[AKI-News] Why are U.S. Officials turning a deaf ear to Kosova's final status?

[kosova at jps.net]

Advocates for Kosova's Independence (AKI)
May 30, 2002

==================================
  ** AKI Newsletter, Issue 11 **
==================================

AKI Statement:

This past week, Kosova's new Prime Minister traveled to Washington. But no
matter where he went or whom he met with, American officials turned a deaf
ear to his requests for a timeline regarding a settlement on the final
status of Kosova. With the first three years of UN administration now up in
Kosova, the current U.S. policy is one of do-nothingism. The thinking both
here and in Europe seems to be that by refusing to acknowledge the
overwhelming reality of the dwindling Albanian patience, the demand for a
diplomatic process to settle the fate of the troubled province, they will
create some kind of stability instead of a divisive, mistrustful stalemate.

Meanwhile, Serb leaders seem to be aligning themselves for the partitioning
of Kosova in exchange for independence. UNMIK sits in the middle,
increasingly relying on its extensive veto powers as a governing style.
Everyone should recognize that despite the NATO war, no one has yet begun
talks for a peace plan in Kosova. Insisting that politicians and media
remain silent on the one issue that is crucial to all ethnic groups in
Kosova, that of final status, will sooner or later push the resolution of
this conflict into the streets, as the Prime Minister tried to point out.


==================================
      Recent Headlines
==================================

"Radical ethnic Albanian groups will turn to violence if the international
community does not deal quickly with Kosovo's desire for independence from
Serbia, the province's prime minister warned yesterday."

"Ethnic Albanian MPs want Kosovo's full independence -"

"Belgrade has sent its minority mixed signals, which encourage division
rather than a united Serb strategy. The official policy has been to exercise
influence through Kosovo's institutions with the aim of keeping the province
"de jure" part of Serbia and forestalling its independence. At the same
time, Belgrade continues to hint that it may accept Kosovo's partition,
despite official denials of such strategy. Indeed, Covic recently spoke of
his preference for Kosovo's division into Bosnia-style entities, at the UN
in New York."

___________________________________________________________

Professor Hurst Hannum of Tufts University has a book called Autonomy,
Sovereignty, and Self-determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting
Rights. The following  points are taken from an article by Professor Hannum,
a international law expert, on independence movements. The article appeared
in Foreign Affairs Journal, March/April 1998.

   I. International Opinion regarding Independence

1. Post cold war conflicts for secession are a substantial and ongoing
  threat to international peace
2. Therefore internationals must have an objective process for both
  intervention and settling these disputes, but they don't. This vagueness
  is in itself destabilizing
3. There is an inherent conflict in decolonization situations- between the
  concepts of self-determination and sovereignty
4. The right to secession has no defined steps or conditions even though 55
  colonies have become states since 1960--Simple military force does not
  create legitimacy
5. Neither sovereignty or self-determination is an absolute right but is
  moderated and limited by other rights and obligations that must be
recognized
  at the same time
6. Such conflicts cannot be solved by internationals' simple political
  preference for one side over the other
7. Much of the time, exercising self-determination has been limited and
  defined by great power rivalries.

  II.  What is the Appropriate Level of Foreign Involvement
       in Demands for Self-Determination?

1. Separation cannot create a disturbance in international peace
2. New state must protect individual rights and group identities
 and facilitate participation in government by all (ie human rights
 standards are respected and protected, and multiethnicity promoted)
3. Scotland and Quebec have no valid claim for secession because the rights
  and cultural identity of those citizens are democratically protected
4. Self-determination movements cannot be called terrorist movements by
outsiders

  III. When Secession Demands Are Valid

1. when massive discrimination and human rights violations have occurred,
  esp if the majority population supported this approach
2. when local self-government has been rejected by the central authority,
3. when even the most minimal demands for change have been rejected

 IV. Liberation Movements and Their Recognition

1. Both sides must finally agree to the separation before international
  recognition can take place
2. New boundaries should be defined by a series of votes by citizens
3. the creation of non-viable ethnic enclaves is wrong
4. no ready-made use of force(based on partisani mentality) instead of
  diplomacy in separation movements should be encouraged
5. Those  who claim to speak for the nation must elected in free and fair
  elections

=============================================
Prime Minister Rexhepi's Visit to Washington
=============================================

David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Radical ethnic Albanian groups will turn to violence if the international
community does not deal quickly with Kosovo's
desire for independence from Serbia, the province's prime minister warned
yesterday.

