Serbian Orthodox Church has referred to Annex 5 of the Ahitsaari’s plan, with regard to protection of Christian heritage in the southern province, what caused opposed comments in the general public since Serbia never accepted that document, which implies recognition of the self-declared independence of Kosovo.
Some argue that the Church is using wrong argumentation, whereas others argue that implementation of Annex 5 is the only way to save the Church’s property in case that Kosovo is admitted to UNESCO.
In a letter sent to the Director-General of UNESCO Irina Bokova, signed by the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church Irinej, the Synod of the Church has called for “providing strong international written guarantees, along with rehabilitation of Ahtisaari’s Annex 5”, which stipulates institutional protection of Christian heritage in Kosovo.
The plan of the special UN envoy, Martti Ahtisaari, which envisaged independent Kosovo under the supervision of the international community, with wide autonomy for Serb-majority municipalities, was rejected by the United Nations Security Council due to Russian veto. The plan was also rejected by the Serbian Parliament with its resolution on Kosovo in 2007. Than minister of foreign affairs of Serbia Vuk Draskovic labelled the plan “the dynamite”, and called Ahtisaari to pay more attention to Oland Islands, which belong to Finland but is populated by Swedes.
Former Minister for Kosovo and Metohija Slobodan Samardzic argues that the Church should refer to other documents that protect civilization’s heritage, like UN Charter and UN documents on cultural heritage. Samardzic also claims that Serbia has accepted all Kosovo laws in the so far reached Brussels agreements, and added that in case of implementation of the Annex 5, protection would be transferred from Serbia to Kosovo institutions, “which we can’t trust”. He further said that signatures on Brussels agreements can’t be interpreted as recognition of the ‘non-status’ provisions of the Ahtisaaris’a plan, that is, solutions that are not defining Kosovo’s status.
The chairperson of the Serbian Parliament’s Committee for Kosovo and Metohija, Milovan Drecun, said that the Church actually wanted to draw attention to those states that recognized Kosovo, for which Ahtisaari’s plan is a valid one, that they should also respect it in terms of protection of the Church’s property. However, Drecun argues that the state should not refer to Ahtisaari’s Annex 5 since that would be counterproductive.
Aleksandar Vulin, minister without portfolio in the Serbian Government in 2014, stated back than that “Athisaari’s plan is unacceptable, because it provides implementation of Kosovo laws, whereas Serbs can’t decide about anything”.
Analyst Dusan Janjic argues that there is also anther threat, such as amendment of Kosovo Constitution, and claims that in this case Pristina would not have obligation to continue with protection of the autonomy of the Serbian Orthodox Church. From this reason, Janjic claims, it is good that the Church is referring to Ahtisaari’s plan, in order to make certain pressure on Kosovo institutions and UNESCO in terms of respect of the Annex 5, since “there are many examples in Kosovo where laws that have to do with the autonomy of the Serbian Orthodox Church are not respected”. He went on to say that he is a pessimist when it comes to prevention of Pristina from being adopted to UNESCO, and added that autonomy of the Church is important mechanism for protection of Serbian heritage, moreover because all laws deriving from the Ahtisaari’s plan have been accepted by Brussels agreements.
