La Parisienne of Cafébabel.com - Kosovo

Interview - What kind of recognition for Kosovo?

Jean-Séb 2.0 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:42:00 +01:00

Rather than independence, I was more interested in the issue of recognition. What are the principles that support the recognition of Kosovo? Which sovereignty for the inhabitants of Kosovo? For a better understanding, I met with Barbara Delcourt, author of “Droit et souverainetés. Analyse critique du discours européen sur la Yougoslavie” (Law and sovereignties. A critical analysis of the European speech on Yugoslavia) PIE/Peter Land editions.

Snejana Jovanovic: What is behind the principle of “conditional recognition”?

Barbara Delcourt: Conditional recognition was a mechanism the European countries invented when the Federation of Yugoslavia was dismantled in the beginning of the ’90s and consisted in the obligation for political entities who wanted to be recognized to respect a certain amount of principles in international law, that is in a word to be a respectful democracy of a rule of law state, Human Rights and fundamental liberties; in addition they had to respect what we called the right of minorities. The idea was that considering the projects’ legitimity, the fact of respecting a certain number of rules all acknowledged could ensure a form of stability in the Balkans.

S.J.: is this kind of recognition relevant for the Kosovo case?

The case of Kosovo is a little different. This mechanism has not really been used to justify Kosovos’s recognition. When the Republics of Yugoslavia had been recognized, two principles had been adduced by the Europeans to justify their decision. There was, first, the principle of effectivity and the principle of legitimacy. The principle of effectivity states that a country can be recognized only if certain conditions are satisfied, which have nothing to do with the usual principles of conditional recognition. These conditions hold to the fact that we must be in presence of political entities with certain characteristics. This political entity has to be capable of independence and autonomy towards the outside. There must be a sovereign government, a more or less delimited territory and a government capable of exercising its authority on all its territories and inhabitants. These criteria have been mainly used to define what a state is in international law and serve as conditions to its recognition. It is therefore essentially based on the existence of an actual power. In certain cases within the Yugoslavia situation in the beginning of the ’90s, this effectivity was not always obvious, especially, I think, in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In this case we tend to refer to the principle of legitimacy and in particularly to the right to self-determination. The idea was: we recognize the independence of the republics asking for it because the population living on these territories has a right to self-determination. At that time, the European policy was justified along these two lines.

SJ: How about today?

We do not really use these two lines anymore, since, today, in the Kosovo case we can refer neither to the principle of effectivity, nor the principle of legitimacy. Kosovo is now under international administration of its territory and does not have an autonomous and independent government able to maintain power over all the territory. And the right to self-determination has not been invoked since we precisely do not want other minorities living in other states to use the right to self-determination and justify separatism.

SJ: how can the recognition of Kosovo be qualified with?

This recognition applies more to a declaration of intention of independence rather than to the recognition of a State because what the Ahtissari plan implements and what is in mind of every Europeans delegates is not to recognize a sovereign State at all but a political entity limited in its powers by the intervention of exterior actors: first the UNO through the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), then the EU management after the declaration of independence. In the end, this is the separation from Serbia which is being recognized rather than an independent State and we actually speak of recognition of a limited and controlled sovereignty. It is not in deed about recognizing a sovereign State. It is what we call ‘earned sovereignty’ that is a sovereignty that is deserved and depends on the attitude of the Kosovo authorities.

How does it change the EU policy?

Actually what is interesting is that in the ’90s, the European Community and its member States (the EU did not exist yet) tried to justify its political position with international law that they interpreted, often in a funny way, but still in reference to it. It is absolutely different today. This sounds a little paradoxical because at the same time the EU is on the verge of acquiring a status of international actor different from other actors like traditional powers because of heavy references to the Charter of the United Nations and international law and total support of the principles of multilateralism; but, in the Kosovo case, a operation will be launched without the Security Council’s green light. So we cannot speak about multilateralism. References to international law are no longer made because it would serve neither the partition of Serbia nor the fact that we do not respect the right the inhabitants of Kosovo have to be sovereign since some sort of international protectorate will be created. The justifications used are Ethics and Moral based or relies on politics and geostrategy.

*Barbara Delcourt is professor at the Institute of European Studies of ULB.