Saying that close to 100 percent of the province's majority ethnic Albanians
favor independence, newly installed Prime
Minister Bajram Rexhepi told a Washington audience that prolonging Kosovo's
uncertain status was a recipe for
disaster.

"There are radical groups ready to start a new conflict if we do not see
action in the next few years," said Mr.
Rexhepi, a surgeon who served in the guerrilla Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
during the NATO campaign against the government of former Yugoslav strongman
Slobodan Milosevic.

Kosovo has enjoyed limited autonomy under a U.N. protectorate since the end
of the war, with troops from the United States and other Western powers
still providing the bulk of the security for the province. Kosovo's new
government, headed by President Ibrahim Rugova and Mr. Rexhepi, came to
power in March after elections late last year.

The major powers have purposely left Kosovo's ultimate political fate
unclear, with many Western European leaders
in particular worried that independence for Kosovo could undermine the
fragile democratic government in Belgrade and
inflame ethnic tensions across the Balkans.

The fledgling Kosovo government faces a host of problems, from the status of
tens of thousands of Kosovo Serbian
refugees looking to return home, to rebuilding the shattered economy, to
dealing with corruption and organized crime, much of it linked to former KLA
operatives.

A report issued yesterday by the United Nations and the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe found
that the plight of minorities in Kosovo is "unacceptable," despite a decline
in lethal attacks.

Walter Irvine, head of the U.N. refugee operation in Kosovo, said at a press
conference in Pristina, the provincial capital: "Aggression against
minorities has taken a softer style that we call harassment. But such
continuous harassment has strong psychological consequences, which in
combination make people not want to move."

But Mr. Rexhepi said demanding an answer to Kosovo's final status was
"neither an extreme position or an irrational
luxury," despite the interim government's massive challenges at home.

He said the new administration's ability to promote the economy, the rule of
law and democratic reforms depended on
its ability to extend its authority throughout the province and to deal with
the desire of an overwhelming majority for
independence. Although prone to squabbling among themselves, all of Kosovo's
major ethnic Albanian political parties favor independence.

Mr. Rexhepi also said that NATO, and, especially, U.S. troops, should remain
in the province, even if independence
from Serbia is achieved. Camp Bondsteel, a major U.S. base in southeastern
Kosovo, has been operating there since the
1999 war.

==================================

UN vetoes Kosovo border resolution

Thursday, 23 May, 2002, 15:16 GMT 16:16 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_2004000/2004509.stm


- Ethnic Albanian MPs want Kosovo's full independence -

The United Nations mission in Kosovo has taken the unprecendented step of
invalidating a resolution taken by the province's local assembly, which was
seeking to challenge a territorial settlement.

- Steiner struck the motion down within minutes of its adoption -

The UN administrator in Kosovo, Michael Steiner, within minutes declared
"null and void" the resolution adopted by the ethnic Albanian-dominated
assembly which rejected a border agreement between Yugoslavia and Macedonia.

Kosovo, which borders Macedonia, legally remains part of Yugoslavia. The
unanimously passed resolution is being viewed as an attempt by the province
to act as an independent state.

The incident is also seen as the most serious rift in relations between the
province's ethnic Albanian leadership and the UN since the world body took
charge of the province in June 1999.

The vote is also likely to earn strong criticism from Belgrade - and has
already prompted a walkout from the assembly by the Serb deputies.

Warnings

Ethnic Albanian MPs - who press for Kosovo's outright independence - have
been unhappy with the border agreement between Yugoslavia and Macedonia
since it was signed last year.

They say that over 4,000 hectares of land were removed from Kosovo without
any consultation with the local population.

The BBC's Nicholas Wood in Pristina says that while some UN officials have
sympathised with the MP's grievances, the UN Security Council and the
European Union, have warned that the assembly has no rights to discuss
issues affecting the region's borders or internal security.

Letters from the Security Council and the EU not to go ahead with the vote
were presented to the assembly before the session.

They warned that Kosovo's reputation would be damaged if the motion was
adopted.


