TIRANA, Aug. 11 – An opinion published at the globally renowned Washington Post on Thursday said that proposing new divisions in the region as a solution for the future of the Balkans in general, and the Euro-Atlantic integration of Serbia and Kosovo in particular, is actually “a recipe for geopolitical instability.”
The opinion, written by Carl Bildt, comes after almost two weeks of ongoing debate in the region, stemming from Kosovo President Hashim Thaci’s idea to “correct” Kosovo borders in the context of EU-mediated talks on normalizing relations between Kosovo and Serbia.
Although it was Thaci who first spoke of the idea of border correction, translated by a number of analysts and experts into Kosovo’s territorial division, Bildt says that “discreetly, Serb and Albanian political leaders have been exploring the possibility of sorting out their differences using territorial swaps.”
The idea of sorting out territorial disputes by exchanging territories is not foreign for Belgrade’s political circles, however it lately seems to have also gained momentum in Albania as well.
Theoretically, this “correction” would include the separation of the Serb-inhabited North, and also the possible exchange of the North of Kosovo for the Presevo Valley, an Albanian-majority region south of Serbia.
“The idea is certainly not new, but it was dangerous in the past and it remains so in the present. Serbia’s strongman Slobodan Milosevic and Croatia’s leader Franjo Tudjman conspired in the early 1990’s to divide up Bosnia between them. But the international reaction put a stop to these plans,” Bildt writes.
So far, the EU and US policy has been stated clearly: preserve the borders that were in old Yugoslavia and seek solutions within them.
More specifically, the European Commission issued a statement on Friday, saying that Serbian President Aleksander Vucic and Thaci have had “intensive and productive talks in the context of the deal to fully normalize relations and that they have agreed to intensify the work done,” while adding that a permanent solution implies a realistic, stable and possible solution in agreement with international law and with both Kosovo and Serbia.
Under the assumption that Kosovo is now warming up to Serbian claims for this particular solution between the countries, Bildt writes that “to further Balkanize the Balkans is to open the region for further conflict and bloodshed.”
In Bildt’s account, Vucic has been actively toying with the idea, which has lately, according to his sources, also made Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama receptive to it.
On Thursday, Vucic said said he is engaged to separate Serbians and Albanians in Kosovo.
“I am in favor, and this is my policy, to separate from Albanians, because having a territory that we don’t know who is in charge of and who it belongs to is a constant source of conflict,” Vucic said, while adding this deal can only be successful if accepted by the Serbian people and beyond, as “it takes two to tango.”
Bildt, however, echoing the concerns of a number of local and international analysts, firstly lists the opposition coming from the Serbian Orthodox Church and its leadership in Kosovo.
“They argue that a division of this sort will be a betrayal of the Serbs living in Kosovo south of the river Ibar and in all probability will lead to a complete ethnic cleansing of the area, with threats also to the historic Orthodox monuments in the area. A territorial swap would likely be followed by a population swap to create ethnically homogeneous territories. While some claim that this might pave the way for more stability, eventually including a greater union between and coming together of Albania and Kosovo, this is hardly likely,” Bildt writes.
In addition, considering the region’s wider conflictual context, this deal between Serbia and Kosovo could also risk opening up a Pandora’s Box over the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina – “an opportunity hardliner Bosnian Serb leaders will certainly welcome.”
Lastly, Bildt lists the issue of Macedonia – another country where Albanians are a substantial part of the population.
“If the Albanian areas of the wider region start coming together also through a process of territorial swaps, there will certainly be those asking why this should not apply to Macedonia as well. That would seriously be playing with fire,” Bildt argues.
In the face of the international good-will to further the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of both countries, Bildt writes that a compromise should certainly be found between Prishtina and Belgrade – “a compromise which might well include a greater degree of decentralization to Serb parts of Kosovo and could mean admitting Kosovo into the United Nations as well” but should in no way toy with borders and divisions in the Balkans that were dangerous back in the 1990’s and which remain dangerous to this day.
