LOCAL PRESS

 

Nikolic: If need be, we’ll send army to Kosovo (Beta/RTS/Tanjug/Beta)

 

Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic warned on Sunday that any new attempt by Pristina to cause a conflict would end badly. A meeting of the Council for National Security was held at the Serbian Army General Staff’s headquarters a day after the incidents in Kosovo over a train traveling from Belgrade to Kosovska Mitrovica - reestablishing the direct line for the first time in 18 years - and the tension at administrative line crossings between Kosovo and central Serbia that ensued. “Let Albanians and their sponsors think about that. We will act in line with the Constitution of Serbia. Kosovo and Metohija is, under international law, a part of Serbia," the President said. “The appearance of ROSU units was a sign that Albanians want war,” Nikolic said. He described Pristina’s behavior during Saturday’s incidents as the outgoing U.S. administration’s throes, and that one of the topics of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue going forward will have to be the train, i.e., the freedom of movement.  “Everything was on the brink of conflict that would have produced dozens of deaths, and today... God knows... yesterday several agreements signed in Brussels were trampled on, Article 1 speaks about the freedom of movement, and there's also the article that says special ROSU units cannot show up north of the Ibar (River) without the approval of NATO and the local community. Why did a train bother the so-called international community and Pristina yesterday? Perhaps because it had ‘Kosovo is Serbia’ written on it and because it was painted with our frescoes... then we should not allow any Albanian carrying the insignia and the documents of Kosovo through the territory of Serbia,” Nikolic said.  “We will never start and cause a conflict, but permit us, we are a state that must protect its people and its territory. Kosovo is a territory under UN control, while the EU has a big role,” Nikolic added. “I am warning (Pristina) not to speak about conquering of territories, about their police being in a territory where they could not be, under any of the agreements. We do not want conflict, but there are situations and circumstances where one can no longer act according to one’s wishes. We will act according to the Constitution of Serbia, which is clear. We are under obligation to secure every inch of the territory and each citizen. We have agreed on this, and we stand united, and let us not be provoked,” the President said after the meeting of the Council, chaired by him and attended by Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Nebojsa Stefanovic, Minister of Defense Zoran Djordjevic, Minister of Justice Nela Kuburovic, Police Director Vladimir Rebic and the Chief of the General Staff of the Serbian Army, General Ljubisa Dikovic. Everyone is united in the stance, he added - the police, the army, the government, the security structures - that the decision on Saturday was good, while there is no basis for the gloating of the Albanians. “Any new attempt of theirs will end badly, and they and their sponsors should think about that,” Nikolic said.

Responding to reporters’ questions, the president said Serbia was ready to send its armed forces to Kosovo and Metohija if the Serb population in that province comes under threat.  “If Serbs are being killed, yes,” Nikolic said, when asked whether Belgrade would make this move. “Europe,” he said, “owes us many answers to many questions and the Serbian government is completely prepared and united in seeking those answers.”  “As long as I am president, I will make an effort not to go to war with anyone. If that's not possible, as commander-in-chief, I will take responsibility for each of my decisions. I'm telling you in advance: we don't want to go to war, we don't want war, and we are still treating this as small provocations. But, if Tachi is threatening he will go into Mitrovica...,” Nikolic said, without finishing the sentence.  Still responding to journalists’ questions, he said he saw Isa Mustafa’s statement that everything that happened took place with the agreement of the West as making Serbia choose: ‘either you’ll accept everything that is asked of you, or you’ll go to war’. “Well, I’m that president who will not accept everything they are demanding,” said Nikolic.

 

Vucic: Large-scale conflict averted (B92/Beta/TV Pink/Tanjug)

 

Speaking late on Saturday, Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic said that Pristina tried to provoke large-scale conflicts. Vucic told an extraordinary press conference held at the Serbian government headquarters in Belgrade that Albanians and their special forces tried to blow up a part of the railway during the day, and later in the day they sent a special unit from Luzane to Jarinje composed exclusively of Albanians, with rifles, with the aim of provoking a conflict. He said that that unit was to arrest train driver Milenko Stevanovic and passengers and to provoke clashes, which is why he made the decision to stop the train in Raska. According to Vucic, since the local Serbs gathered in Jarinje, Pristina sent 17 armored vehicles to the north of Kosovo with the aim of provoking a conflict. “Serbia wants peace, I call on Serbs to remain calm, but my last warning and plea to the Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija is not to try to attack Serbs with weapons, because Serbia will not allow this,” Vucic stated. He stated that he informed EU High Representative Federica Mogherini that he is disappointed with the reaction of the EU to these events, and announced that Russia will be informed during the evening that Pristina is playing war games, and tomorrow China and the United States as well.
Djuric: Pristina authorities not working alone (TV Pink/Tanjug)

 

The Head of the Office for Kosovo and Metohija Marko Djuric has stated on Sunday that he believes that the Pristina authorities had not conducted independently a series of aggressive acts whereby they wished to provoke a conflict in Kosovo. He told TV Pink that all this has been occurring with acquiesce of the big powers. According to Djuric, there is silence regarding the endangering of human rights that are to Serbia’s detriment, but war criminals are being released.

