Will the former Yugoslav Republics abuse the EU to solve their bilateral conflicts?
Feb 23rd, 2011 | By Kamiel Mesie | Tags: Accession, Enlargement, Former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Serbia
The problematic enlargement process on the West Balkans
In December 2008, the negotiation talks on Croatia’s accession to the European Union that had been well established for over three years came to a sudden halt. Reason for this was a veto from Croatia’s neighbour and former fellow in the Yugoslav socialist republic, Slovenia, about a border dispute in the Adriatic Sea. The Slovenian Government did not wish to continue the negotiations as long as the border dispute was not resolved. Although a swift and smooth accession of Croatia into the EU was strongly supported by practically all EU member states, Slovenia chose to use its veto power in the Council of the European Union to resolve an essentially bilateral issue, and the process of Croatian accession lay quiet for almost a year.
Considering the objective of the European Union to largely remove national borders and create an open market, it seems somewhat of a paradox or even slightly absurd that border demarcation has been made into such an issue, while the negotiations actually dealt with making these borders less significant. However, this example once again illustrates the importance countries still attach to geo-political issues, and this may even be particularly the case in the West Balkan region. It is well understood that for several hundreds of years the West Balkans has been a highly complex region, made up of many territories with several different nations, cultures and religions living in a confined area next to each other. After the iron grip by which Josip Tito suppressed all forms of nationalism and the subsequent dissolution of Yugoslavia, violent wars broke out among the former Yugoslav republics. The dreadful result is that the west Balkan region has seen the most bloodshed in Europe since World War II, with some minor hostilities continuing even to this day.
It is a very positive development that the former Yugoslav republics now want to come to terms with their violent past and seek for a brighter future through the process of European integration. Almost all west Balkan countries now have applied for EU membership, are already member or candidate member or have a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU. However, the earlier mentioned incident of the Slovenian blockade to Croatian membership is very worrying, since this type of problems could become illustrative for further EU enlargement on the Western Balkans. Bilateral conflicts between member states and associate or candidate member states might not only disrupt EU enlargement, they may also stall the entire European decision making process and affect the Union’s credibility towards the world as well as to the ever increasing number of euro sceptic citizens.
Given the violent history of the western Balkan region and the relative lack of reconciliation, the problems to be expected are ample. Croatia may become a full EU member this year already; Serbia is likely to become an official candidate member this year and might join the EU as soon as in 2014. Serbia and Croatia have a number of border disputes over some islands in the Danube River. Croatia also has border disputes with Bosnia Herzegovina, a country that is engaged in Associate Agreements with the EU, but which is currently still divided between two completely separated governing entities. Society here is still largely divided between Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs and tensions between these groups are high. Apart from the border dispute with Croatia, Serbia has an ongoing conflict over Kosovo. Kosovo is recognized by Serbia as an integral part of its territory, but a self proclaimed independent country with its own independent ambitions to become an EU member. Tensions between Serbs and Albanian Kosovars are extremely high and occasional violence at the Kosovar border is still reported. Furthermore, the Belgrade Government contends the scope of the EULEX police mission to Kosovo and has a disagreement with the UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari’s status proposal over the mission.
The Serbian Government has repeatedly stated that its policy towards the status of Kosovo should not be linked in any way to Serbian accession to the EU. Serbia in this respect feels backed by the international community which is largely divided on the issue, as is the EU itself. As long as Spain, Greece, Slovakia and Romania refrain to recognise Kosovo’s independence, the EU is deemed to be strictly status-neutral on the issue.
If Serbia will become EU member without the Kosovo question adequately addressed, what will be the position of Kosovo? Will it be in the EU as a rebellious province of Serbia or will it be a political non-space similar to Northern Cyprus? Much of the problems concerning Serbian accession to the EU are currently overshadowed by the question of Serbia’s commitment to the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) and the arrest of Ratko Mladić. Without doubt the EU’s demand of full cooperation to the Tribunal is very important in the light of reconciliation and peace building in the region. Nevertheless, the Kosovo issue is of no less importance. The EU should make much clearer that Serbian membership will not be realistic without Belgrade’s recognition of Kosovo as an independent state. Commitment to the ICTY may be an important precondition; it is certainly not the only problem that needs to be solved.
In the future, the Copenhagen criteria as an instrument for membership eligibility should perhaps be broadened. They should include a benchmark for good neighbourhood relations and a commitment to constructive bilateral relations and behaviour towards other member states. Learning from the negative experience in Croatia’s negotiations, bilateral disagreements should be resolved prior to the onset of official candidate negotiations. Likewise, the complicated situation of Northern Cyprus that has become internationally isolated since the accession of the South in 2004 should teach us that disagreement over the status of a territory is likely to create problems in international relations. The EU should send out a clear message that bilateral issues should be solved bilaterally and that states should not use the Union as an instrument by playing EU membership as a trump card.
