It looks like Boris Tadic’s Democrats have hammered out a coalition with the small but crucial-for-a-majority Socialists. They tried to convene Parliament a couple of days ago, but the soon-to-be-opposition parties disrupted it. They’re trying again today.
If they do form a government, it would be after a mere 44 days of negotiation. This is, by Serbian standards, blinding speed; both the last two majorities took over 100 days to hammer out.
The negotiations for the new government have been shrouded, not so much in secrecy, as in disinformation and confusion. So it’s not yet clear who’ll have which Ministry, nor what prices are being demanded and paid.
The new government will, we are told, be more “pro-European”. Just what that means remains to be seen. It’s pretty clear they won’t be interested in meaningful negotiation over Kosovo; the best that can be hoped for is that they won’t continue the previous government’s policy of half-heartedly trying to stir up trouble in Kosovo’s Serb-majority north.
Still, watching with interest.
Pingback: Global Voices Online » Serbia: New Government, Almost
What does meaningful negotiation about Kosovo mean though, unconditional surrender to NATO imperialism? Should we be glad that the whole basis of territorial integrity and equal sovereignty of States is being undermined on the basis of crude anti-serbian propaganda? Are the European powers which criminally dropped their loads of death over Serbian civil infrastructure going to allow their states to be dismembered too, or will they refuse meaningful negotiation on that line?
David please! “NATO imperialism”?
I can see that you’re an individual with whom it is not possible to have a serious discussion, however ask yourself the following questions:
1.
Why does Serbia then seek membership of NATO if ‘NATO imperialists’ are its state enemies? Isn’t there a slight contradiction in terms? Or are you one of those people that wants to be more Serbian than Serbs themselves — I suspect you are and you sound like one.
2.
A Kosovar Albanian asks you: should the ‘territorial integrity and equal sovereignty of states’ act as a basis for attempting to wipe out an entire population from their homes and commit the most horrendous war crimes seen in Europe since WW2?
3.
If the a ‘European powers’ launches campaigns to murder and commit some of the worst war crimes in Europe since the end of WW2 against sections of their own population then what moral grounds does one have to object to their dismemberment? Furthermore, if they are so arrogant and do not sincerely cooperate with any international effort to reach peace with their own people then such dismemberment becomes possibly the only option.
Such a waste of space!
You know what would be interesting?
Some discussion of what (if anything) the new Serbian government plausibly /could/ do to make things better in Kosovo.
I don’t think there’s a lot, myself — DS has moved far to the nationalist right, and it will be hard for them to back away. And the Socialists, while not particularly nationalist, live in terror of sinking below the 5% cutoff for representation in Parliament. So they’ll never want to do anything controversial or unpopular.
But they can probably back away from the pointless and useless conflict in Mitrovica and northern Kosovo. (Or try to. There are local interests who don’t mind seeing a little blood spilled.)
Well, we’ll see soon enough.
Doug M.
I’m pessimistic as well. The Serbian government still doesn’t recognize Kosovar Albanians as citizens. There’s no attempt to get them to vote in Serbian elections (just Serbs), and nobody wants them to have 20% of the Serbian parliament, which their population would entitle them to.
I can’t see how Serbs expect to rule Kosovo without letting Kosovar Albanians vote in their elections. They seem to want to have the land without the people, and they tried that approach already and it failed.
At some point, they will have to face reality. We’ll see how long it takes. Could be a long decade or two.
I agree that they want the land without the people. That said, they did propose an autonomy plan last year. It gave Prishtina a lot of local control, but set up cantons for the Serbs. Basically the Albanians would have traded away the right to vote in the Serbian Parliament in return for a very high level of self-rule.
Ten years ago, this would have been an awesome plan. Today it’s completely obsolete; the Albanians have had self rule for years now, and then of course there are the unfortunate events of 1998-9.
Having said that, I’d add that the Serbs no longer want to “rule” Kosovo. There’s a willingness to let the Albanians go their own way. They just want (1) protection for the Serbs remaining in Kosovo, and (2) a piece of paper saying that Kosovo is, in some sense, theirs. The first of these is totally reasonable and should be supported; the second, well, is not going to happen.
Doug M.
Doug et al.
