It is easy to criticise the European position on Kosovo, but much more difficult to say objectively what else the EU could have done. The situation was painfully simple: 90% of the population of Kosovo refused to belong to the Serbian Republic. A few years ago, Serbs and Kosovars were fighting one another in a cruel war, responsibility for which they must share. It took the West's armed intervention (sometimes itself excessive) to bring an end to the conflict. Long and patient efforts to try to find ways for the two sides to co-exist failed. Certainly, we can dismiss the EU position - on condition that we set out at least the broad thrust of a reasonable and viable alternative. The EU has done all it could by committing itself to accepting the new separate states as future members. In a word: the EU position is a positive and constructive one, despite any differences among member states.
This general statement must not, however, lead us to lose sight of the objections and warnings both from capitals and from within the European Parliament (see yesterday's column), and the remarks of observers and commentators. I have spent a number of days gathering information, and this column will endeavour to summarise the observations and lessons drawn.
1. Repercussions elsewhere are inevitable. It is unrealistic and simplistic to claim that recognition of a new state, the independence of which was proclaimed on the initiative of the population, will not have consequences in other parts of the world. Certainly, according to the EU's official text, Kosovo is a one-off, which in no way sets any precedent. That is a hope, a wish, not a reality. Addressing the European Parliament, the Serbian foreign minister condemned the seriousness of a “secession for ethnic reasons”. While acknowledging that, in the past, the Kosovars had been oppressed, he drew a comparison between the Iraqi Kurds under Saddam Hussein and the Kosovars under Milosevic, pointing out that, in both cases, the oppression had ended and that the international community had not recognised the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan. In Spain, El País confirmed that the Basque authorities and the Basque National Party, the PNV, will convene the self-determination body (consulta) within eight months. Ossetia and Abkhazia believe they have more reasons than Kosovo to be able to decide their future. And this is only the beginning.
2. Intellectuals are giving thought. Claudio Magris, the author of Danube, an essential work if one is to begin to understand the historic reality and the attitude of the people living along this vast river, asked the starter question: what is it that gives a national group the right to become a state? He condemns “the incredible claim for every nationality to be a state”, likening it to “a barbarism, a call from the forest”. Timothy Garton Ash noted that within UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation) there are 69 members (ranging alphabetically from Abkhazia to Zanzibar) and that each one believes itself to be a special case. There are no criteria for deciding which groups can call for self-determination, and Mr Garton Ash drew the conclusion, “Of course, Kosovo sets a precedent!”
I have mentioned two internationally known and respected figures; I could mention others each with the same concerns and each, from his/her own specific direction, coming to the same conclusions.
3. Reasons behind Serbian wait-and-see policy. Those of Serbian origin in neighbouring countries (especially in Kosovo itself and Bosnia and Herzegovina) have become first in line for the right to self-determination, for obvious reasons. They are keeping quiet for the moment and Belgrade has not issued any demands quite simply because the official position is that all of Kosovo is Serbian and must remain so. One of the leaders of the Mitrovica Serbs said: “We will continue to live as before, abiding by the laws of Serbia, with our own institutions and voting in Serbian elections”. However, when the situation becomes clearer (and this can only be with the independence of Kosovo), who will be able to deny the above-mentioned Serbs the same right to decide for themselves? Kosovan Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi is the one who would seem to be divorced from reality when he says that Kosovo is a single, indivisible unit, its boundaries recognised and guaranteed under international law. They are recognised and guaranteed precisely as part of the Serbian Republic. Who can, in all honesty, say that one border cannot be changed and another can.
Other points have to be taken into consideration, particularly economic viability as a key element of genuine independence. We will come back to these points in this column.
(F.R.)