EU is both united and divided. The immensity of the implications of what's been left unsaid in the Kosovo affair, is as great as what actually has been said. Official declarations and speeches by the authorities leave a large part of the situation in the shade. This has resulted in several information sources presenting the EU's attitude as a single point of view, when there are in fact two of them. Two ways of presenting the EU line were possible but each information source highlighted the choice it had selected itself: either that of the EU being rent asunder, due to some member states recognising the independent Kosovo and others not doing so; or that of its common position, thanks to a declaration unanimously adopted at the launch of the European support and surveillance operation (Eulex). Both are true and this column underlined their coexistence (EUROPE 9605). Javier Solana said that Europe's record has been good and declared. “collectively, the EU and its institutions have taken a very important decision and this is what the EU should have done as a whole”, although, the recognition of a new country is part of each member state's own remit. The same observation was made by the president of the Council Dimitrij Rupel: “the EU was able to speak with one voice and remain united”. According to Bernard Kouchner, the French minister for foreign affairs, who had previously been a representative of the UN in Kosovo from 1999-2001, “we cannot say that Europeans are divided; it's a great victory for Europe”. This interpretation hides divergences regarding the new state.
National positions are understandable. On a case by case basis, the positions of the different governments are understandable. The most resounding objection came from Cyprus and can be explained by its own situation. The northern part of the island proclaimed its independence and separated under the protection of the Turkish army. If the unilateral proclamation of independence has been allowed, how can it be declared illegal and non-viable for Cyprus? It is true that the UN has not recognised the Turkish Republic of Cyprus but neither does it recognise Kosovo.
Other member states that have opposed independence, or have misgivings about it, are all confronting their own domestic demands for independence or autonomy. It is true that the United Kingdom recognised Kosovo's independence and this is what the Scottish MEP Ian Hudghton hurriedly declared during the European Parliament plenary: “I would like to see Scotland in the EU as a nation and not as an observer”.
An edifying debate. The EP debate has illustrated that the solemn affirmations about the unique nature of the Kosovan situation not threatening the principle of “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries”, is not shared by all. It is true that a clear majority of the European Parliament, while asserting that a negotiated status would have been preferable, thought that they had to “accept the new situation” on two conditions: the new state has to be democratic and respect minorities - its future, as well as that of Serbia, is in the EU as a member state. According to this majority, Serbia's current attitude should not be over-dramatised: Ms Neyts-Uyttebroeck pointed out that it took the Netherlands nine years to recognise Belgium's independence. According to the Hungarian MEP Csaba Tabajdi, Kosovo may even represent a positive precedent as an example for respecting minority rights.
Certain minority political groups do not agree, however. The GUE/NGL group has firmly condemned European acquiescence over Pristina's decision. According to its president, Francis Wurtz, this attitude dangerously weakens the credibility of international law by opening the way up to any similar proclamation elsewhere. He is sceptical about what will follow because the failure of the UN's protectorate has resulted in: “A GDP similar to Rwanda's; half the working population on the dole; more than 200,000 refugees and displaced persons; a multiplication of violence against minorities. All this despite international aid of €2bn and the presence of 17,000 NATO soldiers…It won't be Eulex that will be solving these problems”. According to the Left group, the EU's attitude has put the balance of forces above that of the law and “will nourish nationalism instead of drying up its sources”. The EU will therefore be recognising ethnic cleansing and the risk of the new state promoting illegal trafficking.
The parliamentary debate has therefore not concealed any concerns or reservations, which have been far more numerous outside the European institutions, including those expressed by certain governments. There are many doubts and the dangers have been pointed out. This column will be reporting on them over the next few days, as well as the reasons (objectively valid) that dictated the official position.
(F.R.)