic rather than principled solution, but we live in the real world, not “London DC”.
What would be the problem if Serbia takes the North of Kosovo and the eastern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina? I think this will greatly reduce tensions in the Western Balkans.
If Serbia were to assimilate both north Kosovo and eastern Bosnia, some or all of the following things would happen.
The Croats who live in western Bosnia would demand the right to be assimilated by Croatia.
Albanian nationalists in Kosovo and Macedonia would demand the right to become part of a Greater Albania to balance Greater Serbia.
Other minorities in the region - like the significant numbers of Hungarians who live in northern Serbia, and the ethnic Serbs who still live in Croatia - would feel increasingly disenfranchised in these monoethnic states. A decade of efforts by the EU and OSCE to promote minority rights across the region would be wasted.
The Balkans would become subject to a nineteenth-century-style “Great Game”, with Russia promoting its client Greater Serbia against Western-oriented Greater Albania and Greater Croatia.
More generally, the creation of a Greater Serbia would be seen as a delayed vindication of the strategy adopted by Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s: the exploitation of ethnic cleansing.
So I do not agree that it would reduce tensions!
Dear Master Gowan,
I appreciated your answer, although it put you in a ackward position. Namely - WHO are you, NATO, EU or any other entity - to dcide on the best solution for Kosov Serbs? Isn’t it in line with the “international standards” for them to decide on that?
There are two possible answers to this, and they both are in direct conflict with proclaimed mission of the aforementioned organizations:
1. They’re not regarded as able of making such important decision, hence “we” must do that (and hope that they would adjust to it afterwards)
2. Their anticipated decision would conflict our interests.
Real world? Yes Mr Gowan, I am painfully aware of that. But I can’t accept that you’re differently portraying that reality pending the interests rather than principles.
If any sain person can endorse the unilaterall independence of Kosovo - as a international standards compliant act, how can that person then object to potential Kosovo or Bosnia Serbs independence?
Where is the difference?
As one western cinic diplomat once said: International standards/laws are being interpreted for the friends and applied for the foes.
PS: Coming from those groups of people, for whom the outollok towards the West was one of the rare points of hope from the Balkan 90’s hell perspective - once realizing that the western politics essentially doesn’t differ from the balkans’ (it is sophisticated more of course) in terms that western words apply not for all (as proclaimed) but for the west itself…
GB, you are right to say that we are in an awkward position on Kosovo. This is one of those cases in international affairs where principles collide and there is no easy, all-encompassing answer available.
But nor do Daniel and I offer an easy answer: we’re making a deliberately COMPLEX proposal that suggests that the EU, UN and NATO should all continue to play important roles in the future governance of Kosovo. It’s a proposal that’s rooted in UNSC Resolution 1244 of 1999, which put NATO in charge of Kosovo’s security and integrity; gave the UN the overall responsibility for civil affairs; and instructed the EU, UN and OSCE to build self-government. We’re trying to see how to adapt all that to current realities.
Of course, we’re arguing for a fairly substantial adaptation of how the international organizations and Kosovars interact. But it simply isn’t true to say that we’re just green-lighting a unilateral declaration of independence: we are actually offering a formula that places significant limits on Kosovo’s autonomy (the UN staying on as a sort of “constitutional monarch” for example). To imply that we’re just riding roughshod over international law is to miss the points we make.
Anyway, I think that this story is about to slip off the ECFR front page, which may mean no more comments. But thank you for your engagement!
@Richard Gowan
Governments that recognised Kosovo all agree to say that its independence should not be understood as setting up a new precedent in international law. Western governments could perfectly say that giving the North of Kosovo to Serbia is due to the particular circumstances of the conflict (war crimes and ethnic cleansing from both sides, UN administration etc.).
In your article and comments you are advocating a pragmatic rather than principled solution. Then it might be advisable that you take also into consideration the fact that Serbs and Kosovars are living separately and that they will not live peacefully together in Kosovo for the next few decades.
When I look the whole situation I think that it would be much better for Kosovo to stay within Serbia as an autonomous region, federal state or whatever rather than to be subordinated to the ?constitutional monarchy? of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council who have already used and will continue to use Kosovo and its problems as an exchange currency for the settlement of their own disputes.
D., I really like the phrase “exchange currency for the settlement of their own disputes”, and will use it in future! But I fear that attempting to leave Kosovo in Serbia would generate a backlash from the Albanian community and make Kosovo ungovernable.
I see your point that Western governments could claim that North Kosovo’s status is unique - perhaps they will one day - but I don’t think that nationalists in the other parts of the Balkans I mentioned (especially the Bosnian Serbs) would agree. This is less about the (important!) legal precedent than the political question of whether the region should be one of mono-ethnic states.
Thank you for your very interesting comments, R.