LOCAL PRESS

Nikolic: Sending the army to Kosovo is not my personal stand, but the stand of the state (Kurir)

Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic has stated that he will send the army to Kosovo since this is the conclusion of the Council for National Security. “We are not saber rattling, but I am transferring to this level if the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija are threatened…Serbia will defend the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija and there is consent here between the government and the President. In regard to what I said that we will send the army – these are the conclusions of the Council for National Security,” Nikolic told Kurir. He assesses that the EU should have reacted when the railway was almost mined and when they didn’t allow the Serbian train to pass, and not to his statements. “Well, if Johannes Hahn says that I am not looking into the future and that Serbia’s future is an independent Kosovo, then we have nothing to talk about. Then he is a scam for all times. What the EU is doing is also a scam,” said Nikolic. Asked whether this has anything to do with the election campaign, Nikolic says that he is not yet a candidate and that he is speaking about this situation since he cares about the lives of the Kosovo Serbs. “If they attack the Serbs and start an exodus and killings, will Serbia keep silent? I wouldn’t be a president to such a Serbia,” said Nikolic.

He says that there is an agreement according to which Serbia will not use its right from Resolution 1244 to send one thousand soldiers to Kosovo if ROSU units do not enter the north. “We promised verbally, and we signed an agreement for ROSU. They violated the agreement and now we have a trump card for the talks in Brussels, where we should request guarantees that ROSU will never come, that it will respect the agreement, because then we would also respect our promises that we will not request the United Nations to enable access of armed Serbian forces that would protect religious facilities and the Serbian heritage,” said Nikolic.

Nikolic to Scott: You’ve created lots of trouble (Tanjug/B92)

Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic on Tuesday in Belgrade received U.S. Ambassador to Serbia Kyle Scott. Nikolic told him that he understands the U.S. is unconditionally supporting a thing whose creation it directly influenced, and that Washington caused a lot of trouble by exercising its will. The President also expressed his hope that such conduct would stop when the new U.S. administration takes over.  A statement by his press office quoted Nikolic as saying that bilateral cooperation between the two countries is on its way toward recovery, and that he expects Serbia-U.S. relations to be given a new context once the new U.S. administration is in place.

“Citizens doubt whether Serbia can have equal treatment as some other countries, which, it seems, have had better perception in the eyes of the U.S.,” he said. “They consider a train decorated with Serbian markings to be a provocation, and they moved against that train with bombs and rifles, without KFOR’s approval. Nobody’s asking the question of whether going around Kosovo with the markings of a Greater Albania, and publicly promoting that senseless idea, is a provocation,” Nikolic said. The President told the U.S. Ambassador that Serbia will never recognize Kosovo, regardless of the pressure exerted by the great powers gathered around promoting that independence.  Scott agreed with the president that the two sides cannot persuade one another regarding the status of Kosovo, the statement said. He also underlined this was not about transportation, but about consent regarding the entry and movement in Kosovo. The President then noted that the Pristina authorities recently prevented him from spending Orthodox Serbian Christmas in Kosovo and Metohija and reminded his interlocutor that nothing has been done to implement  the Community of Serb Municipalities, adding: “I will always speak frankly and openly and protect the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. I understand that you unconditionally support a thing whose creation you directly influenced. By exercising your will, you’ve created a lot of trouble, and I hope that this behavior will stop with the new administration.” The U.S. Ambassador stressed that his country supports reforms in Serbia, and the opening of chapters within the EU integration. “Serbia is a significant factor of stability in the region and relations with neighbors have had their ups and downs,” said Scott, adding that steps forward have been made in normalizing relations with Kosovo, as well as some steps backward. Scott also said his country was prepared to build stronger ties with Serbia.

NATO: KFOR not informed on ROSU deployment (Tanjug/RTS)

In response to Tanjug’s question whether special ROSU units of the Kosovo police had KFOR’s approval to intervene in northern Kosovo and Metohija with the intention of stopping the train from Belgrade to Kosovska Mitrovica, a NATO official in Brussels says this was not the case. “KFOR had not been informed about the presence of the Kosovo police ROSU in the north. In accordance with the present agreements and KFOR’s mandate (that stems from UNSCR 1244 of 1999) Kosovo institutions are not obligated to inform KFOR on the deployment of ROSU in northern Kosovo,” a NATO official from Brussels headquarters told Tanjug.