1.
The Serbian government can do a whole world of good to improve things in Kosovo by simply doing nothing, ie not encouraging trouble and extremism. I think that’s the best thing it can do. However, the key word in your sentence was “better” and different people have different ideas of what is ‘better’ for Kosovo. For a lot of people in Serbia ‘better in Kosovo’ means worse inter-ethnic relations, tensions, violence, stagnation and the rest of it. For a lot of people in Kosovo ‘better in Kosovo’ means peace and quiet, economist development and a slight feeling of prosperity.
2.
The crucial issue here is for Serbs to understand what is it that they want out of Kosovo and what can they realistically achieve. The Serbian leadership seems to have been particularly bad at calculating this crucial issue ever since the break-up of Yugoslavia.
They seem to want Kosovo to be part of Serbia, but they don’t want the people that come with it. They want Serbia to be present in Kosovo (through police, courts, customs and the rest of it), but they don’t want Kosovo to be present in Serbia (no seats in the Serbian parliament for Kosovar Albanians, no Albanian president of Serbia or Prime Minister or Serbia or Foreign Minister of Serbia or Defense Minister of Serbia — and definitely no Albanian ambassadors in foreign missions). It seems pretty much one-way traffic to me. That’s what the Serbian autonomy plan was: you run your own very, very local affairs, decide where to build roads and schools, but in return absolutely no representation at higher government or representation around the world.
3.
Ten or twenty years ago such a plan might have been an interesting starting point, but removing an entire section of your population from any representation in the national government, world representation etc. so that you can have a level of self-rule for 20 years until a new Milosevic comes to power seems a very raw deal to me.
There may be a willingness “to let” Albanians go their own way, but what guarantees are there that this will not change in the future? This is a legitimate question of a Kosovar that has seen the Kosovar autonomy revoked as if it never existed.
4.
If, as you said, the Serbian leadership said we want protection and guarantees for the Serbs in Kosovo and the Serbian heritage in Kosovo then finding a solution to each and every problem would not be a problem. This is what Ahtisaari plan is all about. It says: Albanians get a semi-independent state and the rest of the documents talk about what Serbs should get for their loss of Kosovo.
But evidently this is not what the Serbian leadership wants because if that’s what they wanted they would not stir up trouble in the north. The north of Kosovo has no historical or political significance whatsoever. The entire Serbian heritiage is in the rest of Kosovo and probably two-thirds of Kosovar Serbs live or have property in the rest of Kosovo. What strategic significance does the north of Kosovo have for Serbia only the Serbian leadership knows. But, in my mind, the strategic significance is to cause trouble and ensure that Kosovo does not go back to ‘normal’ for a long time.
5.
Your point number (2) — it just won’t happen and this is the mistaken calculation that the Serbian leadership is making. One could argue that even UN resolution 1244 does not give them that since it only takes about Kosovo during the transitional (interim) period. It mentions a final settlement (status) but it does not say what it should be nor that it should be within Yugoslavia (now Serbia). So, in fact, what Serbia is fighting for is to keep Kosovo in transition, in a permanent interim state, and not to find a settlement and a final status.
For the nth time my sincere apologies for a very long post.
Replying to Fidel Pardussi:
I do think I can have a reasonable conversation with anyone. I’ll try to answer your questions as I can. 1) If NATO is Serbia’s State enemy, why does Serbia want in? Besides the fact that not all Serbia wants in, this is one of the cases in which being in is at least somewhat better than being out, it that it confers certain rights. Also, Serbia was defeated militarily, so it cannot aspire to be a completely independent agent, and NATO is the block it would probably suit it best, but that doesn’t negate the reality that NATO took a chunk out of Serbia by force, and if that’s not imperialism, I don’t know what is.
2. And, have I stopped beating my wife yet? Of course territorial integrity and equal sovereignty of states do not justify crimes, or genocide, or whatever other bad thing you might want to suggest. The problem, as far as I can see, is that the NATO intervention was just as much of a crime, it propiciated Serbian crimes itself, and it was based on very dubious, if not outright false, grounds. I do think that before setting the military machinery of the Empire on a small country, a bit more than propaganda should be present.
