LOCAL PRESS
Pak. Mrkic: Nikolic doing everything to prevent Kosovo’s membership in UNESCO (Tanjug)
Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic is investing enormous efforts to prevent membership of Kosovo and Metohija in UNESCO and for Serbia to receive support for the proposal that this issue be taken off the agenda of the session on 9 November, the advisors of the Serbian President Stanislava Pak and Ivan Mrkic told the press conference. They pointed out that the President launched a campaign as soon as he found about this initiative and that over the past three months he has been pointing out in numerous talks with presidents of states and ambassadors to the unacceptability of Kosovo’s membership in UNESCO. “The President will continue to do everything to receive as large as possible support of friends and partners for the 9 November session,” said Mrkic. “Our stand is that such matters need to be negotiated in Brussels. When this issue is postponed in UNESCO, it will be sent back to Brussels, where it belongs,” said Mrkic. He warns that in the event of outvoting Kosovo’s membership in UNESCO, this would be seen in Serbia as great humiliation, the political atmosphere would be “electrified”, and who knows in what direction the negotiations would head. Mrkic says it is not good to forecast how many states will be on the Serbian side and how many on the Kosovo side, but that it is important for the Serbian side to do everything to receive the majority for its proposal. Pak says that over 200 monuments of Serbian culture and graves have been destroyed since 1999, and that this is presented in the campaign launched by the President.
Dacic: Kosovo cannot protect the Serbian heritage (Danas)
The statement by Ulrike Lunacek, vice president of the European parliament argument, that the Serbian heritage will be best protected if Kosovo becomes a member of UNESCO is a false argument of those who are pushing Kosovo to UNESCO, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic told Danas in comment to Lunacek’s claims. In that context, Dacic also asked “why the Serbian religious and cultural heritage has not been well protected until now, but Kosovo, in the presence of international forces, destroyed or damaged more than 200 churches, monasteries and other religious sites, more than 10,000 icons have been taken, stolen, even headstones are torn down”. “And we’re supposed to believe there will be better protection, while at the same time religious calendars are printed presenting our churches and monasteries as Albanian,” Dacic said.
Tanaskovic: More states have understanding for postponing session (Beta)
Kosovo’s request to join UNESCO has definitively been included in the agenda of the General Conference for Monday, 9 November, but there is still a chance the debate on this item will be postponed for two years, the Serbian Ambassador to UNESCO Darko Tanaskovic told Beta. Tanaskovic, however, stressed that the outcome remains uncertain, and reiterated that Serbia will propose that the debate on the admission of Kosovo be postponed for 2017. “If our proposal receives a simple majority, then a vote on the admission of Kosovo will not happen,” he said. According to him, “a growing number of countries have understanding toward this constructive idea of postponement” but it is “uncertain whether this will be enough”. “In case the proposal to postpone the debate on this issue does not receive the required majority, a vote will take place on the original draft decision submitted by Albania with a group of other countries. In that case, a two-thirds majority will be needed for the proposal to be adopted, and Kosovo admitted to UNESCO,” said Tanaskovic “The matter here is highly uncertain, and I think only a several votes may prove decisive, which means there is a chance the proposal will adopted but there is also a very serious chance that it won’t be adopted.” The General Conference has 195 members. For the bid to succeed, a two-thirds majority of those voting would be required. Tanaskovic said that the exact number of countries eligible to vote will be known after several countries present their credentials, but added that about ten probably won’t have the right to vote.
Lavrov: Unacceptable to politicize UNESCO (Tanjug)
The attempt to allow Kosovo’s membership in UNESCO leads to the politicization of this organization’s activities, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after the meeting with UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova. “With all the complexities of international life it is important to avoid the politicization of the UNESCO activities, that’s how we see now that the situation in connection with attempts to grant membership to Kosovo is in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244,” Lavrov was quoted by TASS. He stressed the need “to offer support in every way in the spirit of compromise and consensus-based solutions”. According to Lavrov, Bokova “has the talent of the kind and is actively promoting constructive solutions”.