NATO also didn’t comment Tanjug’s question whether, according to the written guarantees submitted by NATO along with the 2013 Brussels agreement, it was necessary for the police and other armed forces of Kosovo to receive the approval of NATO and the local community in order to intervene in northern Kosovo.

NATO: Belgrade, Pristina to exercise restraint for sake of regional security (Beta)

NATO urged Belgrade and Pristina to refrain from any action that would escalate tensions, and to launch talks, in the best interest of regional stability and security, the NATO spokesperson, Oana Lungesku said in a comment for Beta.We are monitoring the situation very carefully,

Lungesku said at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.When asked to say what her organization thought about Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic’s words that neither the Alliance nor the European Union had responded properly to the decision to send Kosovo’s special police to the north of Kosovo without the required approval from NATO, while Kosovo Prime Minister Isa Mustafa had said that Pristina’s decision followed consultations with all diplomatic missions, Lungesku underlined that “the KFOR mission, led by NATO, will continue to play its role”. The NATO spokesperson said that “KFOR’s role is based on the mandate defined by the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, and the mission is prepared to offer assistance as a third force, if required, but only after EULEX and the Kosovo police have played their own roles”.

Mogherini thanks Vucic (Beta)

After a session of EU foreign ministers, EU High Representative Federica Mogherini told reporters that she hadn’t only monitored the train situation, but was also in personal contact with the Serbian Prime Minister, adding that she was extremely concerned, as the situation could easily lead to tensions. “My message to the two sides is to avoid tensions, moves and messages, and to engage jointly in a dialogue, bringing results for both sides. Not only for the their institutions, but the people, too,” Mogherini said, when asked to offer a view on the situation and the prospects for the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue to continue. “Allow me to thank Prime Minister Vucic for the leading role he played in the difficult moments,” she said, adding, “This, I think, provides a good basis for him to persevere in what he’s been doing in the dialogue, for his country, people and the region.”

Nikolic’s light artillery (Politika)

We couldn’t find out in the cabinet of Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic what he really wished to achieve and what mechanisms he has at all for sending troops to the southern province, Politika writes. The same sources state that the President was quite clear and that there is no need for him to further interpret himself. In unofficial talks with high-ranking members of the Serbian Army, one may hear understanding for the President’s stand, considering that it is justifiable to engage the military if you have weapons pointed at you from the other side. The police cannot confront people armed with automatic rifles and machine guns, so this could be a basis for the use of military, even though according to the laws of Serbia Kosovo is treated as part of domestic territory, where the army should not be engaged operatively under normal conditions. “From the military point of view, we have been present in the Ground Safety Zone, i.e. at the administrative line, for 16 years now. We are not threatening anyone, but we cannot allow for our people in Kosovo and Metohija to be without protection, to say the least. Still, it is known who and how one gives orders, there is not much thinking here,” says one of Politika’s interlocutors. The competencies of the president of the republic are determined by the Constitution, according to which “the president of the republic, in accordance with the law, commands the army and appoints, promotes and dismisses officers of the Serbian Army”. Yet, Professor Slobodan Orlovic at the Novi Sad Law Faculty warns that the constitutional-legal analyses of using the military in Kosovo and Metohija must be layered and complex. “Simply put, the legal-political documents that in force are in collision: on the one side the Constitution (2006) and UN SC Resolution 1244 (1999), and on other side the accepted Brussels agreement (2013). According to the Constitution: the army ‘defends the country from external armed threats…’, can be used ‘outside the borders of the Republic of Serbia only after a parliament decision…’, the parliament decides on war and peace (conclusion of peace). According to the same Constitution, northern Kosovo and Metohija is inside, and not outside the borders of Serbia. Therefore, the police are in charge of preserving public order and peace in Kosovo and Metohija, and not the army,” explains Orlovic. Further, he recalls that Resolution 1244 envisages the return of “Yugoslav and Serbian personnel in an agreed number”, military and police, but, as he underlines, there neither is an “agreement on the number” nor any other “agreement” in relation to this. Especially, he adds, since these decrees of the Resolution, just as certain decrees of the Constitution, have been suspended by the Brussels agreement. “According to the Brussels agreement, on the territory of the so-called Kosovo (Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija) there cannot be any institutions of the Republic of Serbia, least of all of the Serbian Army. This means that any kind of use of the Serbian Army (and police) in Kosovo and Metohija, while the Brussels agreement is in force, would be considered by the EU, U.S. and others an aggression on this territory. Nobody is capable of foreseeing the consequences of something like this,” points Orlovic.