3) I suppose the crimes of Serbs justify dismemberment but the crimes of Bosnians or Corats don’t. Oh well. As to cooperation, Serbia has tried to negotiate within the framework of international law, which affirms the territorial integrity of states. The very UN Security Council Resolution in question affirms the territorial integrity of Serbia, so wouldn’t it be a bit much to expect it to give this up? That said, I agree that Kosovo should have very high levels of autonomy. As a matter of fact, if Albanians can negotiate an independence referendum with Serbia, I wouldn’t be opposed, either. By the way, since crimes have been committed against Kosovar Serbs, does this justify NATO saturation bombardment too?
With respect to Serbia wanting to have the land without the people, I agree there’s some of that, and that it is not right. But the same can be said about Kosovar Albanians, really, which we can see from all the Serbs who have left. I would agree not letting Kosovar Albanians vote for the Serbian Parliament is out of line. The legitimacy of Kosovar “government” though is somewhat impaired by its leadership consisting mostly of ex-terrorists, I would say, although I know the terrorist label can be relativized and is thrown about too easily.
“They want Serbia to be present in Kosovo (through police, courts, customs and the rest of it),”
Actually, the last version of the Serbian autonomy plan would have given Kosovo control over all these — police, courts, and customs too.
Certain cases (like minority rights) would have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in Belgrade, but the majority of normal criminal and commercial cases would have been handled strictly in Kosovo.
“no Albanian ambassadors in foreign missions).”
Actually, the plan would have allowed the Kosovo autonomous region to appoint “special representatives” to as many countries as they liked. These representatives would use Serbian embassies but would answer to Prishtina, not Belgrade.
Autonomous Kosovo would also have been allowed representation in international cultural organizations (Olympics, Eurovision) though not its own seat at the UN.
It really wasn’t a bad plan. Just, you know, ten years too late.
Doug M.
Dear David,
I commend you in the manner in which you answered the questions I raised.
If you allow me, I will follow your answers with my own views.
1.
I just don’t buy the argument that a state [Serbia] would want to join an organisation [NATO] that is synonymous with ‘the enemy of the state’ because doing so would ‘confer certain rights’ — now, if that’s not an ‘unconditional surrender to NATO imperialism’ I don’t know what is?
Second, if Serbia would have had to join NATO regardless of whether it wished to do so or not then why didn’t they ‘surrender unconditionally to NATO imperialism’ and spare themselves the ‘crude anti-Serbian propaganda,’ the bombing and the subsequent ‘criminal dropping of their loads of death over Serbian civil infrastructure?’ Yet another contradiction in terms.
Finally, security in Kosovo is provided by NATO and non-NATO forces (for a time including Russian troops) so NATO did not take a chunk out of Serbia because Kosovo is not a member of NATO, but instead the people of Kosovo through their democratically-elected representatives declared Kosovo independent of Serbia. Now, you may oppose such a move and I respect that but one cannot seriously claim that Kosovo is somehow now a ‘chunk of land’ belonging to NATO, as you seem to suggest.
2.
I am glad that you accept that the Serbian state has committed very serious war crimes in Kosovo and nothing can justify such actions, no territorial integrity or state sovereignty can ever justify any crime, let a lone very serious war crimes. Now, it is these crimes and despicable acts that have sealed the fate of Kosovo whether one is ready to accept that or not.
Second, most international agencies agree that at least 10,000 people have been killed during the Kosovo war, the vast majority of whom were ethnic Albanians killed by Serbian forces. Thousands were killed before NATO bombing, thousands were killed during the bombing. Again, one must be ready to accept that nothing, absolutely nothing can justify the killing of innocent civilians in Kosovo by Serbian forces — not even NATO bombing. In fact I would argue that the mass killings during the NATO bombing demonstrated that Kosovo was awash with war criminals and that Serbian military and police were not forces that could be trusted with securing a peaceful environment in Kosovo. It is sad that the air bombing camping did not receive the UN backing because of Russia’s continues pro-Serbian bias, but again having allies in the UN Security Council with the right of veto does not justify the war crimes and the deaths of so many innocent civilians.