Related posts:
- Violence in Northern Kosovo: A challenge to Serbia’s EU membership
October 14th, 2011 - Serbia’s major obstacle to EU membership: good neighbourly relations
December 5th, 2011 - The Libyan Conflict: Military and political considerations
April 12th, 2011 - Roma roam in Rome
March 1st, 2011 - Serbia Out
June 4th, 2011
Evening,
First of all, I would like to point out that your work is not that bad when compared to the rest of the Western crap we had to read over the years.
However, there are certain things that I noticed, in addition to your very much one-sided approach to this issue. First of all, one small correction, ”Yugoslav Socialist Republic” never existed. There was SFRJ or Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia founded in 1947 by Tito and then there was SRJ or Federal Republic of Yugoslavia fouded by Milosevic comprising Serbia and Montenegro.
Second of all, your presentation of the tensions between Serbs and Albanians portrays a picture that Serbs are those refusing to cooperate and that Serbs are the sole problem to finding a peaceful solution.
I wonder why you did not mention the notorious organ trade organize by the current ”political elite” of the breakaway province of Kosovo? Why did you not mention that after the Serbian troops left and WESTERN powers took over, 300 Serbs were taken to Albania where their organs had been removed and sold abroad.
Then again, why did you not mention that currently there is over 70% unemployment rate in Kosovo? Over 150 Medieval churches and monasteries have been burned down by the Albanians? The support for the independence among the Albanians has considerably gone down in the two years that passed…
These are just a few examples of how Kosovo is a failed state. Since the West is so keen on being morally just, how come they have not recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia? They were is the supposedly same situation as Kosovo.
Another thing, you wrote ”Northern Cyprus”, that is wrong, it’s north Cyprus. By writting North Cyprus (with a capital letter) you recognize the occupied area as an independent country. That area was unjustly occupied by Turkey and still today Ankara is refusing to return the bodies of the dead Cypriots to the south.
The area under the Turkish occupation has not been isolated since 2004 when CY entered the Union (like you advocate) but it has been in such a state since 1974.
The only recognition the area ever received (besides Turkey) is the occasional short-lived recognition from Azerbaijan. However, they lost that support as well the day Baku took the side of Serbia in the issue of Kosovo. Naturally, Azerbaijan is battling with its own breakaway province of Nagorno-Kharabah where the Armenians are illegaly trying to take away the province.
I am eagerly awaiting for your clarifications.
Good evening from Nicosia
Dear Nemanja,
First of all, thank you for your comment and thank you for pointing out the correct nomenclature of the Social¬ist Fed¬eral Repub¬lic of Yugoslavia. I hope that most readers still know what I meant. You are absolutely right that finding a peaceful solution for the Kosovo conflict is just as much a responsibility of Kosovar Albanians as it is of Serbs. I am aware of the problems in Kosovo that you illustrate in your comment. I have heard about the organ trade, drug trade and the possible involvement of Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in these crimes. I also know about the fierce discrimination that the Serbs in Kosovo are enduring and about the destruction of Serbian Orthodox monasteries (in fact I visited a couple of these monasteries last year that were luckily still standing, albeit thanks to strong surveillance by EU troops).
The reason I did not specifically mention all this is the same reason why I did not specifically mention the gross human rights violations committed by Serbian troops under Milosevic; I did not have the space in one blog to mention all this. As you may have noticed my blog is about bilateral disagreement of former Yugoslav states being fought out in the EU, and an assessment of the risk that this behavior will become a trend with further EU enlargement on the West Balkans. As the official candidature of Serbia seems to be eminent, Serbia was the most topical choice and most attention in my blog was drawn to Serbia. It was however not my intention to provide a detailed account of the aftermath of the Kosovo war. Neither was it my intention to comment on the question whether Kosovo is a failed state or not. It might, however, be interesting topic to dedicate a blog to and maybe some day I will.
I regret that you call my story ‘one-sided’. I had the impression that I was still rather neutral over the question of responsibility for a peaceful solution of the Kosovo conflict, but with such a contentious issue one seemingly can’t be careful enough. As for Serbia’s candidate membership, however, I have indeed stated clearly that I believe Serbia should recognize Kosovo’s independence before joining the EU and I still believe this. I absolutely share your concerns about the corruption in Kosovo, the unemployment and most of all the mistreatment of ethnic Serbs, but I cannot see how this should be linked to the repeated refusal of Serbia to recognize the independence of a territory it has lost its control over at least twelve years ago. Do you seriously see a future for Kosovo under Serbian control again? Your terminology ‘break¬away province’ suggests that you do. Following a judgement by the International Court of Justice, as well as the recognition of 75 countries today, I would say that is a state of denial.
Let me be clear that the question whether Kosovo is a successful state or not is a completely different question. Serbia and Kosovo have a shared responsibility to resolve the conflict and I believe that recognising Kosovo a first step and part of Serbia’s side of this responsibility. After all, it is Serbia that is applying for EU membership at this point and not (yet) Kosovo. As you rightly illustrated, the problems to overcome in Kosovo are much greater and should be dealt with in due time. Kosovo is a country in transition with a long way to go for possible EU membership.