Snejana Jovanovic

The resolution of Serbia’s Parliament

BabelParis — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:13:00 +01:00

With a very large majority (220 for, 13 against and 1 abs.), Serbia’s Parliament has adopted a resolution on the preservation of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. All international treaties signed by Serbia with the European Union, including the Stabilization and Association Agreement, will have to respect these principles. Serbia will break its diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes Kosovo’s statehood. The army “is ready to defend the citizens of Kosovo” reports the Balkan Post.

A resolution with no consequences for the UNO temporary administration in Kosovo (…). Their spokesman indicated: “what the Serbian Parliament does depends on its deputies. Their orientations cannot influence Kosovo in any ways since Kosovo is under the United Nations control.”

Read on B92.net, Fatmir Sejdu, President of the Province of Kosovo judged that “this resolution reminds the past Serbian methods. It is a constitutional aggression towards Kosovo that has no legal bases. Kosovo’s fate cannot be decided by Serbia and in fact, the policy Serbia is actually pursuing is exactly the one that led us to the worst from clashes and bloodshed to the tragedy that befell not only the peoples of Kosovo but the others too.”

This resolution occurs after the meeting of the Security Council that heard Serbia Prime Minister, Vojislav Kostunica and the President of Kosovo. In a long and solemn speech, the Serbian Prime Minister declared his attachment to international law and more specifically to the respect of frontiers integrity and States sovereignty. President Sejdiu said he was prepared to form a new government and when questioned on a possible declaration of independence, he answered in favor of it, “alongside his friends”.

Beyond the differences between Serbians and Albanians, the Russian and American stances keep diverging. The Russian ambassador to the UNO, Vitali Tchourkine, submitted to the UN Security Council a declaration bill to extend the negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade on the status of Kosovo; when through their Secretary of State, Condolezza Rice, the Americans retort that “Kosovo and Serbia will never a united state anymore. I think there is no question about that.”

According to Ria Novosti, the head of the American diplomacy stated: “we will speak with Serbians and Kosovo Albanians, we will talk with every interested parties, including the Russians, since we have to carry out measures to stabilize the situation while closing the tragic pages of the Balkan States history so the European construction will definitely be achieved 17 years after the end of the “Cold War”.

The UN Security Council will re-open the debates on the Kosovo status next January.

Snejana Jovanovic www.kosovo.over-blog.net

Translation : Cécile Zandzvliet

Summit to discuss EU involvement in Kosovo

BabelParis — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:47:00 +01:00

As a result of a summit held on 14th December that brought together the 27 heads of state or government that form the European Union, the EU has “underlined the need to move towards a legislative agreement with regards the issue of Kosovo, an agreement which is vital for the stability of the region”, indicating that Kosovo “as a result of this agreement, ought to be democratic and multiethnic, in agreement with the legally constituted state and the protection of minority groups and cultural and religious heritage”.

The EU has decided to send a peace-keeping mission (made up of Police men and women and other police officials), who will be charged with speeding up the arrangements for a deployment of 1800 police men and women who will take-over from the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). The Portuguese Prime Minister, José Socrates, (Prime Minister of the country currently presiding over the EU), confirmed that “it is very clear that the EU intends to play a leading role in the future of Kosovo and its statute”. The question of independence of the Serbian province mainly populated by Albanians has not been commented upon. Nonetheless, a quicker integration of Serbia into the EU is hoped.

On this point, however, the EU remains divided. France is clearly supporting the Albanian separatists; a stance given weight on Friday by the French Secretary of State charged with Foreign Affairs, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, who declared that “the declaration of independence is inevitable”. The French President Nicolas Sarkozy was joined by the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who believes Serbia’s application to join the EU must depend on its ability to accept Kosovo’s independence.

According to the Guardian on 12th December, the four main players (France, Great Britain, Italy and Germany) will recognise the province’s independence 48 hours after its proclamation, even without a UN mandate. During this time, a conference will be organised bringing together supporters with the aim of putting in place a series of projects targeting improvements to local infrastructure, such as electricity supply and roads systems. The article maintains that this recognition will take happen within the frame-work of a plan proposed by Slovenia, the country to whom the EU presidency will pass in January 2008.

