Brussels, 21/02/2008 (Agence Europe) - A very large majority of MEPs supports the main elements in the common position on Kosovo, adopted by the External Relations Council on 18 February, and which the acting president of the Council, Dimitrij Rupel, presented to the European Parliament on Wednesday 20 February in Strasbourg. Firstly, the observation that Kosovo constitutes a sui generis case that does not question the principles of international law (particularly with regard to national sovereignty and territorial integrity) and which cannot be used as a precedent for other secessionist movements or regions. Secondly, the fact that recognition of an independent Kosovo is within the individual remit of member states. Lastly, the crucial importance the EU attaches to an independent Kosovo developing as a state subject to the rule of law, and which respects minority rights, particularly those of Serbians.
Many MEPs stressed that a negotiated status for Kosovo, supported by the UN Security Council, would have been preferable to the Kosovan parliament's unilateral declaration of independence on 17 February in Pristina. Several speakers, however, explained that despite all the possible diplomatic efforts made, this was not enough to obtain a result and was why it is necessary to accept the “new reality” and make the best of it. Doris Pack (EPP-ED, Germany) spoke on behalf of her group and reiterated this idea too, as did Jan Marinus Wiersma (PES, Netherlands): “We call on the Kosovan authorities to implement Mr Ahtisaari's proposals, that they invest in a multi-ethnic state and provide sufficient guarantees for Serbs living in Kosovo”. Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck (ALDE, Belgium) affirmed that the fact that Serbia had said today that it would never recognise the secession of its province did not necessarily mean that things would remain as they are in the long term. She highlighted the example of Belgium's independence in 1830 (which rebelled against belonging to the United Kingdom of the Netherlands), “after which, it took the Netherlands nine years before it recognised Belgium”. Joost Lagendijk (Greens/EFA, Netherlands) said on behalf of his group that independence was the “unavoidable sequel to what happened in the Serbian province in 1998-99” under the Milosevic regime. Speaking for the GUE/NGL, Francis Wurtz from France alluded to a “significant unease”. He asserted that the unilateral declaration of Kosovo risked “dangerously weakening the future credibility of international law…and placing the balance of forces above the law, subsequently opening up a Pandora's box. This is serious”. With its civilian EULEX mission in Kosovo, the EU had taken on a “heavy load” whilst its responsibilities remained “vague”. Slavi Binev went even further and said that unilateral independence was an “unacceptable precedent”. He stated that recognising independence “would end up recognising ethnic cleansing and the destruction of hundreds of Orthodox churches”. He said that he was against “the creation of a Muslim state whose only goal will be the promotion of trafficking”. Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL, Greece) also referred to the “explosive” situation. Spanish MEPs Manuel Medina y Ortega (PES) and Francisco Millan Mon (EPP/ED) whose country does not want to recognise Kosovo, questioned the legality of the new state and said that this was “a failure for the international community”. This pessimism is not shared by the Slovenian Liberal Jelko Kacin, who welcomed the conditions in which the proclamation of independence was made. He asked them to trust Kosovan citizens, while ensuring the Serbs of Kosovo had the chance to “co-manage” the new country. Vytautas Landsbergis (EPP/ED, Lithuania) said that a country that had exterminated part of its population had no claim to sovereignty. Austrian Socialist Johannes Swoboda would like to believe that cohabitation between Kosvars and the Serbian minority was possible. Hungarian Socialist Csaba Tabadji showed understanding towards Serbia and said that Hungary had also lost a lot of territory in the past, but because of Serbia's treatment of the Albanians of Kosovo it had “lost its moral right to control Kosovo”. Mr Tabadji did not understand the misgivings expressed by Romania and Slovakia, whose territory was not under threat. The Hungarian MEP concluded that this could even become a “positive precedent and a good example of respect for minority rights”. Richard Howitt from the British Labour Party said that what counted now was guaranteeing good treatment of the Serbian minority and keeping the door open to Serbia, which should, however, firmly turn its back on a past marked by the Milosevic regime. Louis Queiro (EPP-ED, Portugal) said that they should offer its hand to Serbia. Elmar Brok from Germany, speaking for the same group, defended the same position but said that they had to clearly indicate to the Serbs that violence was unacceptable. Brok regretted that in this affair, Europe had not been up to defending a position between the two poles of the USA and Russia. (H.B./L.G.)