EP - Kosovo - 'Standards and status' should go hand in hand

The time has come to discuss the final status of Kosovo, even though requirements for a decision on this status have not been met. The UN policy of 'standards before status' for Kosovo has not yielded the desired results after five years. These were the conclusions of a hearing entitled "Kosovo: five years on", held at the European Parliament on Tuesday.

"Standards and status should go hand in hand," said Doris PACK (EPP-ED, DE) at the end of the hearing, organised by the EP Foreign Affairs Committee. Mrs. Pack, who chairs the EP delegation for relations with South East Europe, pointed out that the Kosovo government is blamed for not meeting the required standards - regarding e.g. the rule of law, the return of refugees, property rights, a functioning economy - whereas it is not the Kosovo government but only the UN which has the power to do this. The Serbian province of Kosovo has been under UN administration since 1999.

At the start of the hearing, Misha GLENNY, a journalist and author on the Balkans, stressed that this year and next year would be "crunch years", in which either the region's history as "Europe's powder keg" would come to an end, or, if negotiations on a final status fail, there would be a real and grave risk of violence and an intensification of social problems such as poverty and organised crime. The economic situation in Kosovo had worsened and this could lead to another outburst of social frustration, as happened in March last year, he warned. The EU bore a large part of the responsibility for the economic failure in Kosovo, where youth unemployment was currently running at 70%. In any debate on Kosovo's future, guaranteeing the security of the Serb minority was crucial, especially as the Albanian and Serb communities in Kosovo were mixed far more than it might seem at first. The key issue was thus to persuade the Serbian government to consent to independence for Kosovo.

Mr. Glenny pleaded for less stringent border controls, as tough border regimes benefit terrorists and organised crime. He also pointed to the lack of communication and understanding between Belgrade and Priština, which should have been overcome by the UN special envoy.

Professor Jacques RUPNIK, of the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (CERI) in Paris, spoke of a process of regression, not only in Kosovo, as demonstrated by the events of March last year, but also in Belgrade, where the political elites are no longer willing to address the issue, and in the international community, which is unable to ensure security and is in confusion over the purpose of its protectorate in Kosovo. Mr. Rupnik agreed that the treatment of the Serbian minority would be the litmus test for the international community's ability to provide lasting solutions. But he also pointed out that the protectorate was "infantilized", as Kosovo's parliament had no real powers, such as over the budget or taxation. He stressed it was impossible to build up a state without knowing what kind of state was being built, which meant that the notion of "standards before status" was incorrect. Of all the possible options, Mr. Rupnik said that only "conditional independence" for Kosovo was realistic. Among the conditions were a willingness by all political forces to renounce violence and any revision of the borders (an Anschlussverbot with Albania) and guarantees for the Serbian minority, including the right to participate in the political process. The EU should hold out the promise of "entry into the European orbit in whatever form", thereby offering better prospects than a nationalist agenda.

Dr. Nicholas WHYTE of the International Crisis Group, which a day earlier released a report advocating just such a "conditional independence" for Kosovo, said that time was running out and that a clear endgame should be defined for Kosovo: an independent state. Exactly when this came into being would depend on the Albanian Kosovans meeting the requirements - of which full rights for the Serbian minority were essential. Dr. Whyte pleaded for a special envoy to steward the process towards a final status, who would preferably be appointed jointly by the EU and the US. Serbia will need to accept that Kosovo is lost to it, said Dr. Whyte, as many officials already admit in private. The international community will have to make clear that Belgrade has no choice.

Hannes SWOBODA (PES, AT) said that independence would only be possible if certain European values were respected. But he warned that Kosovo's status would be decided with or without the involvement of Belgrade. However, Serbia should be given the right to be consulted on affairs in Kosovo, even after independence. Erik MEIJER (GUE/NGL, NL) was sceptical about independence and thought that participation by the Serbs in the process was essential. Panagiotis BEGLITIS (PES, GR) also thought it was a mistake that Serbia had been isolated "in the name of a dogmatic attachment to the International Criminal Court". Mr. Glenny agreed and stressed that excluding Belgrade from the process was likely to create instability in the long term. Mr. Whyte's view was that it must be made clear that the process would continue with or without the Serbs.

Looking to the future, Jelko KACIN (ALDE, SI) was optimistic about the prospects for co-existence, provided the Serbs were not isolated. He also called on the Serbs not to boycott the elections. The question of minorities in the region was very complicated, pointed out Bernd POSSELT (EPP-ED, DE), who called on the various parties to sign agreements guaranteeing mutual protection of minorities. Gisela KALLENBACH (Greens/EFA, DE) wondered whether the Kosovo Albanians had sent out a clear enough message about their determination to ensure the safety of non-Albanian Kosovans.

Independence or autonomy?

Many issues relating to the talks on Kosovo's final status have yet to be settled, said Kim FREIDBERG, advisor to Mr. Jessen-Petersen, special representative of the UN Secretary General in Kosovo. No-one yet knows how, when, where or with whom the negotiations will take place. Talks with Belgrade continue to be difficult. Mr. Jessen-Petersen will present an assessment in February to the UN Security Council. This assessment will describe the important progress made so far but also point to problems concerning freedom of movement. Mr. Freidberg also said that economic problems pose a real threat to stability.

According to Nebojsha COVIC, Head of the Coordination Centre for Kosovo within the Council of Ministers of Serbia-Montenegro, "UNMIK's mandate is not to set up an independent state". UNMIK is there "to ensure that the Kosovo Serbs have the same rights as the other peoples of Europe". He warned those who might be tempted to resolve the issue of Kosovo's status without the agreement of Belgrade that there would be no lasting solution unless the Serbian capital was actively involved. He also questioned the assessment made of the progress achieved so far.

Skender HYSENI, political adviser to the President of Kosovo, argued that the only question should be "independence - when?". This was the key to Kosovo's problems. As long as it was not a state, Kosovo could not have access to loans from international financial institutions nor could it engage in a process of cooperation with its neighbours. The uncertain political situation was causing tension to rise. "The longer we wait for the status, the more the risk of violence increases", warned Mr. Hyseni.

Joost LAGENDIJK (Greens/EFA, NL) and other MEPs called for the EU to play an active role in settling the Kosovo question. EU membership is always presented as a negotiating tool for convincing the parties to reach a compromise. However, this worried some MEPs. Helmut KUHNE (PES, DE) said that, if EU membership is seen as the only solution, this is an admission that the EU is incapable of acting on a political level. As long as the problems of violence and co-existence are not settled, it will be impossible to speak about accession. For his part Alojz PETERLE (EPP-ED, SI) warned of the dangers of a status which would become a source of instability. At the same time, he believed one could not wait too long for standards to be met, otherwise one might wait a long time.

Closing the hearing, Elmar BROK (EPP-ED, D), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly appealed to all parties concerned to "show willingness for a fresh start and not continue going round in circles".

25.01.2005 Committee on Foreign Affairs
In the chair: Elmar BROK (EPP-ED, DE)

| Haut |

• EIB signs framework agreement with UNMIK for Kosovo (3/5/2005)
• A European Future for Kosovo (20/4/2005)