Kosovo status not to be resolved in Brussels

When the meeting was scheduled for November 21, i.e. the last day before the formal expiration of the ultimatum set by Albin Kurti, it already demonstrated the self-confidence of Josep Borrell and Miroslav Lajcak that preparations had been made adequately, an agreement had been reached before the meeting and that the public consent ceremony would be held in a meeting.

But the already sparse interior in the cramped office where the European representatives and the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic and Albin Kurti met, did not promise anything good, because it is difficult to expect that from the side rooms, even if there were two flower pots in them, a life-saving solution would appear, and the solution did not come up.

The crisis, which by all accounts was forced, served the Pristina side to impose and put their demands and expectations in the foreground, but it forced the Europeans and Americans to get up from their chairs several times in order to reach what was in their hands even several weeks before. Kurti himself says that the license plates are a secondary issue, and that the most important issue is the "normalization of relations", and that the deadline for its achievement is March 2023.

Kurti knows that the European Commission is mostly on his side, as well as the representatives of European countries who are only looking for a way for Kosovo to reach its goal, full independence and "mutual recognition". Well, now, whether lunch should be served at 12 or at three p.m. is not a matter that burdens the feast at all. Even if he is in a hurry, he knows that no one will have any major objections, since the meeting differs mainly only in the way in which the common goals should be reached.

Numerous decisions and recommendations of the European authorities, including the latest recommendations of the European Parliament, are in accordance with his position. This summer, the EU Foreign Affairs Committee demanded urgent mutual recognition of Serbia and Kosovo, and the same was done in the recommendations adopted by the European Parliament just one day after Pristina, under direct American pressure, repealed the decision to punish drivers who do not have Kosovo license plates on their cars.

In addition to requiring the use of EU funds to be conditional upon the introduction of sanctions against Russia, the recommendations demand that "the EU's constructive engagement with the authorities of Serbia and Kosovo be strengthened to achieve a comprehensive legally binding agreement on normalization based on mutual recognition between the two countries within the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, which is crucial for both countries to advance in their European paths and will contribute to regional stability, prosperity and normalization of relations; to repeat the crucial importance of resolving all open issues through dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina quickly, transparently and in good faith''. The recommendations were adopted with 502 votes in favor, 75 against and 61 abstentions.

But the dialogue in Brussels is not at all a place where anything can be achieved when it comes to the status of Kosovo. Since vocabulary is important, then let's try to be accurate. The only legal basis for the existence of Kosovo is the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The Resolution of the UN General Assembly submitted jointly by Serbia and the EU in September 2010 only "welcomes" the role of the EU as a "facilitator" in the "dialogue". Therefore, the EU is not even a "mediator", and no "negotiations" are being conducted in Brussels, only "dialogue", neither has anything been transferred, nor can it be transferred from the Security Council to the European Union.

So, if an "agreement based on mutual recognition" is a condition for "progress" on the "European path", then it can already be clear that such expectations are very limited and that they go beyond the framework of the EU, together with Serbia, determined by proposing the UN General Assembly Resolution from 2010.

In order to make this clear to everyone, including the entire European public that deals with this issue, it would be appropriate for every invitation to a meeting in Brussels to include a preamble stating that the meeting is convened on the basis of the Resolution of the UN General Assembly adopted on September 9, 2010, and in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This would make it clear to everyone in what framework and with what goal the Brussels dialogue is conducted.

The fact that at the session of the General Assembly the representative of Azerbaijan spoke against unilateral solutions and in support of the defense of the territorial integrity of the states can serve as a modern parallel with this week's visit of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to Belgrade.

Azerbaijan and Serbia have a problem on the same matrix, but Azerbaijan, after long attempts at a diplomatic agreement, resolved its uncertainty by force. Serbia does not intend to solve its issue by force and violence, because there is no need for that, since, as we have said, the status of Kosovo is already defined by the documents of the UN Security Council, but Ilham Aliyev's visit is instructive for the Kosovo issue as it is pointing out to the behavior of the international community that does not contribute to a principled attitude towards open issues and does not contribute to their resolution.

President Aliyev thus gave an example when the behavior of international actors becomes compromised - when they go beyond the framework in which they operate and when they do not apply the means available to them. He pointed out that international organizations adopted many documents based on justice and reality, but the problem was never solved.

"It shows that the decisions and resolutions made by international organizations and their implementation are selective," Aliyev said, adding "when we realized that all our efforts and negotiations were pointless, then we had to resort to force."

After the angry reaction of the American ambassador in Kosovo, Jeff Hovenier, and the quick intervention that restored things to the previous state, the question was asked if that meant that the Americans were taking the main role and if the Americans held the key to the solution in their hands?

There is no doubt that America is the only real authority for Kosovo Albanians and that it has its own approach to solving the Kosovo problem. Ever since 2013, the American side has been showing its willingness to seek a solution in a settlement in which both sides would get something, but not everything, which again means the "division of Kosovo".

European countries, first and foremost Germany, not only believe that they know European problems better than the Americans, but are resolutely against this kind of barter, believing that it leads to further destabilization of the European continent. The furthest in this approach was taken by US President Trump, who made moves completely independent of the EU, such as signing the Washington Agreement and supporting the "Open Balkans" initiative, which the European Parliament is now energetically rejecting in its recommendations, along with other "malign influences". in the Western Balkans.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian crisis has added new parameters and a new, even broader framework to the Kosovo issue, where these two entities are undoubtedly clearly connected, not only for Russia, but also for the determination of the Europeans to stand behind Ukraine's territorial integrity, just as the administration of the President Biden does.

American mediators and negotiators, knowing that the Resolution of the General Assembly does not envisage any special American role, regularly emphasize that they work together or in coordination with European representatives, which does not exclude the possibility that within such relations, American proposals are superior or, in the end, decisive.

Even so, it seems unrealistic to assume that the Americans will take any independent action at this point, independent of the Europeans.

Despite all this, the European mediation can contribute to a significant improvement in relations between Belgrade and Pristina, easing tensions and making people's lives easier.

Even the agreement on the normalization of relations does not have to be a hindrance, but it would be good if the European Union itself said what its real role was in this dialogue, because that would increase its credibility and the shaken trust of both parties.

By: Dragan Bisenic, journalist