Thankful even if I don’t agree

The Belgrade Center for Peace and Democracy Development is today publishing a paper entitled Albanian–Serbian Dialogue:  Basis for a New Beginning.

I like many things about this paper, including the quite proper attempt to treat the three distinct concepts of independence, statehood and sovereignty separately.

But I won’t hide my disappointment that it has chosen to opt for Serbia to recognize Kosovo’s independence rather than its sovereignty.  I’d have far preferred the other way around, which seems to me consistent with Belgrade’s often stated position that it would not recognize Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence.  There is in fact no need for Belgrade to recognize a political declaration of intent, even one as thoroughly coordinated with some parts of the international community as Kosovo’s declaration.

That Kosovo is a state I take as a given.  You only need visit its institutions to realize that, but it is also true that it was a state, albeit a provincial one, even in Socialist Yugoslavia.  Vojislav Kostunica said this soon after the fall of Milosevic, though he has said the opposite many times since.  The vital question is whether it is sovereign.  This it has to be in order to qualify for EU membership, including the requirement for good neighborly relations.  There is just no getting around this.

I really don’t think much more can be done without settling the status issue, which is fundamentally an issue about sovereignty.  As Kosovo moves towards establishing an army of its own in 2013 (whatever it is formally called), it is important that Serbia acknowledge that the Kosovo institutions have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence on the entire territory of Kosovo.  Anything less risks a serious clash, one Serbia would win on the battlefield, but at the high cost of setting back its efforts for EU membership.  In other words, I don’t think the effort to reduce the sovereignty issue to a formality will work.  It is independence that is relative and formal, not sovereignty.

I hasten to add that I like the subtly stated “status for status” proposition as well as the offices for cooperation, and many other aspects of this paper, which shows more thought than I’ve seen coming out of Serbia on the issues in a long time.  For that I am thankful!