REGIONAL PRESS
Patriarch Irinej reconciling high RS officials (Srna)
Dignitaries of the Serb Orthodox Church (SPC) and the highest officials of the Republika Srpska (RS) reached a conclusion on Thursday in a meeting in Bijeljina that unity and mutual respect between the Serb representatives at all levels of government are essential. His Holiness, Serbian Patriarch Irinej, has stated that the current problems were discussed at the meeting and that both the Church and the RS officials expressed their opinions, thus reached conclusions will direct future actions. The RS President Milorad Dodik thanked the representatives of the Holy Synod and stressed that the conclusion on talks being held more frequently at all levels of political structure as well as with representatives of the Serb Orthodox Church and other religious communities, was reached. “This was an opportunity to emphasize the need for unity and mutual respect and to rule exclusivity, especially elements of any disrespect, out of the political speeches and interviews,” Dodik told the reporters after the meeting. Speaker of the RS Assembly Nedeljko Cubrilovic has said that the message from this meeting is that “the agreement builds the house” (united, you can do everything) and emphasized that the RS “is more important than all of us”. Serb member of the B&H Presidency Mladen Ivanic said that the discussion was good and useful and that the Serbian Orthodox Church laid out a clear position on not to interfere in the contract between B&H and the Islamic Community. He added that the vocabulary used to express political differences should be reduced to a more tolerant framework. Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives of the B&H PA Mladen Bosic said that this was a good meeting in which they agreed to respect institutions and functions and to stop using language that causes tensions. The meeting was held at the Bishop’s Palace in Bijeljina and was attended by His Holiness Serb Patriarch Irinej, members of the Holy Synod, RS President Milorad Dodik, Speaker of the RS National Assembly, Nedeljko Cubrilovic, Serb member of the Presidency of B&H, Mladen Ivanic, and First Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives of the B&H Parliament, Mladen Bosic.
Cvijanovic: B&H has no government, and I don’t see one in the future either (Oslobodjenje)
“B&H has no government, and in Sarajevo they did not hold sessions of the B&H and Serbian governments, and I don’t see that B&H will have a government in the future either,” said Zeljka Cvijanovic, the RS Prime Minister. She said this reacting to the statement by Mladen Bosic, leader of the Serbian Democratic Party, that in Sarajevo, “a session of two governments, of Serbia and the B&H Council of Ministers” was held, stating that this is a “serious political mistake, the vocabulary of foreigners and political Sarajevo.” She called the responsibilities of the Council of Ministers “minor” in comparison to that of the entity governments. “There is no government of B&H, in general I can’t foresee far into the future that there could exist one either. The Council of Ministers possesses minor jurisdictions compared to entity governments, and here and there shows a certain capacity in a coordination sense, where positions should be sublimated on certain points, thoughts of positions of various levels of government,” said Cvijanovic in a press statement in Banja Luka. She added that so much insistence would not be placed on establishing a coordination mechanism if the Council of Ministers were indeed a government.
Izetbegovic “disappointed” with Vucic (N1)
The B&H Presidency member Bakir Izetbegovic says he is disappointed Serbian PM Vucic was not ready to accept what is written in the judgments on Srebrenica. “He denies the genocide in Srebrenica. We’re not looking for a political revision, but for the acceptance of the truth,” Izetbegovic told TV N1, where he was a guest along with the Serbian Prime Minister, who on Wednesday visited Sarajevo. Vucic said that Serbia had condemned “the serious and heinous crimes in Srebrenica” and that in the last year 14 people have been arrested for the crime. He added that he also went to pay homage to the victims of Srebrenica, and as the prime minister, never said that genocide in Srebrenica either did or did not happen. “Since I have been the Prime Minister I never said it either was or wasn’t, I did not want to hurt any Bosniak by telling them, that is not it,” Vucic has been quoted as saying. He also said that his statement from 1995, when he was a Serbian Radical Party (SRS) deputy, and when he said, “for one Serb, we will kill 100 Muslims” was “taken out of context”. According to Vucic, “that was not the essence of that sentence”. He also noted that he would never say such a thing again, and added: “I also make mistakes today and I don’t think there’s a person who doesn’t. Just as I was sincere in thinking I was protecting the interests of my people, so I sincerely think I am protecting those interests today, and I really think that relations between Serbs and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) are something very important.”