You may oppose the NATO intervention in principle, and I fully respect that, but trying to portray the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic et al. as victims of the Kosovo war is totally out of order. It is for this reason that in my previous post I wrote that you seem like a person one cannot have a sensible discussion with. And, yes, these were many exaggerations during the NATO intervention, but if the killing of at least 10,000 people in Southeast Europe you call ‘dubious, if not outright false, grounds’ then I will have to completely and utterly disagree with you.
3.
In your first post you accused the ‘European powers’ that bombed Serbia, but then you went on to mention the Bosnians and the Croats. If you see Bosnia and Croatia as ‘European powers’ — which by the way did not bomb Serbia — then I would concede you the point, however, neither Bosnia or Croatia are European powers nor did they bomb Serbia so the argument is flawed.
Again, Serbia did not try to negotiate within the framework of international law, to the contrary, it has used it as a cover to commit some of the worst war crimes in Europe since WW2. Later, when Kosovo was well and truly lost they tried to play the same card, but let me ask you: if Serbia was such a law abiding country that respected international laws and norms why then did it so catastrophically fail to respect its international obligations towards its people and commit some of the worst crimes prohibited by international law?
Finally, I completely agree with you that crimes were also committed against Kosovar Serbs. Every single person that is responsible for these crimes should face justice, either in the Hague, the International Criminal Court (ICC) or local courts. Some of this is happening — with NATO arresting people that have killed Kosovar Serbs, may I add –, although there isn’t any international coverage, such as the case of the Nish Express bus bombing where the person who was responsible received a 40-year prison sentence. This is more than war criminals are getting for the genocide in Bosnia (Srebrenica and Sarajevo war crimes). I don’t want a single criminal, regardless of how petty his/her crimes and regardless of their ethnicity, to walk free anywhere in the Balkans. But I will have to remind you that every single, yes, every single person Kosovar Albanian that has been charged by the Hague tribunal has handed themselves in and faced justice. Now, justice is no hearsay and people like Ramush Haradinaj have walked because no one could prove that they were guilty of any particular crime. But allow me to invite you and others that describe him and others as ‘terrorists’ to contact the police, the Hague tribunal or the ICC if you have any information to charge them with any crime. You can call people whatever you like, but if you want to be taken seriously then you must back up your claims with proof, real proof and not hearsay. I don’t have any proof whatsoever that any of the Kosovar leaders has committed any crimes and they are not charged by any free and fair court. In the free world every man is innocent until proven guilty, but if you disagree with this assumption then you can continue calling them ‘terrorists’.
Respectfully yours,
Fidel Pardussi
*****
Doug,
Can anyone really have kept track of all the Serbian proposals. Not even the Serb leaders themselves seemed to agree on or know what was being proposed (South Tirol, Hong Kong, you name it). But one thing that kept popping up was the timescale of certain proposals. Some of them had ‘expiry dates’ and were valid for 15 or 20 years after which we can only guess what would happen.
But I concede, I was not aware that powers such as customs were being proposed to be entirely and directly controlled by Kosovo.
But more importantly, none of the proposals amounted to what Serbs got in Bosnia. And remember, Republika Srpska did not even exists as an entity in the former Yugoslavia, whereas Kosovo had a very substantial autonomy until it was revoked by Milosevic. How could it be justified that an entity built on the back of genocide — the courts concluded it was so — have more autonomy and powers than Kosovo which suffered terribly under Milosevic’s regime and had a very substantial autonomy to begin with.
So, I understand that the plan looks alright on paper, but in my humble opinion it would not have been up to the test even if it was proposed in 1998. But, I agree, it would have been a good starting point.
Finally, regarding ambassadors vs ‘special representatives’ — even Microsoft has special representatives in as many countries as it like. It is entirely different to be accredited with papers and be called Ambassador Filan Fisteku.
Anyhow, you keep impressing me with your knowledge. It’s very impressive.
Fidel Pardussi
P.S. I know the post is even longer, but I promise I won’t post for at least another 24 hours.
Of course they want into NATO. NATO won’t bomb a member.
Oliver,
Pity the Swiss! They’re in for a really tough NATO bombing campaign for not wanting to join it.
And the Irish? Who the hell do they think they are? They are going to be bombed to smithereens for daring not to become a member.