REGIONAL PRESS

Inzko: I will not apologize because my words were taken out of context and it was not my intention to insult Serb people (TV1)

Guest of TV1 central news was High Representative Valentin Inzko. He was first asked to comment the reactions that came from Republika Srpska (RS) to his statement which was interpreted as comparison of the RS and Independent State of Croatia (NDH). He explained that he did not involve in comparing the RS and NDH, adding that this is a job for historians who know the facts and have knowledge to do that, but that he only spoke about problematic dates, particularly about January 9th which reminded victims of the wartime suffering. Inzko also recalled that prior to his statement in question victims’ associations made this comparison and that he read about it in media. Also, he continued, what he actually said was that “nobody normal would do that” – compare the dates. Inzko continued by saying that there should be no quarrel about dates, that the best holidays are those celebrated by everyone and where nobody is excluded, noting that two constituent peoples are more or less excluded here. He concluded that, in his opinion, he was intentionally wrongly interpreted which led to the reactions. As for apologizing to RS President Milorad Dodik and Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) Presidency Chairman Mladen Ivanic, he stressed he will not apologize because his words were taken out of context and it was not his intention to insult Serb people, which he would never do.

In 2017, PIC will be deciding about closing down of OHR (Nezavisne)

Daily reads that even though issue of closing down of the OHR was raised and placed ad acta on several occasions, there are indicators which show that 2017 could be a key year for reaching of decision on future of the OHR and the High Representative. Daily reminded that in 2010 they wrote, following the meeting of representatives of the EU administration in Brussels with media representatives from Western Balkans, that agreement was reached for EU path of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) and implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement to be separated. According to that plan, meeting of conditions for closing down of the OHR would be independent from meeting of conditions for obtaining EU candidate status. However, daily wrote at the time, no serious debate on closing down of the OHR will be led before B&H gets the candidate status, being that several countries, and most notably Germany, deems that B&H cannot be a candidate and negotiate EU membership and at the same time be under UN patronage. Daily further reads that first step that proved them right was separating of the EU Special Representative from the OHR and merging it with EU Delegation in 2011. The same year, then German Ambassador to UN Peter Witting, following presentation of HR Valentin Inzko’s report before UN Security Council, welcomed separation of EUSR from the OHR and said that following step is to relocate the OHR from B&H.

On this occasion, Witting said that the international community cannot go on and fix the mistakes in political processes in B&H and it is time to relocate the OHR from B&H. In an interview he gave to the daily about month ago, HR Inzko gave a statement which did not get much attention, as he said that in 2017 the Peace Implementation Council will discuss closing down of the OHR and that he is probably the last HR. He said that such decision was made during December’s session of PIC and daily mentioned that the following session is scheduled for June 6. All of the above, author noted, means that if B&H manages to answer the Questionnaire and obtains status of candidate in next year, the OHR will have to leave.

Joint Commission for Defense and Security fails to discuss participation of B&H AF members in RS Day celebration (FTV)

B&H Parliament’s Joint Commission for Defense and Security convened on Monday, but denied proposal by Commission member Hazim Rancic (SDA) to discuss the information on engagement of B&H Armed Forces (AF) at celebration of Republika Srpska (RS) Day, January 9. The proposal was denied because B&H Minister of Defense Marina Pendes informed the Commission that Chief of BiH AF Joint Staff Anto Jelec was tasked to conduct analysis, questioning and investigation, which should be completed by February 2. Pendes explained that the investigation should determine if there were violations of the Law on Defense or the Law on Armed Forces, in regards with engagement of B&H AF for the celebration of the RS Day.

Court of B&H confirms indictment against Vikic (Hayat)

The B&H Court confirmed on Monday an indictment in the case “Veliki Park”, which was earlier issued by the Prosecutor’s Office of B&H. To remind, soldiers Nermin Uzunovic, Mladen Covcic and two wartime officials of the RB&H Ministry of Interior (MoI) – Dragan Vikic and Jusuf Pusina – are accused of war crime against eight members of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) in Sarajevo on April 22, 1992. According to the indictment, Vikic, who was a commander of special police units in Sarajevo at that time, and three former police officers were charged with failing to arrest, process and sanction persons responsible for the crime and failing to prevent removal of evidence and hiding of the bodies. The accused are charged with violations of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Galijasevic: Izetbegovic preparing war in spring (Srna)