Parties reach deal on further implementation of the political agreement (Republika)
The four largest Macedonian parties reached a compromise early Friday morning on how to continue implementing the agreement to normalize the political situation that they signed over the summer. The parties agreed on the names and the mandate of the two new ministers and three deputy ministers, which are nominated by the opposition SDSM party, and will remain in office until the early elections on 24 April 2016. Political leaders emerged after another marathon session at about 3 in the morning, to speak to the press. Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, who leads the Conservative VMRODPMNE party, said that the most important achievement of the talks is that SDSM have been overruled in their attempts to postpone the elections beyond the date agreed in April 2016. VMRO maintains an overwhelming lead over SDSM in election polls, and during the negotiations its representatives would accuse the opposition party of trying to move the goalposts agreed in the summer, in order to delay having the elections as much as possible. “I’m pleased with the agreement. Our strategic goal was to set the election date in stone. We believe in the people, we know they will make the right decision, and that is the reason why we wanted to let them have their say as soon as possible. What is most important, and has been set in stone tonight, is that there will be no delays to the elections. SDSM tried, but they will not be allowed to escape the verdict of the people. In this country, it’s the people that will decide and no one else. We expect another convincing win in the elections, at the bare minimum, with the same landslide we achieved in 2014, if not even more”, Gruevski told the press. SDSM leader Zoran Zaev emerged with his negotiators to declare that this is a new start for Macedonia. “All this that was agreed will need to be overlooked once more in the working groups, that will examine the technical issues, and once it is finished, the agreed bills will be sent to Parliament, so the representatives can discuss them and vote on them. I also fulfilled my obligation according to the agreement to nominate my candidates for ministers in the Interior Ministry and Labor and Welfare, and the other deputy officials. All the names are tentative, and will need to be approved in the SDSM institutions,” Zaev said.
INTERNATIONAL PRESS
Opposition is Pulling Kosovo Into the Unknown (BIRN, by Gezim Krasniqi, 6 November 2015)
The government may be arrogant but the opposition’s radical tactics risk polarising society to an unprecedented degree, as well as stirring ethnic tension. The blockade of the Kosovo parliament caused by protesting opposition MPs who demand that the Prime Minister withdraws Kosovo’s signature from the agreements with Serbia on an Association of Serbian Municipalities and with Montenegro on border demarcation has brought the country’s main institution to a practical standstill. It has polarised the political scene significantly. This is by far the most serious political crisis that Kosovo’s institutions have faced since independence in 2008. For almost a month, parliament has been unable to hold a full session due to the determination of the opposition MPs to prevent proceedings by any means, including the use of tear gas and blocking the floor of the chamber. Some of these tactics used by the opposition are unheard-of in the practice of opposition action. Beyond the immediate effects of the blockade, the on-going dispute has wider consequences for Kosovo. To begin with, it heralds the emergence of a new type of parliamentary opposition activity in Kosovo. For the first time since the end of the war, the opposition appears united in its opposition to the government. The three opposition parties, the Self-Determination Movement [Vetëvendosje!], the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo, AAK, and the Initiative for Kosovo, Nisma, irrespective of their internal differences, have shown a surprisingly high level of cooperation and unity. In many ways, this is a follow-up to last year’s cooperation within the larger opposition bloc that also included the Democratic League of Kosovo, LDK, now in government, which after six months of political deadlock and wrangling, failed to form a coalition government to oust Hashim Thaçi’s Democratic Party of Kosovo, PDK. Undoubtedly, the current opposition’s uncompromising stance towards Prime Minister Isa Mustafa is partly motivated by the latter’s decision to form a coalition with the PDK, seen as a political betrayal by the opposition. Their relations have seriously deteriorated ever since, manifested