On the other hand, Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Romania and Slovakia have all declared that they will not recognize unilateral independence. It is worth remembering at this point that, decisions taken by the European Council (made up of Ministers of Foreign Affairs) must be taken unanimously. According to the AFP, the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that it will be for “each Member State” to formally recognise the split from Serbia.

Confusion exists between formal recognition by the European Union (however improbable) and individual recognition by Member States. In reality, though, what possible legal value will recognition by individual States have, without the support of the wider European organization? Consequently, Serbia will continue with its application to join the EU, breaking along the way many diplomatic ties with existing Members. How it is possible that a candidate State to the EU can have such distant diplomatic exchanges with the existing Members of an organization it so desperately wants to join?

Snejana Jovanovic www.kosovo.over-blog.net

The EU and Kosovo

BabelParis — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:58:00 +01:00

On the 10th December, the European Council met to discuss the Western Balkans; a meeting which brought together Foreign and/or European Affairs Ministers from across the EU. The Council reached the following conclusions regarding Kosovo, “important steps need to be taken in order to strengthen the status of legally constituted state, the fights against corruption and organized crime, as well as in order to improve dialogue between communities. The Council made clear that it is essential to continue with the effective implementation of norms in Kosovo, in particular with regards to the protection of minority groups and of sites of noted historical and religious importance. The resolution of the issue surrounding the status of Kosovo will facilitate the implementation of anticipated reforms. The European Union will continue to assume responsibilities within Kosovo”.

With regards to Serbia, the Council said that signing up to this Stabilisation and Association agreement “remains dependant on the full and total cooperation of Serbia with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia”, also inviting the Country to further accept the reforms.

On Friday, heads of EU states or governments will gather for a summit in Brussels. According to news agencies, it would appear that the summit is ready to announce that “the negotiation process on the future statute of Kosovo is exhausted” and that the European Union is ready to “play a central role” with regards to the process of redefining the statute.

According to the Unity Team, the declaration of independence of Kosovo Albanians will take place before May 2008, in coordination with their Western partners. “From today, Kosovo will enter into intensive discussions with its international partners. We cannot wait to announce the date of the declaration of independence of Kosovo”, stated a spokesperson for Skënder Hyseni.

Serbia has opened a Serbian government office in Kosovska Mitrovica, in the north of the heavily serb-populated province. The office was officially opened by the Minister of Kosovo and Metochie Slobodan Samardžić. Steven Schook, the number two in the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) immediately reacted by saying that the opening of this office did not fall under the remit of Resolution 1244, that “it represents an illegal and unacceptable move by the (X)”.

A spokesman for the mission, Alexander Ivanko, confirmed during a press conference held in Priština that, “the opening of this office represents a political provocation”. He made clear that the Mission had informed the UN headquarters in New York and that they were awaiting an answer. “We are awaiting for an answer, but in the meantime we will work to settle the issue as soon as possible”, he said, adding that this problem needs to be examined by both the UNMIK and Contact Group.

Snejana Jovanovic http://www.kosovo.over-blog.net

Translation : Neil Saddington

An impartial document

BabelParis — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:49:00 +01:00

According to news agencies, the Russian-American-European “Troika” charged with negotiating the outline of the future statute of Kosovo will submit on 7^th December next year an impartial document to the Secretary General of the United Nations. A text without proposals, but which will contain suggestions made as much with the Albanians in mind as the Serbians, as well as ideas from the “Troika”.

“As far as I can see, it is an impartial document. We are relying on the UN Security Council to analyse this document with objectivity and to then enter into objective discussions based upon it. In spite of current, and foreseeable, disagreements surrounding the future statute of Kosovo, within the “Troika” we are committed to working off the same page, taking into consideration that which is urgent and essential for all”, said the Russian mediator Bocan-Harčenko.

According to Tom Casey, a spokesman for the US State Department, the United States consider it necessary to go further with the actual defining of the Statute, referring to Martti Ahtisaari’s plan. Nevertheless, they are happy that the two parties involved “have wholeheartedly agreed to renounce the use of force and violence”. “We are expecting all parties to demonstrate a certain level of responsibility and reserve so that we can start moving forward”, he added.