What next Oliver?
I always find it interesting to see the selective indignation of the people when they are discussing the independence of Kosovo. The people in favour of an independent Kosovo are supporting an population that has an different ethnic background than the majority of the country’s inhabitants, but that are demanding independence for the region they form the majority. I wonder of the same persons also support the same demand of the Basks or the Kurds? There are countless situations in the world where are tensions between different ethnic populations who are living within the same borders. A lot of those are situated in the country’s which arise from the dismantling of the colonial empire’s. The borders of those new countries were drawn on the map without making allowance for the ethnic backgrounds. Its amazing to see how many of those borders are straight lines on the map and obvious artificial. Those artificial borders are frequently found in the area’s that are well known for there ethnic conflicts, like Rwanda and the middle-east. Do the people who are in favour of Kosovo’s independence also want to redraw the borders in all these countries, according to the ethnic structure, to prevent ethnic conflicts? Allowing Kosovo to be independent is like opening Pandora’s box, it will give hope for all kind of separatist activists around the world. And because the supporters of Kosovo’s independence are not opportunistic and they have strong principles, they will support all those separatists also…….or not? Of course it’s a respectful opinion to give full independence to every region where the majority of the population demand it, but than you must be ready to face the consequences. And when anyone likes to make an article about this opinion on this forum, I like to take part in it!
Ron
Fidel,
membership in NATO or EU today is like a club membership. If you are in, you are treated well. If you are out and not wealthy, you are treated poorly.
Serbia’s interest in joining NATO and EU is entirely rational. It doesn’t mean any sympathy with the existing members or these organizations’ goals. Membership is simply in the national interest.
That’s the case for all countries of southeastern and eastern Europe, even for some in nearby Asia.
Disdain of organization just because they did or do something to you you don’t like is a priviledge of rich nations.
Why not let Serbia keep Mitrovica as a face-saver in exchange for accepting the secession of Kosovo, and call it a day?
@ Ron:
Sometimes I have the suspicion that strict application of the principle, we cannot allow any separatists to succeed, lest we encourage the rest of them, is analogous to forest management by strict prevention of fire. Is the resulting accumulation of autonomous regions, de defacto republics, and other semi-sovereignties just so much half-resolved fuel for a later conflagration?
@ Cyrus
Principles in a democracy are only to maintain when there is consensus about them. When there is no consensus, then all the powers involved will come together to find some kind of compromise, in which of course, the interest of the biggest powers have the biggest weight. In Europe is democracy a dogma, only to say that you are against democracy almost make you some kind of outcast . So I’ll guess that this will be the political reality in Europe for a while.
Unfortunaly, in the Balkan often there is no consensus to find. This has historical reasons, it was here where the eastern Christian empires, the western Christian empires and the Muslim caliphate often did clash. All this killing has sow a lot of hate into this population. Its no coincidence that “the black handâ€, a pro-Serbian secret society, shoot in this region the bullet that started the first world war. The “dictator” Tito was able to bring temporally peace to the area, but soon after his death the troubles started again. In this region politics have failed time after time to overcome historic reality. Maybe they are not aware enough about their own historic role…
Ron.
“I wonder of the same persons also support the same demand of the Basks or the Kurds?”
I can’t speak for others, but I would.
@ Randy
And do you also support the Scottish nationalists who want to withdraw Scotland out of the united kingdom?
If you are in favour of drawing borders along ethnic lines, how far are you prepared to go?
When we look more closely toward that what we call ethnic troubles in Europe, what does it really is about? Physical ethnic differences don’t play a big role in Europe, because most of the native Europeans derived from the same indo-European tribe that once lived in the Crimean region (Ukraine). Its obvious a cultural problem. The two most important cultural qualities are religion and language. When people differ in one of those from their surrounding people, it’s hard for them to feel themselves as being part of their surrounding community. So maybe it will be a good idea to renew the country’s borderlines on the maps according to the using of the same language and religion. Of course this will be segregation and oppose the ideal of the multi cultural society. The ideal that all kinds of different people can live together in peace and harmony. But then again, maybe is such a solution more in line with the nature of man, which has proofen to be not so peacefully as we wish.
Ron.
