Home
Komentari
Kulturna politika
Ekonomska politika
Debate
Prikazi
Hronika
Polemike
Prenosimo
 
 
Impresum
Pretplata
Kontakt
Oglašavanje
Novi broj
Prošli brojevi
Posebna izdanja
NSPM Analize
Linkovi
Debate:
Kosovo i Metohija
Srbija i Crna Gora
Srbija i NATO
Srbija među ustavima
Crkva i politika
Kuda ide Srbija?
Svet nakon 11. septembra
Istina i pomirenje na ex-YU prostoru
   
  Komentari:
Politički život
Kolumne Đ. Vukadinovića i S. Antonića
Kulturna politika
Ekonomska politika
Polemike
BiH - deset godina posle Dejtona
Savremeni svet
   
  Pregledi:
Prenosimo
Prikazi
Hronika
Ankete
   
 

NSPM IN ENGLISH

NSPM IN ENGLISH - Serbia, Democracy and the issue of Kosovo and Metohija

 

 

Elena GUSKOVA

Does Russia Have an Action Plan for the Balkans?

The negotiations process in 2007 between Belgrade and Pristina has ended. Its results are reported to UN General Secrtetary. Until December 19, 2007, when the member-states of the Security Council must solve the complicated issue of whether Kosovo is granted independence or a continuation of negotiations is recommended to either side. There is almost no time left.

Kosovo's independence is for Americans a settled issue. Washington expected that to happen as early as the end of 2006. Russia was allegedly to blame for “the delay.” Unexpectedly for many Moscow expressed a different (its own!) point of view thus making it impossible to approve of Kosovo's separation from Serbia accompanied by the unanimous silence of the five standing members of the UN Security Council. The first reaction in the West was surprise! Everyone had grown accustomed to Moscow 's long-gone independent opinions on the problems of the Balkans. Then everyone decided that the stance Moscow took was accidental and thus, not strong. Then they tried to “reason with” and bring pressure to bear upon Moscow . Security Council comrades-in-arms several times doctored the text of the final resolution, expressing desire to despatch to Kosovo a special group, but no matter what, they never succeeded in making Moscow agree to Kosovo's independence under Albanians. So they changed the format of the negotiations process. Throughout 2007 the delegations from Pristina and Belgrade held slack negotiations under the guidance of the so-called “group of three” that included a Russian representative.

Many analysts write that the mission of this group was aborted, because right from the start the negotiating sides stood on opposing positions. Let me disagree with this. Indeed, their positions differed, but the negotiations were exactly the tool to bridge the gap between them But if one of the sides is promised independence, and the other side forced to eat humble pie, positive results cannot be expected. The failure of negotiations does not mean that they are in a stalemate. They were just poorly organised. And that happened because the West tried to solve one more problem in the Balkans the old way, the way it acted in the 1990s, expecting that at their guidance Moscow would press the Serbs who would make concessions, and the problem would be solved.

All through the years the Balkans crisis progressed principles of international law were constantly violated in this region. Achieving a compromise was always unilateral when concessions of just one side were expected. And as a rule, all the people who regulated the crisis unanimously voted for the proposals of introducing sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, granting independence to the republics of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, “the punishment” of Serbia and Montenegro stopping short of almost nothing, including their bombing (1994,1995,1999), the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, abuse and vilification of Serbs, the NATO involvement in the settlement of the crisis, etc.

At present Russia has come to realize that the solution of the Kosovo problem as suggested by the international organisations and NATO follows the guidelines of the 1990s, when ultimatums were made, and proposals concerning re-phrasing of the text of the agreement were rejected in a false imitation of being “extremely” pressed for time, and rigid terms were set for making decisions (at the stage of introducing sanctions, negotiations at Dayton, Rambouille) etc. Should we agree to such solution of the Kosovo problem, this would soon become a universally used practice.

The current position of Moscow ostensibly irritates the West. This country is reproached o “paranoid behaviour and aggressiveness”, unreasonable stubbornness, and the absence of a concrete plan of solving the Kosovo problem. So does Russia have a plan if actions in the Balkans?