Statements by the current Prime Minister of the Albanian Government of Kosovo support this, so much so that Agim Ceku wished to reassure Brussels by saying, “certain people are worried about a unilateral declaration of independence, however, independence will be declared in full cooperation with our international partners given the United Nations, NATO and the people of Kosovo have worked that way for 8 years”. He is convinced that will have no violent repercussions.

As far as Belgrade is concerned, it is far from over. During the “Les Carrefours des Balkans” Conference held in Brussels, Deputy Minister Bozidar Djelic stated that “it is never too late to arrive at an agreement”, citing the cases of Belgium, Northern Ireland and Palestine. While the Serbs have ruled out the use of force in the event of a declaration of independence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic explained that there has always been an extensive set of measures available ranging from “the hardest to the softest in terms of diplomacy”.

On the ground, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is ready for any eventuality. John Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said that their plans included the possible reinforcement of the 16,000 soldiers already deployed in Kosovo. During a press conference in Washington, he repeated that he is ready to defend the application of Resolution 1244 “given that this Resolution forms, for NATO, the legal framework of our presence in Kosovo” and he hopes that NATO Diplomats will support this.

The United Nations Security Council will examine the report from the “Troika” mediators, following their four months of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, on 19^th December, in the company of representatives from both Serbia and the Albanian population of Kosovo. The following day, Ambassadors will discuss the issue informally with the Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon.

Snejana Jovanovic http://www.kosovo.over-blog.net

Translation : Neil Saddington

Last round : No miracle !

BabelParis — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:07:00 +01:00

There has been no miracle after these 120 days of negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade on the definition of a status in Kosovo. No agreement came out of these three last days of hectic negotiations in Baden near Vienna, Austria. No independence or even autonomy. No settlement on the status. Only remain the international protectorate and fears for the future.

However, as far as the outcome of this series of meetings is concerned, some nuances can be raised. Primo, we witnessed for the first time direct talks. The two sides sat face to face and shared their viewpoints. Secondly, another positive result came out which is far from being just a detail for the man in the street; in deed « the two sides have committed themselves to rule out resorting to force in the search of a solution » as one of the three mediators pointed out. In the name of the inhabitants of Kosovo we can rejoice.

Wolfang Ischinger, the European mediator added: “after the diners that followed the meetings, and we had two of them, Hashim Thaci with Agim Ceku the minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia and President Tacic spent hours to talk with no mediation or secretaries on different questions. We hope and wish that this level of communication will be preserved”. They spoke in Serbian.

In front of the journalists, the delegation from Belgrade repeated that they had made actual propositions in terms of autonomy and the Unity Team restated that negotiations for independence were useless. Hashim Thaci, winner of the last elections, yet convinced that independence is to come, indicated: “I’ll be doing anything to maintain good relations with the Serbians living among us. The program of our government, our economy, our development must respect the sake of every single Kosovars, not only Albanians; Kosovo must the country of all of its inhabitants” reports B92.com.

Besides, the three mediators have dissonant perspectives on the possibility of subsequent negotiations. The Russian mediator, A. Bocan-Harceko considers the continuation of the mediation after December 12^th to be useful when American and European mediators, respectively F. Wisner and W. Ishinger consider their mission to end at this very same date.

From Madrid, the spokesman of the Secretary of the United Nations, Farthan Hak declared today that “optimism does not define the times we live in; however we do not want to give up and think that the troika must not renounce and rather that we have time.”

According to him, M. Ban Ki-Moon regards an agreement as being still possible and encourages the troika to remain engaged in the process of negotiations and do as much as possible before the deadline of December 10^th in order to reach a consensus.

The three mediators have still in deed to meet again in Belgrade and Pristina on December 3^rd and then write a report to be given to the General Secretary. It is therefore within the United Nations that the discussions will continue.

Snejana Jovanovic www.kosovo.over-blog.net

Translation : Cécile Zandvliet

New proposal, new refusal

BabelParis — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:34:00 +01:00

After the Hong Kong model, Belgrade proposes the idea of autonomy based on the Åland model. The autonomous province of Åland of which the main part of the population speaks Swedish is under Finnish sovereignty. Pristina refuses this model. The freshly elected Kosovo Prime Minister Ashim Thaci focuses on modalities of a proclamation of independence and its recognition.