Fidel Pardussi wrote “The Serbian government can do a whole world of good to improve things in Kosovo by simply doing nothing”.
The fate of the Gorani is a good example of what would happen to Kosovo’s Serbs if Belgrade left them alone. The reports are not good: more than half have left and people keep leaving; many reports of robberies and thefts of houses, schools closed for using the Serbian curriculum and widespread discrimination.
For this reason I don’t understand Doug when he writes that Mitrovica is a “pointless and useless conflict”. For the Serbs who live their it certainly is about something.
@Cyrus: principles start in my opinion with basic human rights for housing, physical safety and work. “Higher” principles that do not respect those basics are in my opinion worthless.
Wim, there’s a fairly huge gap between what’s happening in northern Kosovo and Belgrade “leaving the Serbs alone”.
Pointless and useless: have you been following just what’s happening there?
Richard, I’d be cautiously in favor of partition. Alas, at the moment it’s completely unacceptable to both sides.
Doug M.
I may remember the participants of this discussion that Serbia is still stuck in the nationalistic middle ages. The whole Serbian political spectrum is radical by any up-todate democratic standard. Serbs in general still fail to accept their responsibilities in the Yugoslav wars of the 90-ties. They still hold tight to their nationalistic myths and their backward turbo-nationalism. Almost 10 years after the war in Kosovo and 15 years after Bosnia there are not even signs that can lead to the perception that Serbian society is taking responsibility. Without a deep change in the Serbs’ own perception of the wars in the 90-ties, without a real change in their values towards a more respectful approach on basic human rights there will be little political progress as well as little change in their foreign policy. Election results in Serbia with yet again almost 50% of votes going to ultra-radicals and the rest to less radicals only affirm this.
The state of the art of the perception of an average (even educated) Serb about recent Serb history can be pretty summed up as “The imperialistic West bombed Serbia”. To me it sounds similar to the “Stab in the back” theory that Germans came up with after WW1.
Oliver, again.
Please read what I wrote before you decided to join the discussion. David described NATO as imperialist and I asked a legitimate question: if NATO were imperialist and Serbia should not surrender to these imperialists then why is Serbia planning to joint it? The argument that it wants to avoid being bombed was easily debunked by the Swiss and Irish cases. EU is another case entirely.
*****
Ron,
Apply some logic and these complicated matter might just become a little less complicated. If any country treats its people or a section of its people as terribly as Serbia has done in the case of Kosovars then there is a strong case that that section of the people should be given the choice to separate from its abusive [in the case of Serbia, far more than abusive, a national leadership full of war criminals] authorities or remain part of that country.
What makes the Kosovo case even more particular is the fact that the territory was ran by the United Nations of over 8 years and functioned completely independently of Serbia. It even had its own criminal civic code, taxation laws, customs, police, courts and so on set up and controlled by the United Nations and entirely independent of Serbia. Making Kosovo go under Serbian rule would completely undo all the work and the progress achieved during that period, not to mention the very real possibility of another war.
If you think a similar case exists, let me know — I will either debunk the case by pointing out significant differences or otherwise fully and wholeheartedly support their case for secession.
*****
Wim,
I am so pleased that you’re ever so concerned about the situation of the Goran community. May I ask whether you were also as much concerned about the situation of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo that suffered at the very least a thousand times worse treatment under the Serbian regime of Milosevic?
Now, to answer your question:
1.
The Kosovar authorities are doing a lot towards accommodating all the different minorities and communities of Kosovo. The most important step they have taken is to accept the Ahtisaari proposal and adopt laws that provide some of the highest standards of minority rights, particularly for the region in question. As a testament to this the Goran minority is represented by one star of the same size and colour as that of the Albanian majority in the new flag of Kosovo. It is precisely for communities like the Goran one that the new national anthem of Kosovo has no words so that they don’t have to sing in a language that is not theirs. These are all signs that all the communities of Kosovo are being considered when the new state institutions are being build, and since Kosovo is only into her first months of independent more will follow. Furthermore, a number of seats (over 20% to be more precise) in the Kosovo parliament are reserved for the Kosovar minorities in addition to all seats they may win in the election to ensure that the voice of these communities is heard at the highest national level. Not bad for a start Wim, I just wish Albanians in Macedonia, for example, received a similar treatment.
