The winter of frozen negotiations

Paris Peace Forum held on the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron in honor of Armistice Day, November 11, did not, as it seems, bring significant progress in two, in many ways, connected troubled points: Ukraine and Kosovo.

We are, of course, more interested in Kosovo, but we cannot ignore the significant mutual influences of one region on the other, as well as the possible connection of solving these two issues at some level and in a certain time, especially since, it seems, both in Kosovo and Ukraine the winter of negotiations and diplomatic action is ahead.

But, while the impression is created that the negotiating conditions are improving in the Ukrainian conflict, when it comes to Kosovo, they are clearly deteriorating.

The Russian withdrawal from Kherson, together with the "leaking" of information from Washington about the need for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, points to a scenario in which the weaker side is motivated by several victories on the battlefield, to approach the negotiating table in a victorious mood, where concessions have the character of generosity and not of defeat.

According to everything that can be seen now, there are almost no chances to implement the Brussels Agreement as of 2013, nor is the current atmosphere suitable for the start of any negotiations, but further tightening is expected, until November 21, when repressive measures against those who do not change the license plates on their vehicles.

To have a better understanding of the relationship between the reality, the "situation on the ground" and the diplomatic effort, it is useful to draw attention to the fact that there are two types of negotiation agreements: active and passive. A passive agreement verifies reality or the "situation on the ground", and an active agreement projects "reality" as a goal that the signatory parties should then achieve and create.

Agreements that verify reality are, for instance, of the Dayton Agreement type. At that time, the military situation on the ground more or less corresponded to the parameters of the agreement, with the exception of Sarajevo as gentleman’s concession made by Milosevic.

Agreements that project reality are like the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt of 1978 or the Brussels Agreement of 2013, where the first was fulfilled to the smallest detail and has never been violated in 45 years, while the second has not been fulfilled even after nine years.

Such agreements are always on the verge of being unfulfilled, if there is no guarantor of the agreement with undoubted authority to motivate all parties to comply with the agreement.

The impression is that the withdrawal of the Russian army and the handing over of significant territories on the right bank of the Dnieper to Ukrainian forces is correlated with increasingly clear and open announcements of some kind of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations. Italy's La Repubblica proposed that the US and NATO countries allow the start of negotiations on the situation in Ukraine if Kherson is occupied by Ukrainian troops.

According to this edition, Washington considers the battle for Kherson to be of great strategic and diplomatic importance. The American side reportedly suggests that the return of Kherson to Ukrainian forces could change the course of the conflict. In addition, under such a scenario, the US allows Ukraine to start the negotiation process from a position of strength. In this retreat of the Russian army, we cannot help but notice the similarity with the development of events before the beginning of the Dayton negotiations on Bosnia in 1995.

Thus, the situation on the ground developed so that the territories controlled by the Serbian forces were reduced from around 70 to slightly more than 50 percent, that is, as much as was foreseen by the maps on which the agreement of the three parties was concluded, and then signed later in Paris.

In this sense, we can read with approval, and even put in the preamble of the talks between Belgrade and Pristina, the words of the American national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, which he spoke on November 10 at a conference on Air Force One on a flight from Sharm el-Sheikh to Cambodia, where the meeting of the ASEAN states is being held: “...We believe in a just peace based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, which are not things we invented, but are embedded in the UN Charter“.

The G7 leaders spoke of these principles of a just peace, including territorial integrity. These days, Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti, declaring that he cannot help Serbia win the war it "lost" in 1999, reminded us of another question - how did it come about that Kosovo was annexed, what the today's perspective from which actions of similar performance are being watched primarily in Ukraine.

Sullivan specified: "Ukraine is the party of peace in this conflict, and Russia is the side of war. Russia attacked Ukraine. If Russia decided to end the fighting in Ukraine and leave, that would be the end of the war. If Ukraine decided to stop fights and gives up, that would be the end of Ukraine".

We remember, of course, NATO's consistent refusal to stop the bombing of Serbia, even for any time, until Serbia signs that it will withdraw its army and police from Kosovo and leave the administration to UNMIK.

All this is important for the planned negotiations regarding the Franco-German proposal and Serbia's capacity to receive and accept a projected solution.

That solution is planned, as far as can be seen now, to be of the "dynamic agreement" type, the goals of which have yet to be reached. Serbia should pay in advance for the promise that the provisions of the agreement will be implemented. It is clear that this issue will stop any further negotiations, especially as Albin Kurti as Prime Minister rejects any possibility of creating this Community of Serb-majority Municipalities in north.

Kurti did so in the capitals of both countries that are the formal authors and proponents of the agreement on permanent normalization - in Berlin on November 3, and then a week later in Paris. Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic was in Paris, where Albin Kurti was also there. The fact that there was no a direct meeting shows that there is no progress in easing the tensions in Kosovo that were caused by the Kurti government's decision to unilaterally covert the vehicle license plates and announce the punishment of Kosovo Serbs and repressive measures if they do not do so by November 21.

But it's not just about that. Now the security situation in Kosovo is at least 60 percent worse than it was before the imposition of the license plate decision, with a tendency to further deteriorate. The American ambassador in Pristina, Jeffrey Hovenier, therefore announced that he is concerned about the situation in Kosovo after November 21. American and European officials called on Pristina in a very delicate way to "fulfill all its obligations". Thus, the envoy Josep Borell first said that Kosovo should "fulfill its obligations", without specifying which ones or when.

Then, after the American side clearly requested that the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities be formed, the European representative went a little further to request that the Serbs immediately go back to the institutions, and that Pristina "begins negotiations on the formation of the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities". So, not to educate and create them, but to "start negotiations", which is just another finesse in the series of vagueness of the European vocabulary when talking to Pristina.

As for the Serbian side, the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, after the conversation with French President Macron, rejected any possibility of discussing the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities within the framework of the Franco-German plan for Kosovo and Metohija.

"That’s not going to happen," Vucic said shortly.

Although Serbia and Pristina have sent their responses to the Franco-German plan, it is clear that further steps will depend on fulfilling the obligations from the Brussels Agreement.

By: Dragan Bisenic, a journalist