Following the ICJ's ruling on Kosovo's independence, a failure to heed the region's Serbs will fuel tensions on the ground
The ruling by the international court of justice (ICJ), that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", has returned the issue of Kosovo's status back to the realm of politics after a hiatus of almost two years.
With the EU still divided, Russia and China vehemently opposed to independence and Serbia now taking its case to the UN general assembly, the dispute is far from resolved. Having witnessed a spike in tensions prior to the ICJ's ruling, the international community will continue to have a key role in maintaining peace and stability throughout Kosovo – one that demands strict adherence to the requirements of status neutrality.
The ICJ's ruling is unlikely to encourage any of the five EU member states opposed to Kosovo's independence to change their stance any time soon.
Serbia, meanwhile, has deployed envoys to some 55 countries in an effort to prevent further recognitions and submitted a draft resolution to the UN general assembly calling for "peaceful dialogue" in order to find a "mutually accepted solution". The Kosovo government, for its part, has spoken somewhat prematurely about ending international supervision.
Though the EU has offered to mediate in talks between Kosovo and Serbia, it cannot take a more definitive stance on the issue, despite US calls for greater European unity towards Kosovo. In many senses, therefore, the political challenges related to Kosovo's contested status remain as daunting as ever.
In the meantime, tensions on the ground continue to mount. On 2 July, one Kosovo Serb was killed and 10 others wounded after a grenade was thrown at a group of protesters in northern Mitrovica: an act described by Serbia's political leaders as "terrorism" and a "provocation". The fatal incident came as some 2,000 Kosovo Serbs protested against the planned opening of an office of the Kosovo government in northern Mitrovica, demonstrating once more their opposition to attempts to impose institutions on the north.
Several days later, a Kosovo Serb member of the Kosovo assembly, Petar Miletic, was shot in the leg outside his apartment in northern Mitrovica; it is unclear who carried out the attack.
These events were immediately followed by calls from Kosovo's interior minister, Bajram Rexhepi, for special police to be deployed in northern Kosovo – a move that Serbia's president, Boris Tadic, termed an "open threat of war".
With Rexhepi also insisting that the Kosovo government is "determined to continue the implementation of their plan for the north", it is clear that the international community must work to foster dialogue as a means of mitigating the intensely held differences of opinion over the status question. This requires that both domestic and international actors, particularly the International Civilian Office, refrain from articulating and tacitly supporting strategies for contending with the north that ignore the legitimate apprehensions of Kosovo Serbs and the six-point plan of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
Most disconcerting, however, is the failure of the international community to realise the dangers of unilateralism within a context as strained and sensitive as that of northern Kosovo. Several days prior to 2 July, the US ambassador to Kosovo, Christopher Dell, apparently suggested that the greatest terrorist threat in Kosovo stemmed from the predominantly Serb-populated north. Such divisive and one-sided statements do little to foster a climate conducive to preventing violent confrontations of the sort witnessed, as they only serve to seemingly legitimise the stringent actions of one party to the conflict.
Failure to guarantee the security of Serbs in Kosovo will only fuel calls for the Serbian government to take a tougher stance towards the EU rule of law mission in Kosovo (Eulex), with whom it has been willing to constructively co-operate so long as it remains status neutral.
As March 2004 most clearly showed, Kosovo is vulnerable to sporadic outbreaks of low-scale violence that only the presence of international forces is capable of stemming. Aside from the ICJ ruling and simmering tensions in the north, the formal enthronement of the new head of the Serbian Orthodox church, Patriarch Irinej, in Pec in early October is another notable event that could fuel further unrest in the absence of restraint from the respective religious, political and community leaders.
It is often the case, however, that those involved in political violence go unpunished. As Human Rights Watch points out, "the post-1999 retaliation attacks against Kosovo's minorities, as well as attacks against some ethnic Albanian political figures, remain largely unpunished. The March 2004 riots targeting Serbs, Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians – which began in Mitrovica – also remain under-investigated and under-prosecuted."
The recent incidents in northern Mitrovica demonstrate once again the dangers of unilateral measures – whether concerning the imposition of institutions and laws, or the cutting of power supplies and mobile telecommunications networks – where inter-ethnic tensions are prevalent.
This unfortunate reality means that Nato must be extremely cautious as to how rapidly it decides to draw down troops, while simultaneously re-emphasising the important role that the UN interim administration mission in Kosovo (Unmik) has in ensuring a status-neutral approach to northern Kosovo. Eulex is likely to find itself increasingly squeezed from both sides – with Pristina, boosted by the ICJ's ruling, eager for a more resolute stand towards the north, while Belgrade pushes for a more even-handed approach to the Kosovo Serbs.