2.
All the communities of Kosovo have suffered as a result of the war. Some have suffered more than others, namely the Kosovar Albanians. No community can be immune to war and its consequences. The Goran community as a minority that cooperated closely with the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic could not possibly have expected to remain unaffected. Innocent people have suffered, but so have innocent people from all sides.
*****
Doug,
One feature of all Balkan wars has been that the internal borders of the former Yugoslavia have not been redrawn, and for a good reason. All the seven states that have emerged from the ashes of former Yugoslavia have the same borders that they have had according to the Yugoslav constitution, including Kosovo. It is a good idea that this principle does not change, although it would appear as a quick’n’easy solution to some of the current problems. Any suggestion of the possibility of partition would result in two very serious and real consequences:
1.
The position of the Serb minority in the rest of Kosovo would change immediately, and not for the better. The Ahtisaari plan would be out of the window to start with and the Serbian heritage, which we are told is so important to Serbia and none of which is in the north of Kosovo, would remain at the mercy of extremists. The entire progress towards a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo which, Serbs excluded, is much greater than people give credit to would be at risk. The partition is so bad for the Serbs in the rest of Kosovo that many Kosovar Serbs, including some from the north, are even against the association of Serb municipalities, which some are trying to call a parliament of Kosovar Serbs.
2.
Any such partition would have real and immediate effects in Macedonia, particularly in western Macedonia. Throw into the mix the fact that the country is having what amounts to an identity crisis with Greece blocking its NATO membership and the situation becomes explosive. But then this is exactly what certain elements in the Serbian political scene would like to see happen. The crisis is Macedonia would undoubtedly have side-effects in Bosnia and the whole business become very nasty.
Fidel,
The “Serbs did worse to us!” argument is getting stale. Kosovo’s treatment of its minorities today cannot be justified on these grounds.
The “some have suffered more than others” argument is even worse. It’s exactly the argument the Serbs have been making since forever, and it has crippled their ability to think clearly.
The Gorani get a star: this is trivial. The real issue is whether the Gorani can get jobs, houses, personal safety, actual as well as legal equality, and fair treatment by the police and courts. Up to now, the answer is “no”.
Internal borders: Kosovo’s independence was the first not to follow a republican border. Why is the border of a former autonomous region okay, but the border of — say — a municipality, not?
Macedonia: maybe, and maybe not. Again, you’re repeating an argument the Serbs and their supporters were making. Go back just a few months and you’ll find dozens of alarmist predictions claiming that Kosovar independence would destabilize the region. It hasn’t. If dividing Kosovo from Serbia hasn’t energized separatism in Bosnia and Macedonia, why would dividing the north from Kosovo be different?
Doug M.
With the Serbs not willing to deliver any of their high profile criminals like Mladic and co., imagine how cooperative they are in the legal prosecution of those many not so high profile criminals from the minorities in Kosovo. That’s the real problem. There has been no form of state justice for the victims of the war (of every ethnicity) paving the path for the beginning of a reconciliation process. So, “justice” has been largely left to the free interpretation of people themselves which of coarse can only result in a circle of hatred among ethnicities.
Doug,
Please don’t put words into my mouth. I would never justify a crime because of another crime. However, if a person is biased and asks only about the suffering of one side then it should be pointed out that they are not the only side to have suffered in this conflict. There is nothing stale about pointing out that while one side of the conflict suffered state and institutional discrimination and repression, today the state and the institutions of Kosovo are working to accommodate the rights and the needs of minorities.
Second, I beg to differ with you regarding the Gorani star in the new Kosovar flag. It might be trivial to you, but what better message to send to all communities in Kosovo than to include them into the design of the flag and national anthem etc. And, why did you leave out the Ahtisaari plan? Is Ahtisaari plan also trivial according to you? All these things are symbolic and won’t improve the everyday lives of people, but the message is strong and it’s a step in the right direction.