Security expert Dzevad Galijasevic warns that the Bosniak member of the B&H Presidency Bakir Izetbegovic is preparing a major conflict and a war for next spring with the help of the director of the Intelligence and Security Agency Osman Mehmedagic, aka Osmica.  “What we are seeing now as unprecedented propaganda in the country, the hatred and an environment suitable for an attack on Republika Srpska (RS), is supported by events in the region, and there is obviously an agreement about it,” Galijasevic told Srna. According to him, while Hashim Thaci and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic “are drawing Serbia’s attention to themselves” by causing incidents and disagreements, Izetbegovic is undertaking, via Mehmedagic, special operations of which he notifies neither the Croatian nor the Serbian component in the intelligence service.  “The Wahhabi communities are literally conducting battle training and preparations for the spring,” claims Galijasevic. He submits that Izetbegovic should “look around” and see that come January 20 /the day when the new US President Donald Trump is to be inaugurated/ nothing will be the same in this world and that the world has already changed. “Turkey and Iran act together with Russia in the international scene and resolve their vital national interests with Russia’s help. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is negotiating a fuel price deal with Russia,” Galijasevic said.

Izetbegovic will leave Bosniaks to their own devices and let them experience the same fate that the Bosniaks suffering in other countries as emigrants have, he said. “Whole Wahhabi communities in Turkey are being emptied. The Bosnians and Herzegovinians who acted as liaison for sending people to battlefields in Syria are being pushed out. They are all coming back here, rounding up in groups of Islamists buying entire neighborhoods, while Sarajevo is sounding war trumpets and inciting conflict,” said Galijasevic. Galijasevic suggests that Izetbegovic should finally act sensibly and stop doing what his father did – “beheading the Bosniaks” and causing another armed conflict.

Serb rebel accused of expelling Croats from Knin (Hina)

The Split County Prosecutor’s Office has indicted a 59-year-old Serbian citizen for ordering the terrorizing and expulsion of Croats from the area of Knin in 1992. The prosecution alleges that the former rebel police chief on 3 January 1992 arrived with several armed rebel police officers under his command in the villages of Marici and Velici, inhabited exclusively by Croats. No resistance was shown during that action aimed at terrorizing, intimidating and eventually expelling local residents as rebel police officers went door to door. In one house the police confiscated several thousand Deutsch marks and all the jewelry. In another house, they destroyed all the furniture inside. Five civilians were taken away and confined without any cause or reason, the prosecution alleges. The indictment notes that rebel Serb police wounded one civilian with an automatic weapon and when he fell to the ground, they shot and killed him at close range. The indictment further notes that immediately after the incident, the local Croat population left their homes and took refuge in free territory under Croatian control.

Campaign for Djukanovic’s candidacy starts? (CDM)

Just a day after Milo Djukanovic had announced that he would not be Montenegrin PM, although he won power as the first candidate on DPS electoral roll at the parliamentary elections, distinguished professor from Croatia Stjepan Malovic told CDM that he saw him as a future head of the state. And the current president Filip Vujanovic’s statement that he would suggest that Djukanovic runs in the presidential elections in 2018 only “fuelled” this assumption.  “My advice to him would be to continue what I was doing and what he had been doing before me,” Vujanovic said.

Malovic says that one cannot say for sure that Vujanovic’s statement is the start of the campaign for Djukanovic’s return, but: “Indicators are the same now and after the parliamentary elections and Djukanovic’s resignation. This was expected,” Malovic said.

In addition, the seriousness of this scenario is proved best by the person who suggested that. First, this is a public and direct message from the president of Montenegro, and the second – this is an advice to Djukanovic by his long-time party colleague. It would not be the same thing if this message came from a less influential DPS official (though formally Vujanovic is not a party member) or analysts, MPs etc. This is a public message from one of the closest Djukanovic’s associates and there is little possibility that Vujanovic decided to speak publically about that issue without having consulted the head of DPS. Djukanovic was Montenegrin president from 1998 to 2002, after which Vujanovic took the office. Djukanovic have withdrawn from PM position three times.

USA strongly supports Montenegro’s membership in NATO (RTCG)

US President Barak Obama congratulated the Prime Minister of Montenegro, Dusko Markovic, on his position as Prime Minister. President Obama said in his congratulatory message that “our nations share partnership that is founded not only on common interests but also on common values. The USA is committed to improving the security of our countries and defending the common values, which are the main reasons why the United States strongly supports the efforts of Montenegro to join NATO. President Obama noted that Montenegro’s efforts to strengthen the rule of law and to participate and provide support to the project of European integration are very encouraging.