As for your comments about Cyprus, I do believe that the north has become an isolated political non-space which is for the sake of argument at least comparable to an undesirable scenario for Serbia-Kosovo when half of the world would not recognise a political space that is part of (but not controlled by!) an EU member state. You should not attach too much value to my usage of capital letters; that does not necessarily have a political meaning.
To conclude, I wonder what makes you suggest that the support for independence has gone down so much. I probably don’t have your figures but my personal experience with the people in Kosovo is that most of them are very enthusiastic about their independence. True, some of the Kosovars I talked to would like to see their country integrated into Albania. But this is apart from undesirable also very unrealistic, as Albania has no interest in such a merger.
I hope this anwers some of the questions you had.
All the best and greetings from Amsterdam,
Kamiel Mesie.
Morning,
Your article was slightly one-sided, that is why I started my reply with congratulating you on not writting the typical Western propaganda.
The majority of the monasteries in Kosovo have been burned down after the Serbian troops left and the security was taken over by Western powers. If I am not mistaken, the majority of the monasteries in Kosovo that were destroyed were under the protection of the Italians and French. So naturally, this has led Serbs to ignore the fact that the West is there as a peace-keeper.
Now, a propos your comment on the breach of human rights that the Serbs committed in Kosovo, I will have to add a few things.
First of all, the majority of these so called ”original Albanians whose families lived in Kosovo from before Christ” moved there in 1947. At that time Tito did not allow Partizan Serbs to return to their homes in Kosovo, but rather forced them to settle in other areas mostly in Vojvodina and certain parts of Croatia. As a replacement he allowd hundreds of thousands of Albanian who were fleeing the Maoist regime of Imre Hodja in Albania to settle in Serbian homes. Over time the demographic image of Kosovo changed a lot. Albanians had up to 10-12 kids where as Serbs and other minorities 1 or 2. In 1974 when there was enough of them, they launched mass protests which led Tito to change the Yugoslav constitution in their favor. This is the moment when they have actualy began paving the road for their so-called independence. Naturally with the break-up of Yugoslavia, Kosovo’s rulling ‘elite’ felt the need to go independent. Since their chances were equal to zero they launched their guerilla actions, otherwise known as UCK (ОВК in Serbian). In 1998 they have terrorized Serbs living in Kosovo, my aunt and her family being one of them, out of their homes. Several hundred thousands Serbs, Roma and other minorities had to flee.
In order to prevent any further ethnic cleansing Milosevic sent his troops in 1998 to Kosovo. This has led to the illegal NATO bombings in 1999 where around 3.000 innocent people lost their lives. Not to mention the 300 butchered Serbs whose oragans were removed while being still alive (Dick Marty’s and Karla Del Ponte’s words).
Now, Kosovo is the craddle of illegal actions, prostitution, human and drug trade and on top of everything you advocate that Serbia should recognize Kosovo as an independent state?
I am sorry if we might live in an illusion that Kosovo might be given back to us, but that is where the original Serbian state was. That is where our first cities rose and where the first Serbian kingdom with the Nemanjic dinasty was established. Today, most of that has been destroyed by some newcommers from the Illyric mountains.
To get back on the topic, as for your bilateral relations and your worrying that the relations in the Balkans might affect the credibility of the EU or slow down the expansion, well, all I can tell you is to actually start paying attention to what is happening there. As in the new developpments.
As for Serbia, the only problem that we might have is the small part of the Serbia-FYROMian border in the province of Kosovo, however that was regulated by a treaty in, I believe, 1996.
Serbian-Croatian relations are on the rise at the moment. It was openly stated by the Croatian officials that there will not be any kind of border disputes between the two countries. So I guess the EU can breathe calmly once again.
One thing that the EU should worry about is its popularity in the region. Recently I heard the latest statistics on ”Should we jon the EU?”, in Serbia that number has gone down to 44% (once 68%) whereas in Croatia it stands at meager 25%. I guess that we are not so much desperate for the EU as the West thinks.
My personal opinion is that we are not ready for the EU. I do not want to see my country humiliated and terrorized as was the case of Bulgaria and Romania. We have a very good starting position, with very good non-European partners. Russia has stood by our side and granted us a free-trade agreement which in it’s own turn brought FIAT to Serbia. On the other hand, the EU has not been doing anything to help us besides give us more loans- which we will have to eventually repay.
As for the Albanian being too enthusiastic, well of course they have to be. If anything, the Balkans has too much pride. They will never tell you to your face what they think or believe. It’s one thing what we say in the Balkans and its a completely other what we feel.
As for Cyprus and north Cyprus, that is not my own personal view but the one of the Republic of Cyprus. Actually, using the capital n has great political meaning. Over here if you use the capital n it means that you are a supporter of the occupied zone becoming independent. North Cyprus is the official name of the northern self-proclaimed state. Things like these (just like the SFRJ) matter for a lot of people.
Best regards from sunny Nicosia!