The Åland islands lie between Sweden and Finland. Finland has granted a broad autonomous status to the Swedish speaking Åland on 12 October 1951. The islands were granted the right to retain their language, to collect their own taxes and tariffs as well as preserving their culture and traditions.

The 20 November negotiations constituted the fifth and penultimate session before the 10 December deadline when the arbitrators of the Russian American European troïka will have to hand in a report to Ban Ki Moon the Secretary General of the United Nations.

According to the Agence France Presse, the European arbitrator W. Ischinger “seems, unlike Moscow, to set aside the possibility that these talks carry on after the 10 December deadline’. Thus, he hopes to announce the next step of a scenario thought about for months, but fear by many European countries : the definition of conditions according to which most European Union member states would be ready to recognise a unilateral proclamation of independence by the Kosovars despite Russia’s hostility.’

The Russian arbitrator A. Bocan-Harcenko has confirmed that during the last negotiation round, the Albanian side was suggested to sign a document in which they would renounce on the idea of the creation of a “big Albania”. He said that the Albanians have rejected this formulation because “all the parties have agreed right from the start that such a scenario was not conceivable.” “The fact that some processes cannot be stopped with a piece of paper is something else” told the diplomat to the Russian newspaper “Izvestija”.

Because of a possible escalation of violence in Kosovo if Albanians self-proclaimed independence, the State Department has ranked Serbia among the high risk countries in which a “constant danger” diplomacy will be set up in the same way Americans authorities have done so in the past for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria amongst others reports the Croatian newspaper “vecernji list”;

The next round of talks, which will be the first to last longer than a day, will take place from the 26 to 28 November in Baden, Austria.

Snejana Jovanovic www. Kosovo.over-blog.net

Translation : Julien de Cruz

W. Ischinger proposes a « neutral status »

BabelParis — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:47:00 +01:00

Wolfgang Ischinger, European mediator of the American Russian European troika for finding a solution to the future status of Kosovo, proposes a ‘neutral status” for the talks that took place on November 20 in Brussels between Belgrade and Pristina. For once, Pristina and Belgrade agree: the two parties rejected the proposition right away, though for different reason, each one standing for his own conception of the Serbian province mainly inhabited with Albanians.

According to agencies, W. Ischinger declared that the purpose of this proposition was to normalize the relationships between Pristina and Belgrade, and that a possible solution “would mention no word about the status”. “An agreement on a neutral status will be a proposition intended to create some relationships that would not be based on a possible determination for the status of Kosovo. Today, no relationships do exist between Serbia and Kosovo, and no try for a any collaboration either” a German diplomat underlined.

He explained that it would be an agreement for a collaboration based on economic, trade and fight against criminality issues. The agreement would define obligations for Kosovo such as, for instance, consulting Serbia on minority and frontier issues, which would, according to the European mediator, “be in the interest of both parties”.

This proposition draws a turning point in the role undertaken by the troika as, through making a proposition on the status of Kosovo, it becomes an actor after being a mediator, indicates Javier Solana’s spokeswoman Cristina Gallach in the daily Albanian speaking newspaper Koha ditore.

In Blic Online, a Serbian daily, the Russian mediator, Alesksandar Bocan- Harčenko, underlined straight after W. Ischinger’s statement that the troika was thinking about many various propositions in order to stimulate both parties for the meeting taking place on November 20.

Nevertheless, the day before, on November 14, the Russian agency RIA Novosti reported that, according to the Russian minister of foreign affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, the “troika” of the Contact Group for Kosovo had elaborated a solid basis for negotiations on the status of the province, still underlining that we should “avoid to predetermine the outcome of the negotiations and to stop a date”.

The deputy secretary for political issues working at the American State department, Nicolas Berns, reiterated his support for a “supervised independence” if the two parties don’t manage to find an agreement on December 10 (date when the troika will issue its report to the general secretary of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon), and he warned Serbia against any use of violence.

An astonishing proposition as it has been weeks now since the government of the pro-European Serbia loudly claimed that in case of any unilateral proclamation of independence from the Albanian party, no Serbian would deploy on Kosovo. Consequently, Serbia made a choice of non violence and planned to build parallel institutions.