Gruevski and Ahmeti to start negotiations for government (Telegraf.mk)

VMRO-DPMNE and DUI these days should start negotiations on forming a new government. Both parties have not yet said when the leaders Nikola Gruevski and Ali Ahmeti will sit together and whether an agreement is to be expected. DUI has the platform drafted in Tirana as a basis for negotiations, where key requirements are bilingualism throughout the whole territory of Macedonia and extending the mandate of the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office. VMRO-DPMNE says it will not negotiate on these requirements of the Albanian parties. This was clearly highlighted over the weekend by the carrier in the fifth constituency, Antonio Milososki, and the outgoing President of the Parliament Trajko Veljanoski. It is unclear how the VMRO-DPMNE and DUI would find themselves in the middle in the positions they represent and how they will explain that to their electorate. DUI is of course in much more difficult position because its members are aware that even if they choose SDSM as their coalition partner, in order for their demands for SPO and bilingualism to be approved in Parliament they will need a two-thirds majority, and that is impossible without VMRO-DPMNE. The same applies to the extension of the mandate of SPO. This issue is part of the Przino agreement, and its modification, is conditioned by two-thirds majority as well as the consent of the four parties that signed the agreement.

Deadline when VMRO-DPMNE and DUI have to agree upon expires on January 29. But experts variously interpreted what will happen if there is no agreement, or whether in this case the President ought to give the mandate to the second party by the number of won mandates, in this case to SDSM or Gruevski to receive an additional ten days to negotiate majority.

Ahmeti meets German Ambassador Althauser (MIA)

DUI leader Ali Ahmeti on Monday held a meeting with the German Ambassador Christine Althauser to discuss the political state of play in the country and to analyze expectations from the formation of a new government, DUI said in a press release. Ahmeti called the December 11 elections “credible and democratic” saying the outcome had been recognized by all stakeholders and the international community. The DUI president presented the options which are the subject of an open and constructive debate within the party. “These included a coalition with VMRO-DPMNE, a coalition with SDSM, the formation of a broad government coalition, the possibility of becoming an opposition and for another early parliamentary elections to be called.” Ahmeti stressed the necessity for Germany to support Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration bid and efforts to implement reforms. He said that the Albanian language, systematic reforms and NATO and EU integration remained ‘an absolute’ priority of DUI.

Poll shows 61,5 percent support NATO membership, but only 34,9 percent if it is under “FYROM” (MIA)

A regular poll conducted by the Brima Gallup agency showed that 61,5 percent of Macedonians support NATO membership, and 26,1 percent are against it. When asked if they support joining NATO under the shorthand for the temporary reference name FYROM, the number fell below 50 percent – down to 34,9 percent, with 41,9 percent saying they would be against the idea.

Breaking the numbers down by ethnicity, in the first question 55,2 percent of ethnic Macedonians and 77,4 percent of ethnic Albanians opted for NATO membership, while against it were 32,3 percent of ethnic Macedonians and 13,2 percent of ethnic Albanians. Once the question was changed to reflect on membership as FYROM, only 18,5 percent of ethnic Macedonians continue to support NATO membership. Among ethnic Albanians, the level of support remained high – 73,5 percent.

In another question, citizens were polled whether they support NATO membership if it is conditioned by an unspecified change of the name. The percentage of people supporting NATO membership here dropped to 27,4, while 51,3 percent of those polled said they were against. Additionally, 10,8 percent said they are against NATO membership under any consideration. Again differences between ethnic Macedonians and Albanians varied greatly. Asked whether they would support adopting a neutral stance, 42,5 percent said they are for this, and 25,9 percent said they would be opposed. Among ethnic Macedonians, 35,4 percent said they are for neutrality for Macedonia, and 62,1 percent of ethnic Albanians held this position, but both ethnic groups had high percentages of people who said they don’t have a position on this issue – 30 and 20,7 percent respectively. The poll showed that overall 50,9 percent of citizens support the priorities set by politicians as part of the policy of European integration, while 30,1 percent were against these priorities. Again, the level of support was much higher among ethnic Albanians compared to ethnic Macedonians.

