29 October 2007 - UNILATERAL ACTION ON KOSOVO STATUS WOULD AFFECT SERBIA’S EUROPEAN PATH, BELGRADE OFFICIALS CLAIM AT NATO PA SEMINAR [Press release]

The situation on the ground remains very uncertain. Participants in the seminar heard many fears about the potential consequences in Serbia, as well among Kosovo Serbs, of the unilateral independence of Kosovo. However, several speakers emphasised that it was equally unclear what would happen in Kosovo if the status quo were to be prolonged.

In view of this looming crisis, former UN envoy to Kosovo Kai Eide called for moderation on all sides and urged the international community to “turn every stone” to find a compromise solution acceptable to both sides before the 10 December deadline set by the UN Secretary General for the negotiations led by the EU-US-Russia troika. He warned however that a continuation of the status quo could have destabilising consequences for Pristina.  Now more than ever, there was a need for clarity and for closure.  “You have to draw the line somewhere”, he said.

In his keynote address, the Norwegian diplomat soundly criticised the international community for neglecting, as part of the status process, to provide “sufficient incentives” for Kosovo Albanians to implement the standards that would make Kosovo politically and economically viable.

Arben Qirezi, advisor to Kosovo’s prime minister, disagreed with Eide’s assessment on standards implementation, insisting that many provisions of the Ahtisaari plan had already been adopted.  He further accused Belgrade of undermining this process by encouraging Kosovo Serbs to boycott elections and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG).

Other participants argued that further implementation of standards was not possible under the current arrangement, and that the status quo in Kosovo was no longer sustainable.  Steven Schook, Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Kosovo, stated that true economic development was very problematic without a status resolution, as foreign investments would not flow in until there was institutional clarity. In addition, worrying signs of a loss of trust in the PISG and the role of the international community presented a serious risk for Kosovo’s security.

Jonas Jonsson, head of the EU Preparation Team in Kosovo, maintained that a new arrangement along the lines of the Athisaari report, with the EU in the lead, would be able to guarantee the major elements for Kosovo stability, notably institutional and administrative decentralization, protection of cultural heritage and full respect for the rights of all ethnic groups.  Most people in Kosovo were united by a desire to become EU citizens and this helped EU efforts to develop civil society and promote economic growth.  “Kosovo is a European problem and needs a European perspective”, he stated.

In contrast, Serbian Deputy Minister for Kosovo and Metohija, Ljubomir Kljakic, maintained that the Ahtisaari report’s proposals were based on double standards, and an independent Kosovo would represent little more than new Western colonialism. “Kosovo, he insisted is “a blackhole”, and it is not sustainable economically, unless within Serbia.

EU and NATO officials and analysts presented a mixed assessment of Serbia ’s progress towards Euro-Atlantic integration.  Judy Batt of the EU Institute for Security Studies, bluntly stated that “the European perspective for Serbia is dying” and wondered: “who is killing it?” While praising the current Serbian government for demonstrating more commitment to EU integration than the previous executive, she regretted the “chronic weakness of the internal drivers for reform”, noting that reform is only happening under external pressure.  Ms Batt argued that the Serbian leadership appears not to understand the rules of the game, or rather, to be playing a different game, “using Kosovo as a new ground of confrontation between East and West”. She insisted that resolution of Kosovo’s status was not a condition for Serbia ’s European integration, but nonetheless represented “baggage hindering Serbia ’s EU aspirations”.  Unfortunately, the attraction of EU membership in Serbia, long seen as the magnet which would facilitate the acceptance of an unpopular decision on Kosovo, is waning.

Co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia also remained a serious problem and a condition for further EU integration, as recalled by Carla Del Ponte, the Tribunal’s Chief Prosecutor (link).

NATO officials delivered a similarly mixed picture of Serbia  ’s relationship with the Alliance. Following the invitation to join Partnership for Peace (PfP) in 2006, Belgrade had stepped up its efforts in the area of defence reform, notably in setting up wide-ranging defence reform working groups, as described by both Defence Minister Dragan Sutanovac and Army Chief of Staff, Lt Gen Zdravko Ponos. NATO officials underlined however that much remained to be done.  Compared with other regional states, Serbia still appeared to lack a clear political commitment to work with NATO.  Basic steps - notably the adoption of important legislation on defence and the armed forces - had still not been taken due to resistance in certain circles and disagreements between the two major parties in the government.  Frank Boland, NATO’s Director of Force Planning, supported the Minister’s “up-beat” assessment of the defence reform process.  He noted that the level of engagement by Serbia and NATO was very high, and that Serbia had made great progress in the year since it joined PfP.  However, he stated that NATO was prepared to offer more – including an Individual Partnership Action Plan - and he felt that Serbia was “not yet fully taking advantage of what PfP has to offer”.

As NATO prepares for an important summit in Bucharest  in April 2008, Kai Eide expressed the hope that all countries of the region would be ready to take one step further towards integration.  He warned however that progress by some countries should not be held hostage to the slower pace of others.  Jaroslaw Skonieczka, NATO’s Director for Euro-Atlantic Integration and Partnership, widened the discussion of further integration by noting that “there is a risk that Serbia will fall behind”. He warned that “the prospects of different speed in the region is becoming real”.

The 67^th Rose-Roth seminar gathered in Belgrade some 60 legislators from NATO and partner countries, together with a significant number of academics and experts, in the Serbian capital to discuss with government officials, international officials and opinion leaders from the Balkans about the major regional political and security issues.