Why is there a call to “retire” UNMIK and how would that affect the position of Serbs?

Despite its diminished role over the years, UNMIK’s core priorities—enhancing security, stability, and human rights in Kosovo—have not lost relevance. According to analysts interviewed by Kosovo Online, UNMIK still acts as at least a minimal safeguard against the arbitrariness of Pristina’s institutions, and its termination would be detrimental to Serbs. However, there are also views that its presence in Kosovo is merely symbolic.

Written by: Dusica Radeka Djordjevic

The idea of shutting down UNMIK has been advocated for years by the United States and the United Kingdom during UN Security Council (UNSC) sessions on Kosovo. Most recently, Dorothy Shea, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, reiterated this position during a meeting with Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani, stating that the U.S. views Kosovo as a close strategic partner, is strongly committed to its full UN membership, and believes it is time for UNMIK to be closed.

Beyond the obvious political motives behind this call to “retire” UNMIK, the argument often raised at UNSC sessions is that the mission’s budget is too large. According to the UNMIK website, its budget for the period July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, is $46.05 million, with just under 400 staff members.

Milos Pavkovic from the Center for European Policy in Belgrade believes, however, that UNMIK’s closure is a long way off.

“To abolish UNMIK, regardless of its currently limited powers, a change in UNSC Resolution 1244 is required, since it is the mission’s legal foundation. That would require consensus in the Security Council, which currently does not exist. It is unlikely that this will be on the UNSC agenda anytime soon,” Pavkovic told Kosovo Online.

According to him, the primary reason for the U.S. and UK interest in terminating UNMIK is financial, as the mission is costly and funded by UN member states, particularly Security Council members. But he also points to political goals—Pristina’s lobbying of Western states to abolish the mission.

“Pristina wants UNMIK gone because as long as the mission exists, despite its diminished role over the past decade, it remains an obstacle to building Kosovo’s sovereignty and a reminder that Kosovo is not yet a fully independent and equal state,” Pavkovic explained.

If UNMIK were to be abolished, he believes it would likely have negative consequences for the security of Serbs in Kosovo because the mission has a monitoring role, and its representatives regularly submit reports to the UNSC on the situation on the ground.

“These reports are an opportunity to draw attention to the problems facing the Serbian community and other minorities in Kosovo, as well as issues in the functioning of Kosovo’s institutions. This is a check on the arbitrariness of Pristina’s institutions, and that is why it is a thorn in their side. It also brings global awareness to the challenges in Kosovo, which is why actors in Pristina would like to see it gone,” Pavkovic concluded.

UNMIK was established under UNSC Resolution 1244 with the mandate to help create conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all people in Kosovo. It is headed by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General. In August 2008, six months after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, an agreement between UNMIK and the EU enabled the transfer of powers in judiciary, police, and customs to the EULEX mission.

Journalist Lazar Stevic from North Mitrovica also believes that shutting down UNMIK would benefit Pristina, as it would be a step toward completing Kosovo’s independence, especially since the mission derives from Resolution 1244, which reaffirms that Kosovo is part of the Republic of Serbia.

He particularly emphasizes that such a move would be harmful to Serbs in Kosovo who, as he says, can currently only seek protection from the international community.

“UNMIK pays significant attention to minority communities, to their security, democracy, and the rule of law... And we can see today that democracy and the rule of law are seriously lacking in Kosovo, with increasing pressure on the Serbian minority. Serbia must, at every future UNSC session, advocate for UNMIK’s continued presence,” Stevic said.

He noted that the topic of closing UNMIK was pushed again during the latest UNSC session on Kosovo, but no consensus exists among Council members.

“On one side are the U.S. and UK pushing for UNMIK’s withdrawal, while on the other are France, Russia, China, and others—including Serbia—who oppose it, believing UNMIK still has an important role, especially regarding minority rights. Continued six-month reporting to the UNSC is crucial to provide a real picture of life in Kosovo, especially for the Serbian population,” Stevic stated.

Since the rise to power of Albin Kurti and the Self-Determination Movement, he says, pressure on the Serbian community has been constant, leading to a significant exodus.

“According to some estimates, over 20% of Serbs from the north alone have left Kosovo. If UNMIK were to withdraw, it would be a devastating blow, as I believe pressure from Kurti and the authorities in Pristina would only intensify, leading to even more Serbs leaving the region,” Stevic added.

Political analyst Shkëlzen Maliqi sees UNMIK’s role as largely symbolic and says its closure would signal there is no longer a need for a “mediator.”

“That would mean closing the chapter on UNSC Resolution 1244. An agreement with the EU would need to be finalized and implemented, and a geostrategic solution reached to end the Kosovo conflict through an agreement,” Maliqi told Kosovo Online.