INTERNATIONAL PRESS

Lavrov says tensions in Balkans growing, standoff must be prevented (TASS, 17 January 2017) MOSCOW. Everyone should be aware of the need to prevent military standoff in the Balkans where tensions are growing, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at his annual news conference on Tuesday. “Unfortunately, the Balkans became a source of very serious conflicts more than once,” the minister noted. “I am convinced that, although, as we know, history teaches that history teaches us nothing, this time everyone understands the need to prevent the military standoff, even though tensions are growing there.” According to Lavrov, these sources of concern are created, to a significant extent, “by the policies pursued by those who are imposing the so-called European values in a new, modernized post-Christian manner on all peoples in the Balkans.” “I have no doubt whatsoever,” the minister stressed.

Commenting on the incident with the Belgrade-Kosovska Mitrovica passenger train, which was to proceed along this route for the first time over the past two decades during the weekend but had to return because of the provocations by Kosovo Albanians, the minister noted that he discussed the situation with Serbia’s top diplomat, Ivica Dacic, on the same day. “We analyzed what happened,” Lavrov said. “The EU should defuse the situation and make sure that the agreements between Belgrade and Pristina mediated by Brussels are complied with,” the minister stressed. “They stipulate, in particular, that people’s freedom of movement is not restricted and that there should be no Albanian law enforcement agencies in northern Kosovo where ethnic Serbs live. I believe that at least some of these agreements, which the EU is expected to guarantee, were violated in this case.”

No Partition of Kosovo and Metohija (Strategic Culture Foundation, by James George Jatras, 16 January 2017)

If all of America’s foreign policy observers were ranked for their realism, honesty, integrity, and sound thinking, few could come close to Dr. Steven Meyer, a longtime CIA analyst and Professor of Political Science at Washington’s prestigious National Defense University. If his recommendations had held sway over the last quarter century, the world and especially Europe would be a much, much better place than what has resulted from listening to the inferior minds and deficient personalities that actually guided U.S. policy.

Dr. Meyer recently authored a critique of the Serbian government’s approach to negotiations with the «Kosovars» (sic) regarding the fate of Serbs in the occupied province of Kosovo and Metohija. His observations as why the current approach is unproductive and contrary to Serbia’s interest and those of the Serbs in Kosovo are entirely correct. But his recommended alternative — that Belgrade initiate an entirely new round of talks with an eye to partition on ethnic grounds (basically, along the Ibar River) — is ill-advised, in my opinion.

Dr. Meyer’s critique of Belgrade’s policy is spot-on:

«So far, the Brussels process has been a failure, just like every other effort since 1999, to find a just and equitable solution. As with past efforts, the Brussels process has failed because the questions of political legitimacy, and authority and mostly sovereignty are ignored. Until these questions are addressed honestly there will be very little — if any —progress on Kosovo.

«The Kosovars are working from the perspective that the Serbs will do anything to please the EU and that Pristina can continue to be difficult because time is on their side. Leaders in Pristina believe that they have the West, especially the U.S., on their side and that Serbia has never had the initiative and never will have it. To a large extent, Pristina is right. The Vucic government has been so determined to sacrifice Kosovo on the EU altar that Belgrade has put Serbia on the defensive. Belgrade says Serbs will never surrender sovereignty over Kosovo. But bit by bit that is exactly what Belgrade is doing. […]

«Most recently, the Serbian government’s agreement to ‘bottom-up technical negotiations’ required by the Brussels process also has failed. In fact, it is a tacit surrender of sovereignty by Belgrade with nothing in exchange. To be clear, whenever Belgrade surrenders authority over even minor ‘technical’ areas, it is surrendering sovereignty — and this is a violation of the Serbian Constitution as well as being a detriment to Serbia’s national interests».

Truer words were never written. Dr. Meyer suggests that instead of continuing down this disastrous path, which only can result in losing Kosovo with nothing to show for it, Belgrade should quit the stacked game. Instead, he calls for Belgrade «to take a leadership role in the process, not assume the position of a weak supplicant», to set the stage for a «new approach [that] needs to establish a framework that actually engages the question of sovereignty».

The centerpiece would be partition, with Serbia exercising «full sovereignty north of the Ibar River, where Serbs constitute more than 90 percent of the population», while «the region south of the Ibar River should be under Kosovar sovereignty». Members of either ethnic group who didn’t want to live under the authority of the other could move to the other zone with humanitarian funding. International guarantees would protect those minorities that remain.