in a derogatory language and reciprocal public accusations and insults. In the meantime, with a two-thirds majority in parliament, the LDK-PDK coalition government has pushed forward with both agreements, without prior parliamentary or public discussion, disregarding the opposition completely. But, in being so adamantly opposed to the government and in defending its right to use any means it considers fit, the opposition has been acting as an anti-systemic movement, implying that it not only does not recognise the government, but also the existing legal system. Hence the violation of the parliamentary procedure and code of conduct, the refusal to obey police and prosecutor’s order, as well as use of tear gas and Molotov cocktails. Moreover, the opposition has announced that it will not respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the agreement on the creation of the Association of Serbian Municipalities. The opposition has also been toying with the noble, but sensitive political idea, of a referendum. In addition to blocking the parliament, it has initiated a petition against the two agreements that has collected over 200,000 signatures. Since the law in Kosovo does not regulate the issue of referendum, which the opposition uses as an argument that Kosovo is not a “proper” state, the petition serves as an argument for the opposition to demonstrate popular support for the issues it is fighting for. The current crisis has also brought to an end a political practice in Kosovo whereby the main political parties engage with each other and cooperate on major issues. Until the last elections, issues such as the dialogue with Serbia received support from opposition parties, in that case the AAK and LDK. Although the coalition government commands a solid majority in parliament, lack of political dialogue and cross-party cooperation on issues of vital interest risks widening the gap between the government and the opposition and polarising society. The crisis has also shaken the once rock-solid consensus over EU integration. This week, the three main opposition parties boycotted the vote in parliament on the Stability and Association Agreement, SAA, with the EU, on the grounds that it is the EU’s payback for reaching an agreement with Serbia and does not treat Kosovo as an independent state. Last but not least, the opposition seems to have reverted to ethnic politics in the absence of wider popular support for other imminent social and economic problems. Even at a symbolic level, the opposition has chosen to use the Serbian term for the planned Association, Zajednica, for its potential to incite negative feelings among Kosovo Albanians. In January the opposition incited street protests, demanding the sacking of a Kosovo Serb minister, Aleksandar Jablanović, who had made insulting comments about Kosovo Albanian war victims. Although it is unlikely that the agreements will be nullified, by seeking to mobilise people against the position of Serbs in Kosovo, the opposition risks stirring ethnic tensions that in the long term may damage Kosovo’s future. As regards the Association, many independent observers are concerned that its mono-ethnic structure could destroy the delicate balance between civic and multi-ethnic provisions in Kosovo law, affecting institutional functionality and enabling Serbia to have a say in Kosovo. Such concerns have been nourished by certain actions of the Serbian List party, which has followed Belgrade’s line in Kosovo’s institutions, notably by refusing to agree to the transformation of the Kosovo Security Force into an army. These important issues demand wider and more meaningful debates, above all between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo. The opposition’s approach of ultimatums and radical action is not the right way to address such complex issues. Ultimately, in addition to aiding the ruling parties in portraying themselves as the only constructive political actors, it risks leading to intra-Albanian as well as inter-ethnic tensions and conflicts. Unfortunately, none of the involved actors – an arrogant ruling coalition, an adamant opposition and an observing international presence, seem to have a viable strategy to end the deadlock. Slowly but steadily, Kosovo’s politics is entering into the unknown.
Gezim Krasniqi is the Alexander Nash Fellow in Albanian Studies at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London.
Nimetz calls for name resolution (Kathimerini, by Tom Ellis, 4 November 2015)
Macedonia name issue very high on the agenda in both Athens and Skopje
Ambassador Matthew Nimetz, Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for the talks between Greece and FYROM.
