Kosovo: The UNSC Debates and William Walker Filibusters In

The UN Security Council met on November 12 to debate the October 29 report by the Secretary General on Kosovo. Much of the report and the debate focused on the north. The SG repeated (via the noon briefing) his concern “over the recent report by the Kosovo authorities and the subsequent media commentaries against the presence of the UN Mission (UNMIK) in the north, which have risked placing United Nations staff in danger.” Vis-a-vis demands from the Albanian side that UNMIK leave the north, he said the UN “would be prepared to hand over its functions in northern Kosovo to a structure which is legitimate and acceptable to all communities, in accordance with the United Nations policy of status neutrality.” Until then, he urged all sides “to continue their cooperation with UNMIK in delivering its mandate.” The UN Special Representative in Kosovo warned that continued tensions and low level incidents in the north endanger peace and stability there. Russian UN Representative Vitaly Churkin pointed the finger at “unilateral” actions taken by Pristina and its international allies to change the reality in northern Kosovo, including Albanian construction efforts in north Mitrovica and plans to impose a court there without coordinating with local Serbs or UNMIK.

There was another grenade attack in north Mitrovica on the 12^th. A car and property of a local Serb living in the Bosnia Mahala was reportedly damaged with no injuries. But in general, since the dual arrival of the new head of EULEX and colder weather, things have been relatively quiet in the north.

Attention south of the Ibar is, of course, on the upcoming election. Into this, the hero of Kosovo Albanians is apparently stepping, and not lightly. Currently in Kosovo to help campaign for the Self-Determination Movement, William Walker reportedly told an Albanian news outlet that he supports the creation of a Greater Albania formed from Albania and Kosovo.

I'm with Walker on this. Despite the repeat warning from Soren Jessen-Petersen and Dan Serwer (in the New York Times) against changing borders in the Balkans to settle remaining issues, it may be the best way forward. Multi-ethnic democracy is a misnomer. In no post-conflict state anywhere has imposition of majority-rule democracy failed to magnify and keep alive the ethnic differences that led to the conflict in the first place. Indeed, even in the advanced democracies of Europe, ethnic differences have led to break-ups – Czechoslovakia – and impending splits – Belgium. The only way to bring real peace to ethnically conflicted countries is either to enforce – through prolonged international presence – a power-sharing model or to divide the population into their own areas. The US and Europeans still seem to not get this. They rail against the power-sharing model in Bosnia that has at least preserved the peace to urge its replacement with a more centralized government that would only increase conflict between the parties. Where borders can be redrawn to allow ethnic communities to have their own political entity, it should be allowed. Where they cannot, the international community can play a role in ensuring minority rights and local self rule.

Albania has a decent record in treating ethnic minorities. The question of its unity with Kosovo should be left to those directly involved. But northern Kosovo remains functionally – and according to UNSCR 1244 – legally part of Serbia. As long as the northern Serbs refuse incorporation into Kosovo (or Greater Albania), the issue of the north will remain unresolved. The border could be drawn at the Ibar.