He stressed that the ban for a train from Serbia is only culmination of efforts to provoke conflicts, recalling the ban for the Serbian President on Christmas, the locking of the Orthodox Church in Pristina, and the ban for delivering Serbian language textbooks. According to him, stopping the train for Kosovska Mitrovica is the crudest violation of basic human rights, which is freedom of movement that is guarantees with all laws and the Belgrade-Pristina Brussels agreement. “At issue here is a train that is supposed to connect people. At issue is an extension of the Kraljevo-Kosovska Mitrovica line to Belgrade and nothing more, yet somebody has given themselves the right to react in the worst possible manner to this connecting and to limit freedom of movement by mining the railway,” said Djuric.

“It is important to point out here that Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic passed the decision to stop the trial run of the train in the interest of preserving stability and peace, but also to avoid exposing the Serbs to danger, and so not to give the least reason to extremists who were resolved to cause conflicts of wider proportions,” said Djuric.

 

Drecun: Pristina not doing anything that contributes to resumption of dialogue (RTS)

 

The Chairperson of the Serbian parliamentary Committee for Kosovo and Metohija Milovan Drecun told the morning news of Radio and Television of Serbia (RTS) that the event concerning the train for Kosovska Mitrovica was a result of Pristina’s continuous pressure exerted on the Serbs and the dialogue. He says that Pristina continues to prevent the realization of the most important Brussels agreement, which is the establishment of the Community of Serb Municipalities. He says that a strong militarization of the region in northern Kosovo occurred during the situation with the train, that special units and so-called Kosovo security forces arrived. He says this speaks of the fact that Pristina had prepared plans for a quick intrusion. He says that ROSU units are the main destabilizing factor and it uses terrorist methods.

Drecun says one cannot speak about normalization of relations if one knows that Pristina has plans for entering northern Kosovo and Metohija. He notes that Brussels is the mediator of the dialogue and that they should request resumption of high level talks, but the Serbs’ safety should not be threatened. He adds that one should wait and see how the new U.S. administration will behave, as he believes that this will greatly impact the development of events concerning Kosovo and Metohija.

 

Dacic: Foreign Ministry to keep fighting for Serbia’s territorial integrity (Beta)

 

“The Foreign Ministry will keep fighting for the territorial integrity of Serbia in 2017, too, and we will not avoid a dialog with anyone, including Pristina. Serbia has demonstrated a readiness to honor its obligations, which is exactly what we expect from others, even thought that has not been the case very often,” Dacic said at the annual New Year’s reception for diplomats and media representatives, hosted by his ministry. Minister Dacic added that his department had worked very hard to materialize foreign-policy priorities, recalling that four chapters had opened in the accession talks with the EU, whereby Serbia had affirmed its commitment to the country’s top priority - to join the EU. Dacic was also hopeful that in 2017 new accession chapters would be opened.

Dacic went on to say that last year a special emphasis was placed on regional stability and opportunities to overcome the migrant crisis, underlining Serbia’s role within the Migration,

Asylum, Refugee Regional Initiative (MARRI), which Serbia chaired since last June. The Serbian chairmanship in office ends in June 2017. Dacic underlined Serbia’s role in launching and carrying out different projects within the Berlin Process, a diplomatic initiative related to the EU enlargement process. He also said that in the second half of 2016, Serbia had chaired the Organization of the Black See Economic Cooperation (BSEC), and hosted BSEC foreign ministers on 13 December.