I also disagree with you regarding the fair treatment of Gorani community by the Kosovar police and courts. Could you please let me know what exactly is the unfair treatment of Gorani community by the Kosovar police? Personal safety has also improved over the last years and I am hopeful that there will be more jobs in the future for Gorani community and all others. The situation is far from perfect and I am not trying to paint a rosy-rosy picture, but the Kosovar and international authorities are working to improve the post-war situation and they must be given some credit. So, the answer to your questions is not “no” — not as simple as that.
Borders. “Why is the border of a former autonomous region okay, but the border of — say — a municipality, not?” I am glad you asked that question. Kosovo was a constitutional part of SFR Yugoslavia and its borders were clearly defined in the Yugoslav institution. “A municipality” was not. Kosovo had a seat in the state council of Yugoslavia and the right of veto on state matters. “A municipality” did not. Kosovo was part of the rotating Yugoslav presidency (post-Tito). “A municipality” was not. There many more reasons why, but those three to begin with provide a clear enough answer, particularly the first one.
Moreover, no other republic of the former Yugoslavia had autonomous regions except Serbia. If Macedonia or Slovenia had autonomous regions they might as well have become independent. Now, you might not appreciate me saying this, but it is a fact. The name Republika Srpska did not even exist in the former Yugoslavia, let alone have clearly defined borders, powers and so on. Today, following the break-up of former Yugoslavia Republika Srpska from a non-existing entity has become a republic, albeit within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kosovo was an autonomous region during the former Yugoslavia with clearly defined borders, powers and so on. Kosovo had most of the powers that the Yugoslav republics had. Following the break-up of Yugoslavia surely the status of Kosovo must be more “advanced” than that of Republika Srpska — and it is, an independent state with its pre-1991 borders.
Finally, the Macedonia issue also falls within this no-border change issue. It’s really rather simple. If the internal borders of former Yugoslavia can change — a change of Kosovo borders implies a change of Serbia borders — then Macedonia borders can change too. I would personally not advocate such a change, lets clarify that now, but there will be a lot of people who will think along these lines. If Serbs in Bosnia on the back of genocide got a republic within Bosnia, why can’t Albanians in Macedonia get at least a republic within Macedonia? This is what a lot of people will be asking. Now, I don’t want the borders of Bosnia, Macedonia or Kosovo to change. Finally, regarding the threats of Serbs and their supporters: they would say that wouldn’t they? Serbian forces in Bosnia committed the worst war crimes in Europe since the end of WW2, were responsible for genocide and still got a republic within Bosnia. But when it comes to Kosovo getting at least what they got in Bosnia, of course they protest. Now, that stinks of hypocrisy! That’s the difference Doug.
Fidel, just a brief and partial response here:
The Gorani star? It’s not the first time something like this has been tried in Kosovo. Here’s something I wrote after a visit to Prishtina a few years back:
http://www.bookcase.com/~claudia/mt/archives/000817.html
Doug M.
Fidel, Your condoning attitude towards what is happening to the Gorani gives me little confidence in how you will react when the Serbs get cleansed too after the protection of the parallel institutions is removed.
As for the improved situation: some of the articles I linked to are very recent. Yet none sees improvement. I think that you are confusing the general improvement after the post-war anarchy with the lack of improvement in inter-ethnic relations.
After the war the UN had a “confidence zone” in Mitrovica and it gave much publicity to remaining mixed villages like Cernica. But after some time they gave up as Serbs tended to leave those zones and Cernica saw quite a few incidents. I have yet to see a new model that does work.
I saw Ahtisaari once in a discussion panel. He was repeatedly asked about the position of the Serbs in Kosovo and each time he ignored the question and started some general promotional talk about his plan. I don’t have any trust in this man.
I don’t believe that the Ahtisaari Plan will work. There aren’t many Serbs who believe so either. It is my impression that Kosovo’s Albanian leaders are well aware that the plan will not work and that for that reason they want to “solve” the Serb question now before the world becomes aware of how the plan really works.
A short look at the plan makes it deficiences easily clear: it does nothing to solve the security problems that there are. It leaves Albanians in control of of nearly everything. Even basic requirements like that the Serb schools should prepare for higher education in Serbia are not taken into account.
The only way to solve an ethnic conflict is a balance of power. The Ahtisaari Plan instead foresees a total capitulation by the Serb side with the effects temporarily mitigated by some international custodians.