Two months after the conflict in Banjska - did the positions of Belgrade and Pristina change?

A tragic event in the village of Banjska in the municipality of Zvecan from two months ago has not yet reached a conclusion that would allow both Belgrade and Pristina to say, 'The case is resolved'. Despite the threats from the Kosovo Prime Minister and President that there would be no talks unless sanctions are imposed on Serbia, the negotiation process for the normalization of relations has continued with intense shuttle diplomacy.

KFOR has increased its presence on the ground, and according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, there is consideration for this increase to be permanent. The residents of Banjska say that the situation has somewhat calmed down, given that the Kosovo Police spent days after September 24 checking the area, conducting searches, and blocking roads.

New local elections in four municipalities in the north are still not in sight, although the largest party of Kosovo Serbs, the Serb List, announced in mid-October that it was ready to participate in them. Brussels claims to have presented a "balanced" proposal to the parties for the establishment of the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities, while Belgrade has explicitly been asked for a "de facto" recognition of Kosovo.

Although in the initial reactions after Banjska, Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti stated that 'nothing can be the same anymore'. according to political analyst Ognjen Gogic, Banjska remained an isolated event that did not have significant consequences for the negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina. In his assessment, Serbia was in an unfavorable position both before and after Banjska due to the conditions set by the European Union, and the visible acceleration of negotiations in recent weeks, he says, is a result of the earlier idea that some tangible results should be achieved by the end of this year because the EU is going to elections in 2024.

"During the events in Banjska, during that week of September 24, Serbia had already acted constructively. Not much is known to the public about this, but from what is known, there were already contacts between Belgrade and the international community at that time. Belgrade played a significant role in preventing the conflict from escalating and the situation from getting out of control. After that, legal actions were taken against individuals considered responsible for the event, namely Milan Radoicic, so Serbia again showed that it did not support this event by bringing the suspect to justice. And finally, perhaps most importantly, that event remained isolated. In no way can the events in Banjska be interpreted as a reflection of Serbia's policy; it remained a sporadic event that did not repeat itself, nor did the situation in the north escalate later for someone to say that it was a policy. Banjska remained an isolated event, and in that sense, that event did not have significant consequences for the negotiations, regardless of how it is trying to be portrayed," Gogic states for Kosovo Online.

He believes that it would be hypocritical from the perspective of the international community to attach too much importance to this and cites examples from the nineties when, as he says, the international community supported the KLA, which carried out terrorist activities.

"It even got involved in the war on the side of the KLA, and in 2004, when there was the March violence in Kosovo, it was later rewarded because the policy of the international community was that due to that attack, the resolution of the status must be expedited, and Kosovo given independence. It would be hypocritical for Serbia to be put on some pedestal of shame because of Banjska after such a policy from the past", Gogic says.

As he assesses, the EU did not favor Serbia over Kosovo in the dialogue even before Banjska.

"Belgrade's position in the dialogue and negotiations has never been favorable. The impression was created in the public at one point that Belgrade had a stronger negotiating position compared to Pristina because there had been a lot of criticism of Albin Kurti and his policies by the EU in recent months, which we were not accustomed to. It happened for the first time that Pristina was exposed to criticism, not just criticism but also sanctions because punitive measures were imposed against Kosovo in June. However, that never meant that the EU actually favored Serbia over Kosovo. And this is best seen in the recent calls by European officials for Serbia to de facto recognize Kosovo", Gogic says.

The demand for de facto recognition, he points out, is not a new condition from the EU.

"This is not a new condition; the entire Franco-German proposal presented last year has always implied de facto recognition of Kosovo by Serbia. The terminology is new; what is new is that they openly said what they actually want, calling things by their real names, but the condition itself is not new. In this process, we have something called 'biased mediators' in the literature. So, the EU is not neutral towards the dialogue and its outcome; it wants the dialogue to end with Kosovo strengthening its position internationally, so it has always favored Kosovo. It's just that Kosovo at one point made difficult and complicated those plans of the EU because of Kurti's behavior. They were not satisfied with his behavior and attitude, but they did not change their position. No one came and told Kosovo that it has to accept returning to Serbia; they came and told Serbia that it has to recognize Kosovo. In that sense, Banjska did not significantly change things. Serbia was in an unfavorable position because of the conditions that the EU has towards it, both before and after Banjska", he says.

However, Gogic adds that the event in Banjska may have to some extent led to a changed EU rhetoric towards Serbia.

"It's about the fact that what the EU is asking from Serbia is practically unacceptable as such because it is an extremely difficult and significant condition, and it is actually applying a tactic to try to win over Serbia to accept these things through a softer approach. If some sharp rhetoric followed the demand for de facto recognition, it would be too much. The question arises whether the EU should then call on Israel to recognize Palestine, for example, or some other actors. It is a very controversial condition, and the EU is trying to achieve it in a softer way, and in that sense, Banjska has not significantly changed the situation", Gogic explains.

And the acceleration of the demand for the formation of the CSM, as he believes, doesn't have much to do with the events in Banjska.

"It's about the deadlines that were defined earlier. From the beginning of this initiative, the idea was to achieve some tangible results by the end of this year or at the latest by the beginning of next year. The European Council will have its last summits in February or March, and after that, the EU goes to elections. So, from the beginning, the deadline to achieve some results was the elections for the European Parliament, and that deadline is approaching, and the EU has no result, on the contrary, the situation has worsened since they started implementing this initiative. So, the acceleration that is being talked about is a consequence of the fact that this deadline is approaching, not because Banjska has drastically changed the situation", Gogic concludes.

Milica Marjanovic, an Assistant at the Department of Sociology at the Faculty of Philosophy in North Mitrovica, speaking about the events in Banjska two months ago, says for Kosovo Online that self-organization of the Serbs arose as a result of violated rights, for which responsibility cannot be shifted to Belgrade, while at the same time pointing out that EULEX as a civilian EU mission was supposed to be in Banjska that day, but, she says, that did not happen.

"Belgrade unequivocally should not bear responsibility when it comes to organizing citizens because precisely that self-organization of citizens stems from the permanent terror that has been going on since 1999. When I say that it lasts, I mean thwarting all basic human rights, the right to freedom, movement, the right to vote, the right to opinion", Marjanovic says.

She adds that the only role of KFOR is to protect the Serbs, but it does not perform that role.

"On the other hand, UNMIK as a civilian mission is constantly vilified in the eyes of the Albanians, and EULEX, as a civilian EU mission, is biased and compromised, although it was supposed to be in Banjska, that did not happen. Of course, anyone who wants to see reality will understand this. On the other hand, their joint projects, which include the false state of Kosovo led by Kurti, are slowly withdrawing their obedience", Marjanovic assesses.

Marjanovic reminds of Resolution 1244 and the Brussels Agreement, which states that the CSM should be formed and clearly defines the competencies that the CSM should have.

"The guarantor of Resolution 1244 is the UN, and the guarantor of the Brussels Agreement is the EU. In that regard, we expect international law to be implemented", Marjanovic says.

During the conflict in Banjska, Stefan Nedeljkovic, Igor Milenkovic, Bojan Mijailovic, and a member of the Kosovo Police Afrim Bunjaku lost their lives.