Snejana Jovanovic Kosovo.over-blog.net / Translation : Sophie Helbert

Belgrade proposes Hong Kong

BabelParis — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:38:00 +01:00

During the fourth round of direct negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina taking place in the Austrian capital, Belgrade officially proposed to take Hong Kong as a model to define the future status of Kosovo. Pristina declined the offer, the Serbian media B92.com reports.

The Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica and the Serbian President, Boris Tadic said that Hong Kong could serve as a model to find a compromise between the Albanian and the Serbian parties. “This is a case where all is regulated on a legal basis, this example should not be imitated, the most important is that the message conveys the spirit of international law”, said V. Kostunica who is still convinced that this will pave the way to a compromise whereas keeping in accordance with both the United Nations’ Charter and the Serbian Constitution.

According to Boris Tardic’s word in Blic Online: “Moreover, no party has the liberty to take unilateral measures as far as constitutional and sovereignty issues are concerned. With such a ruling, international frontiers don’t change and remain protected thanks to the collaboration with the international community; whereas the deployment of security forces is strictly limited to the local level, which guarantees order and peace.”

According to the daily Albanese newspaper Zeri, the Unity Team’s spokesman, Sender Hyena, said that : “there cannot be any negotiation on Kosovo and Serbia’s sovereignty. We are for a sustainable solution. The only stable solution is the independence of Kosovo. It cannot be an example as the historical background of Hong Kong and that of Kosovo are different”. Blerim Shala, the coordinator of the Albanese delegation, the “Unity Team”, declared in an interview to Voice of America that, more than ever, the last meeting in Vienna proves that there is no hope for a solution.

Hasim Tachi, chief of the democrat party of Kosovo (DPK) and member of the delegation considers that it is impossible to reach a compromise with Belgrade on the status of Kosovo, and rejects the proposition: “Shall we keep on negotiating a hundred years with the Serbs, we will never reach any compromise. Belgrade hopes that Kosovo will remain part of Serbia. Our position doesn’t change. It is our right and our will that Kosovo gains its independence”.

Hong Kong had been a British colony from 1842 to its handover to China in 1997. It is governed as a special administrative region under the Basic law of Hong Kong. The wording of the common Sino-British declaration is that China promises that Hong Kong would keep certain autonomy until 2047 at least, that is to say 50 years after the transfer of sovereignty. According to the so-called “One country, two systems” policy, Hong Kong would keep its legal system, its currency, its political system, its international sports’ teams and its immigration laws.

According to Dragoslav Rancic, a specialist of International Affairs working for the Serbian weekly Nin, the proposition cannot be enforced: “First of all, Hong Kong and China are both inhabited by Chinese people while in Kosovo, 90% of the population is Albanian and doesn’t wish to live with Serbians. The context is different; I was surprised of such a parallel because the solution was conceived for a country with two systems”.

As usual, all the parties considered that the latest negotiation didn’t lead to real improvements, B92.com says. The next date set for pursuing negotiations will be November 20^th in Brussels.

Snejana Jovanovic // www.Kosovo.over-blog.net

Translation : Sophie Helbert

Like the two German states

BabelParis — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:39:00 +01:00

Agencies report that Wolfgang Ischinger, the EU mediator to the troika, made a new proposal to the Albanian and Serbian delegations concerning Kosovo's future status, inspired by the agreements between the two German states, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

Photo : Wolfgang Ischinger

The German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger is inspired by the model of the history of the two German states before their reunification: as he explains, the negociation process about Kosovo is at a standstill, and needs action, because he considers that "the two parts -serbian and albanian- have irreconcilable positions". Vecernje novosti, a Serbian daily newspaper, wonders: "the question is to know if W. Ischinger is just making experiments or if he seriously intends to divide Serbia like the Americans and the Soviet Union did for Germany".

The Serbian newspaper Politika puts the stress on the fact that "the German mediator's proposal leads the way to the State for Serbian province". The idea being that Serbia and Kosovo would organise their relations like two states, as it happened for the two German states. It is chiefly for this reason that Belgrade refused the proposal, and that Pristina still hasn't given an official answer.

Ischinger isn't inspired by the fall of the Berlin wall, which marked the reunification of Germany, but by what happened 20 years before, on December the 21st 1972: the "Basic treaty" that normalized relationships between GDR and FRG, signed in Berlin after a year of difficult negociations.

