Kosovo-Metohija Concerns Shared by Legal Experts, Diplomats and Officials Around the World
D’Amato, U.S.A.: Ahtisaari’s Proposal Should be Rejected
The proposal by former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari regarding Serbian Kosovo province is absolutely in violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law, because the world organization simply does not have the right to take a part of Serbia’s territory and give it to someone else, international law professor Anthony D’Amato of Chicago-based Northwest University School of Law has said.
The UN Security Council does not have the right to proclaim Kosovo independent, he said. Ahtisaari’s proposal should simply be rejected, and the Security Council must adhere to its mandate, which is the preservation of peace and security in Kosovo, D’Amato told the Tanjug news agency.
The fact that Kosovo-Metohija has always been an integral part of Serbia is the best argument that the Belgrade authorities have, he said. Kosovo province itself does not have any more arguments for secession than the Confederation had in 1861 during the Civil War in the United States of America, the professor pointed out.
Kosovo-Metohija Remains Serbian Territory — Serbia Does Not Need to Prove Its Claims
UN Security Council Resolution 1244 suspended Serbia’s authority in Kosovo-Metohija province, but not its territorial integrity, he said. Regarding everything else, Kosovo-Metohija remains Serbian territory, and Serbia does not need to prove its claims, D’Amato said.
D’Amato substantiated his stand with an analysis made by Yale University in 1991, when this US university based in New Haven, Connecticut, concluded that claiming the right to a territory based on existing borders has the advantage in international law over claiming that right on the grounds of demographic indicators.
Dancer, U.K.: Ahtisaari’s Proposal Should Fail
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, British diplomat James Dancer wrote:
As a former British diplomat in the Balkans, it is my great concern that the proposals for Kosovo now before the UN are a path only to further bloodshed.
In Northern Ireland and the Middle East we proceed patiently to bring belligerent parties together, over Kosovo we seek to impose a solution. The only measure which might secure harmony for Kosovo is a long and substantive reconciliation process.
The apparent safeguards for Serbs in Kosovo offer no confidence at all to the minority communities. Nor does the EU require any such imposed solution to take on administration of Kosovo; to do so without the full range of powers now available to the UN mission will render the EU impotent to tackle the criminal gangs which make Kosovo Europe's main heroin and people smuggling centre.
The proposal overturns established policy against further border changes in the Balkans and contradicts the legal rulings of the Badinter Commission. The UN refugee agency has made contingency plans for up to 70,000 further refugees in the wake of imposed independence. These concerns are not just Russian or Slavic concerns; they are shared by diplomats, officials, and by a number of UN member states. The Security Council should let this proposal fall.
Fleiner, Switzerland: United Nations Shouldn’t Be a Union of Suicide Seekers
Director of the Swiss Institute of Federalism and President of the international Association of Constitutional Law, Thomas Fleiner, warned that UN Security Council would cause the upheaval of the entire world order and shake the very foundation of the international law in case it would back the Ahtisaari proposal for Kosovo-Metohija province.
“That would be the crucial violation in my view. For the first time an association of the sovereign states would make a decision to disintegrate one of its members. Can anyone imagine any sane human being joining the club that has the right to destroy its member, by a simple managerial decision? United Nations should not be a union of suicide seekers,” said professor Fleiner for the Belgrade daily Novosti.
World-Wide Fear From Imposing Ahtisaari’s Solution
He said that he recently visited Sri Lanka where the civil war has been raging for three decades now, and before that India, where separatist movements are continuously simmering below the surface. “My associates are working on problems in Sudan, Ivory Coast, the horn of Africa, Gruzia, Cyprus... In all those regions where our Institute is engaged, there is fear of imposing solution by which the Security Council would give legitimacy to the unilateral secession of Kosovo province,” said Fleiner.
Regarding the concept of the wide autonomy official Belgrade offered and Ahtisaari rejected as unsustainable, Fleiner said that “every solution that is a reflection of agreement of both sides involved is sustainable. On the contrary, it is unfair to say that the solution supported by one side and vehemently opposed by the other is ‘sustainable’.”
Swiss expert stressed his certainty that real negotiations would result in agreement by both sides. “This takes time. The problem with the negotiations that took place thus far is that everyone knew from the very start that Ahtisaari’s main goal is to propose a document that will offer independence to Kosovo province. This is why there were no real negotiations. There can be no consensus built on such foundations,” emphasized Fleiner.
Solution that Both Sides Agree Upon is the Only One Acceptable
According to Professor Fleiner, the mediator has to control the negotiations process, but not its content.
“I’ll give you an example: on July 24 last year we had the first meeting at the highest level, where Serbia’s Prime Minister and President were present, as well as Albanian separatist leaders. Kostunica and Tadic offered to seek a compromise. Ahtisaari responded: ‘I don’t want to hear the word compromise again, I only want the word solution.’ Instead of saying — excellent, one of the sides seeks to reach a consensus.”
Thomas Fleiner concluded that, when it comes to solutions regulating inter-ethnic conflicts, there is no one “expert solution” that is the best. “The best solution in these instances can be only the one based on the agreement of all parties involved. There are solutions and constitutions that were not offered by the experts, but they are still the best solutions, since they have been accepted by all of the communities involved, which has enabled the state to develop, while holding the disparities together,” said Fleiner.
Cartoon by Milenko Kosanovic (Serbia)