Kosovo Independence Losing Support
The Economist Intelligence Unit: Pro-Independence Wind Lost Strength
Excerpts of the analysis from the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire, The Economist
Most observers have for some time assumed that Kosovo is moving inexorably and inevitably towards independence. At first, most believed that this would be sanctioned by the UN and that opposition from Russia and others would be overcome. When that proved impossible—as the Economist Intelligence Unit consistently argued it would—the focus shifted to the idea of a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) by Kosovo, followed by recognition outside of the framework of the UN. However, recent developments suggest that even this may not happen soon, as the process of resolving Kosovo’s status proves far more complicated than had originally been envisaged.
[...] The [new round of] talks began in late September and are scheduled to last until December 10th. It had appeared at first that the aim of the talks was simply to buy time for the international powers to try to find a way out of the current impasse, but international mediators have insisted that the talks be given a chance and are now talking up the chances of a compromise.
Bypassing the UN on Kosovo: A Step Too Far Even for Increasingly Unilateralist U.S.
[...] Recognition of a UDI by Kosovo would be a very big step. It would not only mean bypassing the UN, but would also be in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 from 1999, which preserved formal Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Contravening the UN, the guarantor of the rule of international law since its foundation in 1945, may be a step too far even for an increasingly unilateralist US. Ms Rice was careful to say that Kosovo’s final status would be determined by the US and the EU working “together on this.”
It is by no means certain therefore that even the US would recognise a self-declared independent Kosovo, or at least not for some time. And even if the US were to recognise a UDI, there is unlikely to be unanimity for such a course in the EU, some of whose members oppose independence on principle, and many more and perhaps most of whom would be reluctant to recognise an independent Kosovo if the process did not have the imprimatur of the UN. Serb-dominated northern Kosovo would not recognise independence, leading to a de facto partition and there would be a high risk of an exodus of the remaining Serbs from other areas of Kosovo.
Bypassing Independence Instead of the UN Far More Likely
The problems involved in a UDI and in ignoring the UN seem to have caused at least some countries to step back. Thus in recent weeks there has been a different tone to the pronouncements from some international players on Kosovo. In particular, various Western spokesmen no longer insist that the Ahtisaari proposal is the only basis for a settlement. Perhaps the most revealing statement was that by the EU mediator, Wolfgang Ischinger, who said that he would “leave open independence” and preferred to talk about “a strong supervised status” for Kosovo.
Allied to worries about contravening the UN, are fears in Europe about the destabilising impact of recognition on Serbia and the wider western Balkans region. There is also a well-founded fear that independence for Kosovo without the sanction of the UN would set a precedent for some of the 50 or so latent territorial disputes worldwide. Claims that the Kosovo case is sui generis and therefore irrelevant for these disputes are not very convincing.
The Key EU State — Germany — Considers Independence Overly Risky
The pro-independence wind is no longer blowing so strongly. EU sceptics such as Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, Cyprus and even Hungary, have been speaking out more firmly against an imposed solution, which suggests that weightier powers than they are reconsidering their positions. Even the pro-independence UK government appears ill at ease at the prospect of circumventing the UN. What happens after December 10th may depend on how successful the US is in getting leading EU nations on board to support Kosovo independence--given the apparent US reluctance to act alone.
In the end, it may be Germany that holds the key. Germany faces a dilemma and arguably has the most to lose. It is not difficult to see why the German government is divided on the issue. Germany does not want the EU to be torn apart over Kosovo. Germany is more sensitive than other EU states to Russian concerns and does not want to damage its relationship with Russia. Germany does not want to undermine the UN. It would also like to maintain good relations with the US. Above all, Germany does not want independence for Kosovo to unleash instability in its own backyard.
Cartoon “Stinky” by Walter (USA)
Comments
You said - "EU sceptics such as Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, Cyprus and even Hungary, have been speaking out more firmly against an imposed solution, which suggests that weightier powers than they are reconsidering their positions."
My question is what do you mean. None of those states are euroskeptic they're all supporters of the EU. Those states all have some kind of interest for supporting Serbia. Cyprus because they are Orthodox and if Albnaians get their way Turks will rape their soveirgnity also. Greece because it supports Cyprus as it is a Greek nation and because it could some day face the same situation with Albnaians in Epirus and it has always had godd relations with Serbia (Greece and the Greeks are a friend of the Serbs). Slovakia is one of the few states in Europe that has never condemened Serbia and it's Hungarian minority has called for a Kosovo like situation in southern Slovakia. Spain because it has it's own p[otential illegal secessions particularly the ETA in the Basque Country. Romania because it has almost always benn a friendly nation with us, it is Orthodox and as the biggest country in the Balkans it is concerned with stability here. Hungary -- I don't know why.
Posted by: Srbin iz Argentine | October 4, 2007 11:18 AM
I really don't like this phrase, as adopted by all and sundry, 'bypassing the UN'.
