Ker-Lindsay: South Tyrol is a good example for the CSM; if autonomy is an issue, let the north be handed over to Serbia

British Professor James Ker-Lindsay, in an interview with Kosovo Online, states that South Tyrol serves as a good example for the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities in Kosovo, but also emphasizes that if the autonomy of the Serbs is a problem, control over the north should be handed over to Serbia.
Lindsay noted that it is clear that the latest meeting in Brussels did not produce the desired results. 

"The statement that followed from the EU was quite explicit that they failed to reach an agreement. This is an important process, but it's also a process that frustrates people because it doesn't produce the results everyone desires, or at least making the initial steps in that direction," our interlocutor says.

Albin Kurti made it clear many times that he didn't want the CSM, some now believe that his stance has changed?

I think there is immense pressure on Kosovo to try to reach an agreement with Pristina regarding the CSM. Look, the reality is that when it comes to the majority of EU member states, or we can almost say all member states, they want this issue to be resolved, and we know how it will eventually be resolved. It's fair to say that there are expectations that Kosovo will be recognized by Serbia and will be able to join the UN and, over time, the EU. But to get there, many steps need to be taken. One of the important steps is the CSM. The EU and the US are telling the Kosovo Government and Prime Minister Kurti that if they continue to be difficult, they won't achieve the recognition they desire, and it won't happen overnight. However, if they want it, they need to do what's necessary regarding the CSM. It has been made clear that the advantage of this is that Kosovo will be recognized, but if you don't do it, you make the situation in the Western Balkans more unstable, and we won't pay the price for your actions. These are essentially carrot-and-stick messages. The stick is if you don't do it, we will take further action against you; the carrot is if you agree to the CSM, our job will be much easier to go to Belgrade and reach a final agreement. 

When Ursula von der Leyen visited both Pristina and Belgrade, she spoke about the de facto recognition of Kosovo by Serbia. On the other hand, the President of Serbia stated that he would never sign Kosovo's recognition?

Recognition is a strange business, simultaneously complex and straightforward. In the end, it means that you can't accidentally recognize a country. We can see that when the EU talks about de facto recognition of Kosovo, Serbia is, in many ways, doing that for quite some time. What we need to see, and what is the ultimate goal, is formal recognition. Vucic has stated that recognition was out of the question, that option was not on the table at the moment. Recognizing diplomas and other Kosovo documents is de facto recognition, but it's a low level of recognition. The problematic aspect is whether Serbia should allow Kosovo to enter the UN even if it doesn't recognize Kosovo. This is a peculiar position for the EU, and it's unrealistic to expect a country to do that. Because, in principle, Serbia would be saying, "We should let Kosovo into the UN, there will be a big party, but we'll be the only country that doesn't recognize them", which is a very unfavorable position for Serbia. It doesn't make sense to me, it's not realistic. The aim should be to reach a final agreement, and that will be the final stage when Kosovo enters the UN. Before that, there's a lot Serbia could do before any final agreement, and it has done so.

Some politicians and analysts say that the CSM could follow the model of South Tyrol?

It's good that people are talking about South Tyrol because it's a problem when talking about a model like the Republika Srpska, which would destabilize Kosovo. Many of us who have worked on this issue have said that Republika Srpska is a specific case and emerged from special historical circumstances, and no sane person is advocating for the Republika Srpska model in Kosovo. Instead, we must understand that in the world and Europe, we can see various types of autonomy, and South Tyrol is indeed a good example. I'm much happier when people talk about that rather than nonsense like it could be similar to Republika Srpska.

In a recent interview, you mentioned the possibility of a territory exchange. At one point, while Hashim Thaci was serving as the President of Kosovo, this was discussed as an option, but it was later discarded. Is something like this back on the table?

You see, to be clear, my position on territorial exchange is a pragmatic solution in the sense of allowing Serbia and Kosovo to become recognized neighbors as UN members. I've heard many people talk about not wanting to grant autonomy to the Kosovo Serbs, so my view was that if you see that as a problem, a better solution is to give the north of Kosovo to Serbia, maybe in exchange for territory in southern Serbia, and use it as a basis for a final agreement. On the other hand, if both sides can agree on an autonomy system for the Serbs within Kosovo, it's obviously an option we must explore. When I talk about territorial exchange, it's a pragmatic solution to the problem, but that doesn't mean I don't accept other pragmatic solutions. If Serbia and the Serbs in Kosovo accept some form of autonomy that maintains the current borders, why not, why be against it?

Do you think the Serbs would agree to some form of autonomy, which would still involve a significant presence of Kosovo Police Special Forces?

It was clearly a provocative move. We know that, and that's why there were so many criticisms about sending the Special Forces, and I hope that a part of the agreement will also include autonomy for the police. Many countries worldwide have it; I'm from Great Britain, and different regions have their own police forces. However, when it comes to border control due to smuggling, it will require cooperation between the Serbs and Pristina. Usually, border control does not come with autonomy; it's the responsibility of central authorities. The autonomy of the police in that part can be discussed. On the other hand, it seems unnecessary to keep so many Special Forces in the north, which most people see as an unnecessary provocation, but with the establishment of the CSM, the need for that would decrease. The risk of violence would decrease. That would be hope, and it will be a part of the dialogue.

Months before Banjska, many warned that the situation could escalate, and it eventually did. After that, both Kosovo Prime Minister Kurti and President Osmani repeatedly stated that the dialogue with Serbia was impossible unless sanctions were imposed on Belgrade?

It's a big question about what happened in Banjska, and who was behind it. There are various theories, and both sides will, of course, take different positions. Pristina says that Serbia and Vucic were behind it, but it's essential to wait for the end of the investigation. Things are not that simple. It could be that within Serbian security structures, there were those who supplied the group with weapons without the President's knowledge. You have to be very cautious and not rush to conclusions - this is Serbia. I'm not saying it wasn't Serbia, but you need an investigation. It's important to say and recognize that much of what we saw was provoked by the actions of the Government in Pristina, which was heavily criticized by the EU because those actions seemed like they wanted to trigger a crisis. Many people are very unhappy and nervous about the consequences. You need to find a political solution, reduce the Special Forces, establish the CSM, then move forward and make the next steps.

What is the role of Great Britain in the dialogue, and how do you comment on the statements by Alicia Kearns, who even accused the Serbian Orthodox Church of smuggling weapons?

Certainly, the position of Great Britain has changed slightly, especially after Brexit. We are not as closely involved in the dialogue, at least not officially, as other countries. The situation in Kosovo is very delicate, things could go downhill, and we see how key actors in the dialogue are cautious in their statements. They try to refrain from accusations until they get a clear picture. I know that it's tempting for some people to come out and express their opinions, and accuse one side or the other, but that doesn't help. The situation needs to be calmed down, and hasty conclusions are not advisable. This is how the EU, the British Government, and the United States are behaving, trying to identify the issues before taking action. I think officials should refrain from "addressing" the selected audience, which I believe is not very helpful at this moment.