Kosovo: The EU’s Category Mistake

There are various possible ways to try and explain the “tone deafness” of the ICR/EULEX on the issue of the north: political pressures from the Albanian side, from Brussels, within the EU, etcetera. But the essence may be that the EU simply is incapable of understanding the Kosovo conflict for what it is, a tribal dispute. The EU is a victim of a category mistake in which it takes one thing for something completely different.

Let me digress briefly to the recent signs: The EU point person for the north – Italian Ambassador to Pristina Giffoni – reportedly “does not like” the “feeling of some kind of division” in north Mitrovica. He suggests “dialogue and mediation” to overcome this. He advises that the question of Kosovo’s final status “should not be dramatized, rather, a pragmatic approach and tone should be implemented for everyday problems.” This is based on a “European perspective” and with the goal of bringing the EU “closer to the people” in the north and to “promote European values by introducing the rule of law through EULEX.” The Ambassador sees “reconciliation and joint progress [as] the only solution.” Consistent with this approach, the BBC reports that Quint circles are looking at “technical talks” between Serbia and Kosovo after the ICJ provides its recommendation on status. How does EULEX see dealing with “technical issues?” By bringing Kosovo law into the north and with the terms it is apparently offering to undo the dismantling of Serbian telecoms providers in southern Kosovo, by demanding the Serbian companies submit applications to the Kosovo government for licenses.

The Europeans appear to be mistaking a zero-sum struggle in Kosovo between two ethnic groups – two tribes really – both wanting the same territory for a mere difference among domestic groups demanding fair and equal treatment within a political system they otherwise accept. In the latter case, efforts at technical agreements and reconciliation may well be appropriate. In the case of tribal conflict, it is necessary to stop the bloodshed, freeze the conflict and find a way, if possible, to achieve a political solution that all sides can live with without reverting to war. In the Kosovo case, therefore, the main job remains peacekeeping while awaiting a final agreement on status.

The Europeans have their own domestic ethnic problems and are, by and large, years behind even the U.S. in race relations. Their own involvement in tribal conflicts during the colonial era was generally to make them worse while setting the stage for bloody episodes of tribal conflict and genocide when they left. The Europeans – whose own tribal conflicts inflicted two “World Wars” on the rest of us – just don’t seem to get it. Asking the Serbs to settle their differences with the Albanians through “technical” talks about practical matters and then demanding they accept solutions recognizing the victory of the Albanian side just won’t work. It is not a “technical” point to demand that one side concede to the other. In tribal conflict, every point of difference is political and “dramatic.” While it is possible for practical issues such as telecoms to be dealt with in a neutral manner – for example by allowing Serbian telecoms companies to operate in Kosovo alongside the Albanian ones under UN authority and SCR 1244 – this is not what the EU proposes. Not surprisingly, Belgrade rejects the EULEX formula for telecoms and the suggestion of eventual negotiations outside the framework of 1244.

The EU appears to be depending on President Tadić to eventually surrender to its pressure and accept the “technical” formula. Perhaps Tadić would do so if he could. But as the leader of one of the “tribes,” he is not free to be seen surrendering. The "EU perspective" seems more an inability to understand which category of "division" it is dealing with in Kosovo and has resulted in a policy lacking all subtlety and finesse. It can only be seen by the Serb side as “take it or leave it.” The only other way to explain the EU approach would be to cynically assume that the EU is actually trying to encourage partition while saying the opposite.