The "Basic treaty" negociated between the two German states contains ten short articles. The elements of this normalization are: the developement of a normal relationship on neighbourly terms, based on equal rights – each side making a commitment to renounce to any form of violence ; the inviolability of common boundaries and the respect of territorial integrity; the shared renounciacion to intend to represent the other State on an international scale; and finaly, a permanent interchange of representation.

It allowed the two States to be admitted together into the United Nations (UN) on September the 18th 1973. Israël only stood against the international recognition of the GDR. This was the first moment when the possibility of reunifying the two German states was brought up. The treaty was a de facto –but not de jure- guarantee of the recognition of the GDR. The de jure recognition, spelled out by law, is definitive, full and complete, which means that it produces all the juridic effects of recognition. Whereas the de facto recognition is provisional and revocable.

This is how Berlin became a major symbol of the Cold War. At a time when the newspaper announces the emergence of a new Cold War between the Americans and the Russians, what W. Ischinger's proposal principally unveils is the state of the relationships between the two main powers. Besides, the fact that it is not clearly said that the troika met or not –as it was announced- can let us think that there is an important disagreement between the three mediators, that is to say between the EU representative Wolfgang Ischinger, Franck Wisner for the US and Alexandre Bocan-Hartchenko for Russia.

Snejana Jovanovic / www.kosovo.over-blog.net

Translation : Alessia Bertoli

The hardest day

Jean-Séb 2.0 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:34:00 +01:00

On each side, the last round of talks mark a turning-point in the negotiation process. Following the 22 october reunion in Vienna, all the parties agree to say that it had been tough.

Above all differences, two points of view clash as to what the negotiation objectives are if they are to be considered as negotiations at all. Belgrade is looking for a settlement, Pristina wants independence.

Belgrade is very attached to form which ,as is widely known, reveals content. Blic On line publishes Belgrade's answer to the 14 points set out by the troïka named “Belgrade's principles on the pursuit of negotiations in Kosovo and Metohija”. As an example, where the troïka refers to “Belgrade”, the Serbs correct it and use the term “Serbia”. Further on, at the fourth paragraph, is laid down the same sentence word for word as the one found in the main proposition which reads “there will be no going back to the pre-1999 situation”. On this everyone agrees but things get more complicated after the comma when “as a consequence the futur status of the Province must be resolved on the basis of Resolution 1244 of the Security Council.”

The two serb ministers present at the talks are very satisfied. “The tone is now exceptionally serious. We are discussing of the involvment to the negotiation process, of the issue as to whether we can move towards a particular direction or not, of whether a minimal agreement can be found, not only on paper but also concerning the general direction taken during the pursuit of the talks” explains Foreign Affairs Minsiter Vuk Jeremic.

On the albanian side, anger seems to be the main dominating feeling, as explains Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdjiu “This was not an easy meeting because there has been an attempt to move the talks to an unreasonable direction with their (the Serbs') dreadful idea of autonomy treating Kosovo as a serb province and the lack of readiness to recognise Kosovo's independence.” The president refers to “tension, verbal ping-pong and collisions.” He blames the Serbs for carrying on considering Kosovo as a province.

Hashim Thaçi, the Prime Minister has added : “I never believed in a settlement with Serbia on the future of Kosovo, and I still don't believe it now. Relations between Serbia and Kosovo are of a particular nature because Serbia came to Kosovo by force and before leaving committed genocide on the albanian population.” He then carries on to affirm that Kosovo independence will take place after december 10.

In effect, Kosovo is a serbian province majoritarily populated with Albanians. This is well established in resolution 1244. Still as a matter of fact, there has not been a genocide in Kosovo but war crimes committed on both sides (See Le Monde Diplomatique article “Chroniques d'un génocide annoncé” dated March 2000). Albanians consider as legitimate their claim to independence because they have been led to believe it would happen because of what the american State Department told them before the Kosovo war. However, the Americans have voted for resolution 1244 at the Security Council on June 10^th 1999. Some might say the serbs are misinterpreting the letter of the law and use it as a weapon. Against whom ? Against what ? This really what this is all about, the letter of the law, the one voted at the Security Council to avoid the use of force and institute the rule of law in Kosovo.

Snejana Jovanovic / Traduction Julien de Cruz