United Nations mediator Matthew Nimetz believes it is time to resolve the dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) over the latter’s name. In a wide-ranging discussion, Nimetz sets out his thoughts, hopes, but also his worries. He makes it clear that his choice is for there to be a composite name that would include a geographic qualifier. The envoy also talks about a “transitional period” and notes the need for a fast-track process for Skopje to join NATO and the European Union. During his time in the role, Nimetz has met many leaders and foreign ministers from the two countries. He has listened at length to the positions and arguments of both sides, and has put forward a range of compromise solutions to the name dispute. fOver the last couple of decades, Nimetz has told me on many occasions about the times that he was close to a solution but was unable to clinch one. He has never hidden his disappointment about this. Now, due to the turmoil caused by the refugee crisis and the fears about terrorism spreading, he believes there are pressing reasons for a solution to be found as soon as possible.
Where are we on the name issue?
It is 20 years since the signing of the Interim Agreement and I think I am the only one who sat at the table when it was signed who is still working on the matter. Clearly it is time to resolve it. The migrant issue that so affects the two countries involved in the “name” dispute, the rise of terrorist threats in the region, and the troubling economic issues facing Southeast Europe today are new reasons why settling this issue is vitally important. A settlement would open the door to better cooperation and a stronger Euro-Atlantic approach to dealing with regional issues and would serve the interests of both countries.
Are you optimistic it will be solved soon?
During the past year or so the “name” issue has been lower on the priority list, as both nations involved have faced other important issues. I cannot fault them for this, but I believe it is time to focus with greater intensity on this issue with the goal of resolving it. Let me say I definitely believe it is resolvable, but more than that, it is resolvable in a way that will be positive for both countries. This is not a situation which is what we call a “zero-sum” situation: where one party “wins” and the other “loses.” There can be a resolution that is a “win” for both countries, meeting the national goals that each believes important. What is needed is to put this matter on a fast track and engage the leaders of both countries to solve it. The United Nations process, and the support of friendly parties, can be very important in this process.
Would you opt for the use of the term Macedonia but with a geographic qualifier?
The main building blocks of a solution are, to me, clear, because, after all, we have been talking about this for 20 years. The precise elements of an agreement have to be worked out by the parties, but I will tell you what I think they should consist of. First, there needs to be agreement on a name for the state that includes Macedonia but includes a suitable modifier, in my opinion a geographic modifier would be best, that preserves the dignity of the state but also differentiates it from the large part of Macedonia that is an integral part of Greece.
What about the use of the name and other important elements?
Well, this is the second element. There must be agreement on subsidiary aspects of the name, such as scope of usage and transition period, that I believe can be solved by serious discussions between the two sides with good will. Third, there must be assurances that the issue of any territorial aspirations are forever rejected and that a peaceful and cooperative relationship be the basis for the relationship. Fourth, the identity of the respective people must be respected by whatever agreement is reached. Fifth, the cultural heritage and patrimony of the respective people must also be respected. Sixth, a fast track for admittance to NATO is essential as well as support for setting firm dates for a start to the process of EU entry, which would of course be under the supervision of the European Commission.
What should be the next moves?
The most important thing in my opinion is to put solving this “name” issue very high on the agenda in both Athens and Skopje. The dialogue between the two foreign ministers has, from what I can tell, been a constructive one and my hope is that this will continue. The visit of Foreign Minister [Nikos] Kotzias to Skopje some months back was an important step in the process of building trust, as was the agreement on a series of confidence-building measures. These confidence-building measures, CBMs as they are called, were a good initiative from Athens and the positive way the concept was received in Skopje also reflects a positive atmosphere, but now we must build upon that important step forward in the relationship.
Would it help if the two prime ministers met bilaterally?
At some point, sooner rather than later, a meeting of the two prime ministers would be valuable. Having watched how they handle their roles as leaders and negotiators, and having now met them both at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), I believe they are two leaders who know this issue and who definitely know how to negotiate. I think they both have the trust of their country that they will protect the national interests of each, and that they have the strategic vision and political courage to work out a solution.
What is the United Nations’ role at this stage?