WTF does this mean? It is simply another form of media 'spin' to take the 'edge' of the news that the UN is (again) no longer seen as sufficiently compliant to the US and EU, much as it was not sufficiently compliant with the invasion of Iraq.
I should mention at this point, the stunning ability previously of manipulating the UN system for certain states interests, namely that in Bosnia, a 'dual-key' approach was officially adopted for 'legal' bombing in the former yugoslavia ('bombing' as in bombing ONLY the Serbs, regardless of who is responsible). While UN Sec. Gen. Boutros-Boutros Ghali was on holiday, the head of 'peacekeeping', a cetain Kofi Annan, agreed to bomb the Serbs in mid-1995. Then, not suprisingly, when the re-election of the Sec. Gen. came up, i.e. Boutros-Boutros who was very popular with the UN members, the US point-blank (get the pun?), refused to endorse him. So who did they endorse and blackmail and bully other UN members to accept??? No other than Kofi Annan himself. Now that's quite a pay off. Annan played the US' man in his first term, but thinking of his future and what would be said of him, became increasingly obstrepirous(sp?) in his second.
This little story is of no interest to the main stream media of course.
Back on subject, there is no such thing as 'bypassing the UN'. It's bulls*it. What is the UN for, what is its mission if it can be 'bypassed'? The US has singularly the highest record of the use of veto in the UN ( ), but when someone else uses it. The 'West' likes the UN when it follows its line (especailly as they have the righ ally, a south korean safe pair of hands, as sec. gen.), but seems to have problems with others exercising (or being prepared to exercise) their right of veto.
What is the UN for? In the short term it may well suit western interests to subvert the UN, even with complicity of some of the UN bureacrats, but what of the day (and it will come) when the West needs the UN to hold up a fig-leaf to protect itself? The UN is going the way of the League of Nations. The West 'opts out' when it sees fit, so why shouldn't other states that they wish to control 'opt out' too?
The Chinese, Russians, Indians etc. aren't stupid. They won't miss this.
Meanwhile the mainstream media continues to empty-headedly bleat the phrase 'bypass/ing the UN'. Cretins.
Posted by: Aleks | October 4, 2007 02:29 PM
Srbin iz Argentine, any state that is against severing Kosovo-Metohija from Serbia has to be negatively labeled, one way or the other (on this occasion, by The Economist).
When it's Russia, it's not that it is against trampling the international laws out of principle (Russia is not allowed to have principles), but simply because the Serbs are "little Russians" big Russians are protecting, or because of Russia's own sinister plans, or because Russia is evil, period. When it's other Eastern European states, it's because they're Eastern (read "backwards") and/or Orthodox (read "primitive"), most probably both backwards and primitive.
Now that they can't avoid mentioning some Western, non-Orthodox states that are also against further butchering of Serbia, it's getting more difficult to discard the whole lot as mere barbarians, so "EU skeptics" label, whether it's true or false, helps to degrade everyone who dares oppose the US/UK will.
Excellent points, Aleks, very good and very true.
Posted by: Svetlana | October 4, 2007 06:16 PM
if europe and the usa support the independence of kosovo.then the other minorities of other european nations must also be recognised.such as the basques in spain,the corsicans in france plus the people of brittany,the sorbs of germany many years surpressed.these are only some of the examples.if the major european coutries want fairness then prove your own sincerity and give dont wait but give these people and the others there independence,but alas this will not happen except when this same countries tear apart someone else country because of there hatred for a ethnic group this time its the serbs next time who knows."go serbs"
Posted by: george lagundzin | October 5, 2007 01:18 PM
It seems to me that albanians abroad who want their very own country, should perhaps remember they already have one and perhaps chose to return to it: it is called Albania?
Just because a minority grows concentrated in a host country does not mean that this country should be broken up to bits and a piece handed over to that minority, otherwise every community in every part of the world can claim that this is their country now, or that the region of the country that they migrated to should now belong to them.
W regards to Serbia it is a slightly different situation,as Serbia is not necessarily a host country but fought extensively throughout history to take over this territory and finally took it over in the middle ages, however what do the other minorities on that territory want? And who said it used to belong to the albanians more than to any another community living there? Do other minorities there also want independence from Serbia? Do they have anything to say? The future of this territory should be decided not just by one group of people just because they happen to have grown faster (through population growth and migration) than the others, its future should not belong any more to the albanian community than to other communities there, who may have been there much longer than them. If the name of the game is :which population beats which one in terms of numbers then some international rules need to be reviewed and set up with regards to this "population effect" and ensuing partition rights.
If the independence is purely driven and based on the recent events that proved that kosovar albanians were not safe in the hands of a serbian governement then it is another basis for independence that should perhaps be discussed as such and not based on whose population is the largest at given time.
Found the comments on this site most interesting.
Posted by: SofiJan | October 21, 2007 07:56 AM