The sentiment Dr. Meyer’s proposal is admirable, certainly as compared with the policy Belgrade is now following. Unfortunately, there are two serious problems with Dr. Meyer’s recommended solution:

1. It is politically and morally wrong; and

2. It wouldn’t work.

The fundamental wrongness of Dr. Meyer’s proposal relates to the cornerstone issue on which his proposal rests: «questions of political legitimacy, and authority and mostly sovereignty». For Serbia, that question is definitively answered in the Constitution. If, as Dr. Meyer correctly observes, surrender of authority over even seemingly minor «technical» areas is «surrendering sovereignty», «a violation of the Serbian Constitution», and «a detriment to Serbia’s national interests», what can we say about the de jure renunciation of the large majority of the province? What kind of new negotiations can proceed on the rightful owners’ a priori concession to give up most of what is legally theirs as the basis of the negotiation? If you steal my car, do I «negotiate» by agreeing to let you keep most of it in the hopes of your giving me back one of the tires? By conceding the sovereignty question at the beginning, Serbia would lose her entire stakes before any talks could begin.

The practical defects are as fatal as that of principle. Belgrade has walked down the misguided path of «technical» negotiations while claiming not to have sacrificed principle based on two factors Dr. Meyer describes: that the current Belgrade leadership «will do anything to please the EU» and that the Albanians’ leaders believe, rightly, that «they have the West, especially the U.S., on their side». As long as all of Belgrade’s policies are governed by the mirage of EU membership, nothing in Dr. Meyer’s proposal will disabuse Pristina of their conviction that they need not concede anything, that time is on their side, and that their outside sponsors will back them up. That would not change just because the topic of discussion has shifted to one of territorial division, which the Albanians would almost certainly reject anyway while reaping the proceeds of Belgrade’s fatal concession of principle.

Perhaps the biggest defect in Dr. Meyer’s proposal is insufficient regard for the fact that the world, and Europe, are changing. He alludes to that indirectly by noting —

«Recently, according to the media, Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said that he did not think that President-elect Trump would return Kosovo to Serbia. This is certainly correct. In the first place, Trump does not have the power, authority or right to return Kosovo to Serbia».

I agree, Trump will not return Kosovo to Serbia, though I expect he would have the «power» to do so if he wanted. As for whether he has the «authority and right», I suppose he has no less than Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had to take it away in the first place.

But that’s not really the point. Much more relevant is that the Washington foreign policy establishment is in full-scale panic over someone taking up residence in the White House who doesn’t burn incense before the same idols as the neoconservative and liberal-interventionist crowd for whom the 1999 Kosovo aggression was their first big «success», a template for later misadventures in the broader Middle East. Trump is someone who wants to get along with Russia, who says that NATO is «obsolete», who wants an end to idiotic nation-building, and who thinks fighting Islamic terror is actually a priority, not a cover for supporting jihadists as a policy tool. (It is for that very reason that there is right now a full-blown conspiracy in the U.S. to de-legitimate Trump, with the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, politicizes leadership of the intelligence community, and the major media all in confederation against him.)

At the same time, the European Union, the false god before which Serbia’s leaders grovel, is falling apart under the pressure of rising nationalism. How much will Belgrade surrender on the slim hope that by the time their country is invited there will still be an EU to join? Maybe time is not on Pristina’s side after all…

So, if Belgrade’s current approach is wrong, and Dr. Meyer’s recommendation is wrong, what do I suggest? In a word, patience. For the time being, a «frozen conflict» is not the worse state of affairs. Maintain the principle of sovereignty. Negotiate, to the extent possible, on small things, not for the purpose of «making progress» but with only one goal: how to keep as many Serbs in Kosovo, as safe as possible, for as long as possible. (With regard to Dr. Meyer’s suggestion that minority Serbs south of the Ibar in partitioned Kosovo could be protected by outside guarantees, as someone of Greek origin I have to ask how much that was worth for the Greeks of Constantinople and the islands of Imbros and Tenedos under the Treaty of Lausanne.)

Serbia needs to start thinking of the EU as already in the past tense, as a thing that has no future. Make friends with the patriotically oriented movements in Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, of course in the United States. Above all, stay close to Russia.

Dr. Meyer’s clinching argument is the «hard fact that Serbia will not get most of Kosovo back. Any attempt to do so would reignite war — a war Serbia could not win». Nobody is talking about a war but about a rapidly changing international context that may provide opportunities that are not apparent now.

The last time Serbia lost Kosovo seemingly forever it took half a millennium to get it back. This time it will not take as long.