Serbia rejects Kosovo plan / Partition alternative
"Serbia rejected a United Nations proposal on Friday that paves the way for an independent Kosovo, setting up a possible showdown between its supporter, Russia, and the West over the disputed territory’s final status.
. . . The proposal, which is still subject to weeks of negotiation between the two sides, will require Russian acquiescence in order to win Security Council approval. Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power over the plan, has until now backed Serbia’s position that Kosovo must remain an integral, even if an autonomous, part of Serbia.
. . . While the plan does not mention independence, its provisions describe de facto statehood for Kosovo — providing for an army, constitution and flag — though it would still be protected by NATO and overseen by the international community for the indefinite future. The plan would also allow Kosovo to declare independence if the package is approved by the Security Council." [1]
"Kosovo, which is more than 90 percent ethnic Albanian, has struggled since the early 20th century to free itself from the dominance of Belgrade. With the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s the fight began anew, but Serbia resisted fiercely.
The war was marked by atrocities on both sides and a horrific cycle of 'ethnic cleansing,' as the formerly mixed Serbian and ethnic Albanian populations pulled apart.
. . . While many people see fixing Kosovo’s eventual independence as the last chapter of Yugoslav disintegration, Serbs see it as the dismemberment of their homeland.
The province . . . is home to the Serbian Orthodox Church’s most sacred sites.
. . . [F]ew Americans . . . have as deep an emotional connection to place as many Europeans have.
That is why Europe . . . is not united behind the United Nations plan. Countries facing their own secessionist movements . . . are skeptical of what they see as an American effort to jam a solution into place so Washington can turn its attention elsewhere." [2]
"[E]very proposal assumes partition must be ruled out.
. . . The international community’s all-Kosovo fixation has forced it to concoct complex power-sharing schemes to accommodate two mistrustful populations before considering independence. The costs of this ‘‘standards before status’’ approach have been predictable: an uncertain investment environment, frustrated expectations and a fragility that destabilizes the region.
It would be one thing if these mutually suspicious populations were inextricably linked, but they aren’t. The majority of Serbs in Kosovo live in a small strip in the far north. Partition would allow them to continue living in Serbia. The remaining pockets would be less threatening to Albanians, making Kosovo more governable, and the small, remaining Serbian population safer.
. . . There is nothing magic or moral about Kosovo’s borders. They are an artifact of Tito’s Yugoslavia, and they never corresponded to ethnicity or contributed to social peace. If borders fail to ensure security or promote welfare, they should be changed. That’s why we favored separating Kosovo from Serbia in the first place. That is a partition, too. So why is severing a smaller part of Serbia inherently wrong?"
Op-ed by Timothy William Waters who "helped prepare the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Kosovo." [3]
sources
[1] Smith, Craig S. (The New York Times). Serbia Rejects Plan That Could Lead to Kosovo Independence. February 3, 2007.
[2] Smith, Craig S. (The New York Times). On Road to Kosovo Independence, a Warning: Go Slow. February 4, 2007.
[3] Waters, Timothy William. (The New York Times). A Separate Peace. February 1, 2007.
posted: sunday, february 4, 2007, 10:06 AM ET
tags: kosovo
. . . The proposal, which is still subject to weeks of negotiation between the two sides, will require Russian acquiescence in order to win Security Council approval. Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power over the plan, has until now backed Serbia’s position that Kosovo must remain an integral, even if an autonomous, part of Serbia.
. . . While the plan does not mention independence, its provisions describe de facto statehood for Kosovo — providing for an army, constitution and flag — though it would still be protected by NATO and overseen by the international community for the indefinite future. The plan would also allow Kosovo to declare independence if the package is approved by the Security Council." [1]
"Kosovo, which is more than 90 percent ethnic Albanian, has struggled since the early 20th century to free itself from the dominance of Belgrade. With the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s the fight began anew, but Serbia resisted fiercely.
The war was marked by atrocities on both sides and a horrific cycle of 'ethnic cleansing,' as the formerly mixed Serbian and ethnic Albanian populations pulled apart.
. . . While many people see fixing Kosovo’s eventual independence as the last chapter of Yugoslav disintegration, Serbs see it as the dismemberment of their homeland.
The province . . . is home to the Serbian Orthodox Church’s most sacred sites.
. . . [F]ew Americans . . . have as deep an emotional connection to place as many Europeans have.
That is why Europe . . . is not united behind the United Nations plan. Countries facing their own secessionist movements . . . are skeptical of what they see as an American effort to jam a solution into place so Washington can turn its attention elsewhere." [2]
"[E]very proposal assumes partition must be ruled out.
. . . The international community’s all-Kosovo fixation has forced it to concoct complex power-sharing schemes to accommodate two mistrustful populations before considering independence. The costs of this ‘‘standards before status’’ approach have been predictable: an uncertain investment environment, frustrated expectations and a fragility that destabilizes the region.
It would be one thing if these mutually suspicious populations were inextricably linked, but they aren’t. The majority of Serbs in Kosovo live in a small strip in the far north. Partition would allow them to continue living in Serbia. The remaining pockets would be less threatening to Albanians, making Kosovo more governable, and the small, remaining Serbian population safer.
. . . There is nothing magic or moral about Kosovo’s borders. They are an artifact of Tito’s Yugoslavia, and they never corresponded to ethnicity or contributed to social peace. If borders fail to ensure security or promote welfare, they should be changed. That’s why we favored separating Kosovo from Serbia in the first place. That is a partition, too. So why is severing a smaller part of Serbia inherently wrong?"
Op-ed by Timothy William Waters who "helped prepare the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Kosovo." [3]
sources
[1] Smith, Craig S. (The New York Times). Serbia Rejects Plan That Could Lead to Kosovo Independence. February 3, 2007.
[2] Smith, Craig S. (The New York Times). On Road to Kosovo Independence, a Warning: Go Slow. February 4, 2007.
[3] Waters, Timothy William. (The New York Times). A Separate Peace. February 1, 2007.
posted: sunday, february 4, 2007, 10:06 AM ET
tags: kosovo
Labels: federalism, kosovo
posted by eric at 9:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home