The Future of Kosovo
Much of the world’s attention remains focused on security concerns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a potential crisis is once again brewing in the Balkans. Kosovo is moving ahead with plans to declare independence, despite strong objections from Serbia and Russia, now that talks to settle the future of the Serbian province have failed. The response of the United States and world community in the coming weeks may determine whether the violence of the late 1990s resurfaces in this troubled region.
The United Nations has administered Kosovo since 1999, when NATO forces drove Serbian troops from the region after a bloody ethnic cleansing campaign against the majority Albanian population. The campaign left thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced. NATO troops, under a United Nations mandate, have remained in Kosovo ever since.
Even though former Serbian President Slobodan Milosovic was brought before the Yugoslav Tribunal in The Hague, and violence in Kosovo has by and large stayed under control, the future of the province remains unsettled.
Among other aspects of Ahtisaari’s sensible plan, which was supported by the United States, the U.N. Secretary-General, Britain, France, and other allies, are protections for Kosovo’s non-Albanian population. Unfortunately, Serbia and Russia are not willing to entertain the thought of Kosovo as an independent state.
While 90 percent of Kosovo’s population is Albanian, Serbians have been in the region for centuries and essentially view Kosovo as sacred ground. Serbia is willing to grant Kosovo more autonomy, but not independence. Russia, a staunch supporter of Serbia, has indicated that it will only support what Serbia is willing to accept. Earlier this year, in fact, Russia blocked U.N. Security Council approval of a plan that proposed internationally-sponsored statehood.
But Russia isn’t just acting in the interests of its ally Serbia. Moscow is also concerned about the potential “domino effect” of Kosovo independence on disaffected enclaves in the former Soviet Union and other areas of the world.
Representatives from the United States, the European Union, and Russia–the “troika"–admitted on December 7 that the four-month-long talks between Serbia and Kosovo had ended unsuccessfully and that “common ground was not found.” The United Nations had given the troika until December 10
In the wake of the failed negotiations, Kosovo’s Albanian leaders quickly stated that they will begin immediate talks with Western backers toward an independence declaration, which will likely come by spring 2008.
Russia would in all likelihood block admission of an independent Kosovo into the United Nations and refuse to acknowledge its independence, but the United States and much of the European Union are prepared to welcome Kosovo into the international community. In a nutshell, the future of Kosovo is as opaque as ever.
There are certainly no easy solutions to this morass, but in the short run it would be prudent for NATO to increase its presence in Kosovo to deter, and if necessary quell, violence if and when the province declares independence.
Certainly the chance of a negotiated deal looks grim given that both sides have dug in and don’t appear ready to budge. The U.N. Security Council is planning to debate the troika’s report this month and attempt to salvage a resolution. While it is unlikely that Russia will change its stance, the United States and the European Union should continue to pressure Russia to at least tone down its inflammatory rhetoric.
As for Serbia, the greatest point of leverage to ensure that the country takes a measured approach to Kosovo independence is that Serbia wants to be a member of the European Union, with a majority of the population supporting prospective E.U. membership even it means losing Kosovo. The United States and the European Union should continue to make it clear to Serbia that making good on its threats against Kosovo would only hurt Serbia’s E.U. aspirations.
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, poverty, Half in Ten Education Fund)
202.741.6285 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Anne Shoup (foreign policy and national security, energy, LGBT issues, health care, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7146 or email@example.com
Print: Crystal Patterson (immigration)
202.478.6350 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Madeline Meth (women's issues, Legal Progress, higher education)
202.741.6277 or email@example.com
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Tanya Arditi
202.741.6258 or firstname.lastname@example.org
TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or email@example.com
Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or firstname.lastname@example.org