==================================


COMMENT: BELGRADE'S KOSOVO POLICY ENDANGERS LOCAL SERBS
Balkan Crisis Report

Serbia has improved its relations with the UN but does not disguise its
attempts to control Kosovo through local Serbs
By Denisa Kostovicova in Cambridge

Since the fall of Slobodan Milosevic, Belgrade has improved its relationship
with the UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK. But it still tries to control the
Kosovo Serbs, even though this policy may ultimately endanger the latter's
position.

Recent statements by the Serbian prime minister, Zoran Djindjic, have stoked
fears that Serbia aims to regain control of Kosovo affairs. In February, he
called for moves to bolster Serbian influence over the judiciary, education,
health and security in those enclaves in the region where Serbs remain.

A subsequent crisis in Kosovo drew criticism of this policy. It blew up
after the Kosovo Serbs, following Belgrade's recommendation, refused to take
part in the region's government unless they received an extra ministerial
post.

The UN chief administrator, Michael Steiner, defused tensions by offering
the Serbs a government post and a position in the UNMIK office dealing with
the return of more than 200,000 displaced members of their community.

No sooner was that crisis solved than the older crisis in Mitrovica, close
to the border with Serbia proper, flared up again. Unrest in the
Serb-controlled north of the divided town has raised the question of whether
Belgrade still accepts Kosovo's territorial integrity.

Serbs in northern Mitrovica refuse to cooperate with UNMIK. Belgrade's
reluctance to cut off support for their local institutions, such as the
municipal council and the judiciary, hints at a carve-up strategy that would
see the far north of Kosovo join Serbia proper.

These developments have disappointed hopes raised after the Democratic
Opposition of Serbia, DOS, took over in autumn 2000.
Although DOS overturned Milosevic's policy of total obstruction in Kosovo,
progress has not been as straightforward as the international community
expected.

At first, Belgrade signaled goodwill by endorsing Serbian participation in
Kosovo parliamentary elections in November 2001. This was after protracted
negotiations with the UN administrator resulted in the signing of the Common
Document, which affirmed both sides' "determination to address actively the
justified concerns of the Kosovo Serbs".

But Belgrade has continued to try to direct the Kosovo Serb's policy, not
least because they expect nothing else.
Belgrade's dealings are conducted largely by deputy premier Nebojsa Covic
who backed Serb participation in the protectorate's elections. However,
Belgrade has sent its minority mixed signals, which encourage division
rather than a united Serb strategy.

The official policy has been to exercise influence through Kosovo's
institutions with the aim of keeping the province "de jure" part of Serbia
and forestalling its independence.

At the same time, Belgrade continues to hint that it may accept Kosovo's
partition, despite official denials of such strategy. Indeed, Covic recently
spoke of his preference for Kosovo's division into Bosnia-style entities, at
the UN in New York.

In fact, Belgrade appears to be playing to both Serbian camps in Kosovo, the
one in Mitrovica that seeks union with Serbia and the second in enclaves
such as Gracanica, near Pristina, which fears the consequences of partition.

Rada Trajkovic, the head of the Return Coalition in the Kosovo parliament,
belongs to the second camp and supports cooperation with Kosovo
institutions. But she is battling against the northern Mitrovica faction
under Marko Jaksic, vice-president of the Democratic Party of Serbia, DSS.

While Belgrade tries to exert influence through the Return Coalition, its
failure to rein in the northern Mitrovica Serbs threatens the alliance's
very survival.

Belgrade's failure to control the Serbs of northern Mitrovica has fed
suspicions in the international community that it wants to split Kosovo
along the line of the Ibar river, which flows through the town. This policy
is undermining Serbia's relations with UNMIK and may diminish its influence
over Kosovo affairs in the long term. But it is UNMIK that controls the fate
of the Serbs in Kosovo: they only receive token material support from
Belgrade. The most vital matter - security - is entirely in international
hands.

Steiner has set his face firmly against partition. "We have managed to unite
Germany and we will achieve the same thing in Kosovo," he said.

Belgrade must, in short, dispel any illusion about a restoration of Serbian
domination over the whole of the region and encourage community leaders in
northern Mitrovica to cooperate with UNMIK. Any alternative policy may
isolate Belgrade and leave the Kosovo Serbs out on a limb.

- Denisa Kostovicova is a junior research fellow at
  Wolfson College, Cambridge.


###

Questions/Comments, email AKI-NEWS at aki at alb-net.com
AKI Website: www.alb-net.com/aki/