Such a scenario will do little to help foster the conditions necessary for any negotiations on "technical" issues in the foreseeable future. The international community, particularly Eulex, therefore needs to be resilient in asserting its stance of status neutrality for the sake of future dialogue and stability.
With the EU still divided, Russia and China vehemently opposed to independence and Serbia now taking its case to the UN general assembly, the dispute is far from resolved. Having witnessed a spike in tensions prior to the ICJ's ruling, the international community will continue to have a key role in maintaining peace and stability throughout Kosovo – one that demands strict adherence to the requirements of status neutrality.
The ICJ's ruling is unlikely to encourage any of the five EU member states opposed to Kosovo's independence to change their stance any time soon.
Serbia, meanwhile, has deployed envoys to some 55 countries in an effort to prevent further recognitions and submitted a draft resolution to the UN general assembly calling for "peaceful dialogue" in order to find a "mutually accepted solution". The Kosovo government, for its part, has spoken somewhat prematurely about ending international supervision.
Though the EU has offered to mediate in talks between Kosovo and Serbia, it cannot take a more definitive stance on the issue, despite US calls for greater European unity towards Kosovo. In many senses, therefore, the political challenges related to Kosovo's contested status remain as daunting as ever.
In the meantime, tensions on the ground continue to mount. On 2 July, one Kosovo Serb was killed and 10 others wounded after a grenade was thrown at a group of protesters in northern Mitrovica: an act described by Serbia's political leaders as "terrorism" and a "provocation". The fatal incident came as some 2,000 Kosovo Serbs protested against the planned opening of an office of the Kosovo government in northern Mitrovica, demonstrating once more their opposition to attempts to impose institutions on the north.
Several days later, a Kosovo Serb member of the Kosovo assembly, Petar Miletic, was shot in the leg outside his apartment in northern Mitrovica; it is unclear who carried out the attack.
These events were immediately followed by calls from Kosovo's interior minister, Bajram Rexhepi, for special police to be deployed in northern Kosovo – a move that Serbia's president, Boris Tadic, termed an "open threat of war".
With Rexhepi also insisting that the Kosovo government is "determined to continue the implementation of their plan for the north", it is clear that the international community must work to foster dialogue as a means of mitigating the intensely held differences of opinion over the status question. This requires that both domestic and international actors, particularly the International Civilian Office, refrain from articulating and tacitly supporting strategies for contending with the north that ignore the legitimate apprehensions of Kosovo Serbs and the six-point plan of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
Most disconcerting, however, is the failure of the international community to realise the dangers of unilateralism within a context as strained and sensitive as that of northern Kosovo. Several days prior to 2 July, the US ambassador to Kosovo, Christopher Dell, apparently suggested that the greatest terrorist threat in Kosovo stemmed from the predominantly Serb-populated north. Such divisive and one-sided statements do little to foster a climate conducive to preventing violent confrontations of the sort witnessed, as they only serve to seemingly legitimise the stringent actions of one party to the conflict.
Failure to guarantee the security of Serbs in Kosovo will only fuel calls for the Serbian government to take a tougher stance towards the EU rule of law mission in Kosovo (Eulex), with whom it has been willing to constructively co-operate so long as it remains status neutral.
As March 2004 most clearly showed, Kosovo is vulnerable to sporadic outbreaks of low-scale violence that only the presence of international forces is capable of stemming. Aside from the ICJ ruling and simmering tensions in the north, the formal enthronement of the new head of the Serbian Orthodox church, Patriarch Irinej, in Pec in early October is another notable event that could fuel further unrest in the absence of restraint from the respective religious, political and community leaders.
It is often the case, however, that those involved in political violence go unpunished. As Human Rights Watch points out, "the post-1999 retaliation attacks against Kosovo's minorities, as well as attacks against some ethnic Albanian political figures, remain largely unpunished. The March 2004 riots targeting Serbs, Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians – which began in Mitrovica – also remain under-investigated and under-prosecuted."
The recent incidents in northern Mitrovica demonstrate once again the dangers of unilateral measures – whether concerning the imposition of institutions and laws, or the cutting of power supplies and mobile telecommunications networks – where inter-ethnic tensions are prevalent.
This unfortunate reality means that Nato must be extremely cautious as to how rapidly it decides to draw down troops, while simultaneously re-emphasising the important role that the UN interim administration mission in Kosovo (Unmik) has in ensuring a status-neutral approach to northern Kosovo. Eulex is likely to find itself increasingly squeezed from both sides – with Pristina, boosted by the ICJ's ruling, eager for a more resolute stand towards the north, while Belgrade pushes for a more even-handed approach to the Kosovo Serbs.
Such a scenario will do little to help foster the conditions necessary for any negotiations on "technical" issues in the foreseeable future. The international community, particularly Eulex, therefore needs to be resilient in asserting its stance of status neutrality for the sake of future dialogue and stability.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου