News media are reporting today that the northern Kosovo Serbs have begun removing barricades after an agreement with KFOR. At the site in Zubin Potok that was the site of recent clashes, KFOR will keep a checkpoint that will now include local Kosovo police. Tanjug also reports that barricades on the road to Gate 1 in Leposavic are coming down. It is not yet clear if all the barricades will be removed or just some.
There is some expectation that the new agreement between Belgrade and Pristina on the crossing points plus the removal of some barricades might lead to the EU deciding favorably on Serbia's EU candidacy this week. As long as nothing else negative happens in the next few days, it at least will make it harder for Germany and others to deny Serbia.
But the real story may be that finally an opportunity has been created to end the current crisis in the north that began on July 25. The decision by the northern Serbs to at least test whether KFOR and EULEX are willing now to return to acting within their UN mandate is a wise and courageous one. The actions by KFOR and EULEX over the last few months to impose Kosovo customs at the northern boundary have given the local community in the north absolutely no reason to trust them. But within the context of the new agreement - which offers a framework for a status neutral approach to the northern crossing points - and to help remove any excuses for Berlin to veto Serbian candidacy, the northerners have apparently decided to act as if they do. It is now up to KFOR and EULEX to perform their duties as peacekeepers as mandated by UNSCR 1244 and not to seek to further the political agenda of any one side.
Now some words on "status neutral" and "trust."
Some have questioned the value and meaning of "status neutral." The term derives from UNSCR 1244 which does not settle the question of the status of Kosovo but provides for peacekeeping while that status is resolved. "Status neutral" does not mean, nor does it prevent, each side claiming that status has been decided. Pristina and its supporters assert Kosovo independence while Serbia and Serbs deny it. "Status neutral" does, however, establish a mandatory approach for those international elements - namely KFOR, EULEX and UNMIK - acting under the UN mandate in Kosovo. A status neutral framework for the northern boundary would simply mean that both sides accept neutral practical arrangements while the political dispute continues. Status neutral does not mean either side has given up their views on Kosovo's political status.
Some question how KFOR and EULEX can be trusted to remain neutral and carry out any agreements reached in a status neutral manner. Indeed, they have good reason to question these two Quint agents. But it is not really a matter of trust. The northern Kosovo Serbs have demonstrated, by their determined and peaceful resistance to the effort to impose a new political order on them, that they must be part of any process to achieve a stable and peaceful accommodation over the north. Their actions to protect what they see as the interests of their community are their ultimate guarantee. Nothing lasting can be done without them. Hopefully, KFOR and EULEX will not again be used to try and settle the northern issue through force. Clearly that does not work.
There is some expectation that the new agreement between Belgrade and Pristina on the crossing points plus the removal of some barricades might lead to the EU deciding favorably on Serbia's EU candidacy this week. As long as nothing else negative happens in the next few days, it at least will make it harder for Germany and others to deny Serbia.
But the real story may be that finally an opportunity has been created to end the current crisis in the north that began on July 25. The decision by the northern Serbs to at least test whether KFOR and EULEX are willing now to return to acting within their UN mandate is a wise and courageous one. The actions by KFOR and EULEX over the last few months to impose Kosovo customs at the northern boundary have given the local community in the north absolutely no reason to trust them. But within the context of the new agreement - which offers a framework for a status neutral approach to the northern crossing points - and to help remove any excuses for Berlin to veto Serbian candidacy, the northerners have apparently decided to act as if they do. It is now up to KFOR and EULEX to perform their duties as peacekeepers as mandated by UNSCR 1244 and not to seek to further the political agenda of any one side.
Now some words on "status neutral" and "trust."
Some have questioned the value and meaning of "status neutral." The term derives from UNSCR 1244 which does not settle the question of the status of Kosovo but provides for peacekeeping while that status is resolved. "Status neutral" does not mean, nor does it prevent, each side claiming that status has been decided. Pristina and its supporters assert Kosovo independence while Serbia and Serbs deny it. "Status neutral" does, however, establish a mandatory approach for those international elements - namely KFOR, EULEX and UNMIK - acting under the UN mandate in Kosovo. A status neutral framework for the northern boundary would simply mean that both sides accept neutral practical arrangements while the political dispute continues. Status neutral does not mean either side has given up their views on Kosovo's political status.
Some question how KFOR and EULEX can be trusted to remain neutral and carry out any agreements reached in a status neutral manner. Indeed, they have good reason to question these two Quint agents. But it is not really a matter of trust. The northern Kosovo Serbs have demonstrated, by their determined and peaceful resistance to the effort to impose a new political order on them, that they must be part of any process to achieve a stable and peaceful accommodation over the north. Their actions to protect what they see as the interests of their community are their ultimate guarantee. Nothing lasting can be done without them. Hopefully, KFOR and EULEX will not again be used to try and settle the northern issue through force. Clearly that does not work.
But what about the following scenario?
ReplyDelete(1) EU décides to in effect put off a decision on Serbia's candidacy as suggested by Spindelegger, thereby maintaining leverage over Serbian govt.
(2) In negotiations over details of implementation of IBM agreement, Eulex sides with Pristina as in the past, and "implements" accordingly to local Serbs' disadvantage.
(3) Serbian govt, desperate for EU candidacy, goes along with Eulex/Pristina.
(4) Local Serbs protest, leading inevitably to some violence on their side, which KFOR uses as an excuse to strong-arm local Serbs--acting, of course, in the name of the IBM agreement. Serbia leaves local Serbs in the lurch.
(5) Via salami tactics of this kind, local Serbs end up de facto under Pristina control.
Best way for this not to happen would be for Angela to balk at step (1), which would make sense for her if she really suffers from enlargement fatigue, but would be a mistake if she wants to impose her will on Serbia.
No?
Guggers, I think the option that would worst suit the aims of Thaci's backers would be to deny Serbia candidacy status. This would leave Tadić a lame duck and the government in Belgrade without legitimacy to enter into unpopular deals. For this reason I hope it happens, but I don't think it will. Probably they will go with Spindelegger's proposal or just grant Tadić candidacy outright and keep him alive for a while longer.
ReplyDeleteAlso personally I don't think Angela Merkel and her EU problems are that important here. Even if she has developed an enlargement-o-phobia new states other than Croatia joining the EU is at most a problem for long into the future for when she is no longer PM, but for now she has other more pressing problems.
Also lets recall that a huge amount of resources and effort were put into keeping Serbia on a pro-western setting. Serbia committed to a pro-EU path even when it is to its clear detriment is the fruit of labour of a giant government/think-tank/corporate machinery in the West that is ultimately bigger than just Angela Merkel.
For me, if Tadić is not handed candidacy it will be foremost an indication that Prishtina's backers are assured they have other players in Serbia that could take power and deliver what they want so that Tadić and DS are now expendable.
--> NEXT CRISIS
ReplyDeleteGreat job mr. Tadic! Pristina has just passed a motion to stop trade with Serbia.