The United Nations secretary-general is charged with helping the parties to solve this problem, both through Security Council resolutions but also as a responsibility set out in the Interim Agreement which specifically endorses the UN process. The UN Security Council determined the temporary reference “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,” which was meant as a temporary measure pending a decision on the permanent name, and the Security Council will be required to act to change this temporary reference. So the United Nations is very much involved, and I should say eager to see a solution to this issue.
What has Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s role in the issue personally been?
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon knows this issue well and has urged me to help resolve it during the 15 months he has left in his term as secretary-general. I take this responsibility seriously, and to be honest with you I feel a bit disappointed in myself for not having done more to solve this problem.
How does the US see the issue?
Of course you understand that I do not speak for the United States at this point in my career, only for the United Nations. However, I think I can say that the United States has a strong interest in the resolution of this issue. The US has a consistent policy of supporting the well-being of Greece as an ally and friend, and helping Greece to resolve issues in a way that is positive in promoting the friendship between the two countries and the position of Greece as a major contributor to peace and security in the region. The US is also very much concerned about stability and harmony in all of Southeast Europe, particularly in these troubled times; therefore the US has, since the breakup of Yugoslavia, been supportive of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in terms of encouraging its democratic institutions and processes, its economic development and its security and stability and integrity as a newly formed nation. In this connection the United States has put a high priority on its integration into the broader Euro-Atlantic framework, particularly entry into NATO and admission into the EU in accordance with their rules and processes. Given this broad approach of the United States, the solution to the “name” issue is, I believe, an important priority; I can say with confidence that as the UN representative I have been given full support and much encouragement from Washington.
Are you planning a new visit to the area soon?
I have not visited the region for more than a year now, mainly because so many other issues of supreme urgency have been dominating the political agenda in the region. However, I have been talking to both sides during this period and recently suggested that I come to the region to discuss these issues directly, and hopefully at some time soon a visit will be arranged.
What was discussed between the secretary-general and prime ministers Alexis Tsipras and Nikola Gruevski during the recent UNGA?
I attended the meetings of both prime ministers with the secretary-general, and the “name” issue was high on the agenda in both meetings. It is not for me to say what was said with specificity, but both prime ministers set forth their views strongly but respectfully.
How do you assess the new Greek prime minister?
This UNGA meeting was my first time seeing Prime Minister Tsipras in person (although I’ve watched him on television many times) and I was impressed with how he framed his positions in speaking to the secretary-general on a number of issues, including the migrant problem, economic issues, Cyprus and of course the “name” issue. Although Prime Minster Tsipras has been in office only a relatively short time, my sense is that his experience has been so intense that each month should probably count as a year in terms of experience.
And your view of Prime Minister Gruevski?
Prime Minister Gruevski of course I have seen in action over many years. In person he is very serious and focused, and is an intelligent and thoughtful interlocutor. He is a strong personality and an effective and experienced leader and of course knows this issue in all its manifestations.
How serious is the refugee issue in the area, and how should it be dealt with?
As a human being and citizen I am very concerned about the migrant issue that is directly affecting the Mediterranean and Balkan region so dramatically, but also I have some experience in this. When I served in the US State Department in the late 1970s, for a period I was acting coordinator of refugee affairs during the period when tens of thousands of Vietnamese and others were fleeing in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. The United States took the lead in organizing a worldwide effort, endorsed by the United Nations, including use of the US Navy, establishment of temporary camps in the immediate neighborhood, relief efforts, a process of interviewing the refugees and then long-term settlement arrangements. The United States accepted over 800,000 refugees during this period, and these refugees and their descendants have turned out to be wonderful citizens and contributors to our country.
What should be done in the current situation of refugee flows to Europe?
Of course the present situation in your region is very different in many respects, but I believe it too requires a broad effort by the world community. I think putting such a disproportionate burden on the countries of first arrival and transit is unrealistic and unfair. We are dealing with a long-term phenomenon that has a humanitarian aspect but also a political and strategic dimension.
