The elephant in the room

16 June 2020

By Rosa Stienstra

Despite the 2020 Peace Lab class only having the possibility of virtually visiting Kosovo, the experience is not less interesting, to say the least. We have the opportunity to meet with more people and organizations, which gives us the possibility to have a more balanced picture and hear stories from many different perspectives. Additionally, the current political situation in Kosovo is turbulent and seems to change every day. In the first week of our course, the 'peoples government' led by Prime Minister Albin Kurti was overthrown after a no-confidence vote related to the measures the government took in the context of the current pandemic. The upcoming weekend, there will be Serbian elections, which might influence relations between Belgrade and Prishtina. Lastly, on the 27th of June, in the final week of our course, the new Kosovo prime minister and the Serbian president will come together in the White House to discuss what might become a historical agreement ...

Today we met with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Consequently, we mainly heard about the situation in Kosovo from the perspective of people who work for large international and bureaucratic organizations. Nonetheless, the conversations that we had were in-depth and even personal. It felt like some of the people were more open online than they would have been if we met them in real life. After all, they were comfortably sitting in their own houses instead of in their offices.  

For the first time since we started the online meetings, the elephant in the room was addressed: the territorial dispute between Serbia and Kosovo. More specifically, a potential exchange of territory as part of the agreement that will be discussed in the White House later this month. Previously, when we asked people about it, it seemed like many of them did not realize the potential effect of such an exchange on their daily lives and the organizations they work for. Also, no one brought it up by themselves. However, in both of our meetings today, we were offered a great perspective on the territorial exchange, and we did not even have to ask for it.

During our meeting with the OSCE, we were given the perspective that changing the borders does not change anything and will only increase the tensions in Kosovo. The political narrative from both the Albanian and Serbian sides reminds the public of their tensions on a daily base. Hence, these tensions will not be resolved with a possible territorial exchange, according to which Kosovo gets a part of the southern part of Serbia with a majority of Albanians, and the northern municipalities in Kosovo with a majority of Serbs will be integrated into Serbia. It will only kick the ball to the next generation to solve the tensions…

During our meeting with UNMIK, we learned about a different perspective. Mr. Galocha argued that from the western perspective, a problem is there to solve. However, he rightfully mentioned that this is not the case in every culture and country. The question arose whether it is better to continue with the lesser evil and maintain the current situation or solve the problem with the possibility of resulting in increased conflict? Since tensions between different ethnic groups in Kosovo are still present 21 years after the war, it is clearly not an ideal situation. But aren't tensions less harmful than a potential conflict as a result of a territorial exchange? I don't have the answer to this challenging question, but it surely is an interesting perspective on the situation in Kosovo. Furthermore, Mr. Pentony mentioned that a territorial exchange might be hard for the political leaders to sell to their public. In the Balkans, nationalism and territory go together. By giving up a part of their land, even if it is an exchange, it might feel like a stab in the back for nationalists in both Kosovo and Serbia.

These different perspectives on the upcoming negotiation and the possible territorial exchange made me think. In September, I will pursue a master's in International Relations and Diplomacy, and I aim for a future career in this field. However, today I realized how complex professional diplomacy and negotiations can be in practice. From the international political perspective, an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia might be the best solution. After all, it can open the door to future developments for both countries, including EU and NATO membership. Besides, it is most likely that a territorial exchange will be part of a larger package deal in which both Serbia and Kovoso will gain some and lose some. From the public perspective, however, how can such an agreement be sold to civil society and their nationalists? I highly doubt that everyone accepts it and that this will not lead to increased tensions…

This discrepancy between high politics and civil society was also highlighted by Mr. Pentony when he told us a personal story about his experiences with working for the United Nations. The biggest lesson he learned was politics on a high international level, and achieving agreements might work in the short-term, but conflict can only be solved, and tensions between ethnic groups can only decrease in the long-term when civil society is engaged in this process. An important lesson and my main take-away from today! As to the current situation in Kosovo, I am curious to see where it will be at the end of our four-week course. With the negotiations in the White House happening soon, we might observe a significant change in the upcoming weeks...

 

UNMIK Headquarters, Prishtina (Kosovo). Photo by: UNMIK\OSPI - Shpend Berbatovc