If we were to speak about a plan as a document of five or six items, such a plan is absent. And there is not a distinctly defined Russian strategy in the Balkans. However, it is quite clear to discern it in the statements of the leaders of this country and Foreign Ministry, whereas practical steps have such clear-cut outlines that to view this as a plan is not hard. As the negotiations process progressed and the West's displeasure with Russia 's stance was growing, the plan was developing and at present it could be represented as follows:

1. The negotiations process should be given no time limits. There must be continuation of negotiations in order to solve the Kosovo problem.

2. Avoiding using the practice of imposing solutions (as was the case with “the Ahtisaari plan”).

3. The final solution should satisfy both Belgrade and Pristina.

4. Observation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 is mandatory.

5. Avoiding resorting to the practice of double standards in relation to the negotiating sides.

6. Adopting decisions exclusively on the basis of international law rather than desire of some other state.

7. Exclusion of a unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence and the illegal recognition of its independence.

8. The Kosovo case should become a precedent and a universally applied example of observation of international law rather than a precedent of a forced annexing a part of territory of an independent country.

This plan is logical, taking into account the interests of Serbia, Russia, and many other countries facing similar problems, including Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Rumania, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Moldavia, Ukraine (the Crimea ), etc. Somehow this logic is not good for the USA, France, Britain and Germany. They do not hear us say that the aftermath of acknowledgement of Kosovo's independence would be extremely hard for Europe . Sergei Lavrov argues that “there would be a chain reaction in the Balkans and other regions.” Some people fail to consider the developments after declaring Kosovo independent, when Europe will have new hotbeds of tensions in Macedonia, Montenegro, the south of Serbia (Presevo, Medvedje and Bujanovac). Albanians who live in these countries would immediately follow the example of Kosovo, rising to fight “for their rights and independence.”

The train of such developments would result in an upsurge of armed clashes and the creation in the south of Europe of several new Albanian states. Then these mini- and quasi-states would start speaking about their desire to unite. The supporters of Kosovo's independence know that but they keep silent. Every actor in the Balkans performance has its own goal; it is as simple as that. The USA wants to retain its influence in Europe and ensure the full autonomy and endless presence of its military bases in Kosovo; the EU wants to consolidate its ranks and confirm its role of an entity responsible for solving European problems. At the same time some people may have an interest in drug trafficking, and flesh-peddling, others got fat money from Albanians and are now working for it. And the common denominator is the anti-Serbian, anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian position. And this is exactly why Russian firmness in defending its position.

But what are the trump cards of both sides? What can they undertake?

Kosovo Albanians are getting ready to declare their independence on their own. They have already started consultations with a number of western countries seeking their support and guarantees of recognition of that act. True, Americans advise them to abstain from such a move at least until next spring as the presidential elections in Serbia (in January) and in Russia (in March) can make things different. Aside from that Albanians are making a show of muscle flexing and make it known that they are ready to take up arms.

Belgrade says it would challenge independence of Kosovo at the UN International Court; it could also depart from the agreements that put an end to war in 1999 and consider sending its troops to this province. But at present the leverage for the solution of the problem has moved from Serbs and Albanians to great powers of the world.

NATO is increasing its presence in those parts of Kosovo where Serbs can take up arms. The United States is trying to secure the backing of Europeans to be able to make a decision by-passing the Security Council. Europe is again trying to split their differences with Serbs, promising them a rapid admission to the EU in exchange for the Kosovo settlement.

At this stage Russia 's potential and its resolve to act exclusively within international law very important. “Russia will not violate international law,” says Sergei Lavrov. And this means that it will use its potential at the Security Council, all the more so that it has an ally in the Council, China . The main thing is attainment of a real sovereignty rather than simple declaration of independence, but that can be attained only at the UN Security Council. In the event of a unilateral recognition of Kosovo's independent status by the European states and the USA, Russia can begin to openly support and recognise the self-proclaimed republics of the former USSR . It is important to remember that the adversary can state their answer to the recognition of the republics that feed separatism, to the Russian Federation itself.

As has always happened in history, the destinies of minor nations after all is said and done, are decided by the Great nations, and the West has long excluded Russia from that category. But it made haste: the future of the world's history depends upon Russia to a great degree.

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1124

17.12.2007

 

 

 
 
Copyright by NSPM