 

Hahn: Belgrade-Pristina dialogue must not be jeopardized (RTS/Beta)

 

EU Commissioner for neighborhood policy and enlargement negotiations Johannes Hahn has stated that what has been achieved in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue so far must not be jeopardized. Hahn made the comment as he was arriving to a meeting of EU foreign ministers, when reporters asked how he saw the tension between Pristina and Belgrade after a train traveling from Belgrade to Kosovska Mitrovica was prevented from entering Kosovo, and Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic’s statement that he would be ready to send the army to Kosovo if the lives of Serbs there were in danger. According to Beta, when asked whether Serbia was with this looking back, Hahn said, “All those who look back, don’t look forward.” Neither the Western Balkans nor EU enlargement are on the agenda of today’s meeting of EU foreign ministers, who should focus on the crisis in Syria, and the Middle East.

 

Jeremic to seek Serbian Presidency (FoNet)

 

Former Serbian foreign minister Vuk Jeremic has announced that he will run for president in the election scheduled for later this year. Jeremic made the announcement on 15 January in Belgrade. The date of the election has not yet been set. President Tomislav Nikolic has suggested he would run for a second term but has not yet made a formal announcement. Jeremic, 41, was Serbian foreign minister from 2007-12 and president of the UN General Assembly in 2012-13.

He was also a candidate to replace UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The upcoming presidential vote will be viewed as a contest between closer ties for Russia or support for Serbia’s move toward the West, namely Belgrade’s efforts pursuing EU membership.

 

REGIONAL PRESS

 

Dodik: Izetbegovic’s statement that RS was founded on genocide is unacceptable (RTRS)

 

RS President Milorad Dodik stated that the statement of B&H Presidency member and SDA leader Bakir Izetbegovic, who said that the RS was founded on genocide, is unacceptable. Commenting on Izetbegovic’s offensive speech that was published on website of B&H Presidency, Dodik stressed that Izetbegovic misused Joint Institutions, therefore he expects reaction by other Presidency members. Also, Izetbegovic allocated from budget reserves BAM 20,000 for project “Genocide over Bosniaks. “This shows ambition of Bakir that he is B&H, but he is not B&H! He is not that, he is just a Muslim member of the Presidency and nothing else,” Dodik argued. So far, party and individual stances that offend other two peoples have not been published in official website of B&H Presidency. According to Dodik, Izetbegovic’s goal is to accuse entire Serb people of genocide. Dodik acknowledged that crimes occurred at all sides, but added that the genocide did not. Office of Serb member of B&H Presidency Mladen Ivanic confirmed that Ivanic will demand an explanation from Izetbegovic’s office. Also, a proof that Izetbegovic is focused on the RS is his stance that he will not give up on abolishing of the RS Day. However, Dodik said that Izetbegovic can continue doing whatever he wants, but the RS Day will continue to be marked in the future. “If anyone from Sarajevo or the international community thinks that Serbs will give up on celebrating the RS Day, they are wrong,” he said. Also, Ivanic’s Office stated that an event will be organized in cooperation with Dodik to speak about Serb victims, after which it will be published on B&H Presidency’s website.

 

Stevandic: RS Assembly can terminate co-op with OHR, with consent of all political factors (RTRS)

 

Deputy Speaker of the RS Assembly Nenad Stevandic told Srna on Saturday that the RS Assembly can officially terminate communication and cooperation with High Representative (HR) Valentin Inzko and the Office of the High Representative (OHR). However, Stevandic added that consent of all political factors in the RS is necessary for this step. He added that there may be difficulties in reaching the deal on this issue, bearing in mind that all political parties did not equally condemn Inzko’s insults. He assessed that actually Inzko was the one who terminated communication with all institutions of the RS, bearing in mind that in his opinion, his communication is based on insults and disrespect which is far from cooperation.

 

Dodik criticizes international community for failure to react to prevention of freedom of movement (TV1)

 

RS President Milorad Dodik said that he is familiar with the scenario which Albanians from Kosovo wanted to use in order to “settle accounts” with Serbs who still live in Kosovo. Dodik said that the connection of Pristina authorities with the international community is visible in this context (Dodik referred to the train of Serbia carrying poster ‘Kosovo is Serbia’ which Serbia tried to send to Kosovo). Dodik said that the lack of condemnation of prevention of freedom of movement proves there are double standards. Dodik wondered is it possible that the freedom of movement is granted only to some and denied to others.

 

Patrushev: Steady course to join Montenegro, FYROM, B&H to NATO by force is set (BN TV)

 

Secretary of the Security Council of Russia Nikolai Patrushev stated on Sunday that a steady course of further expansion of NATO, which is trying to forcibly join Montenegro, FYROM and Band Herzegovina in NATO has been set. Patrushev said that at the same time, deployment of a US air defense system in Europe is ongoing. He added that election of Republican Donald Trump for a new US President does not mean fundamental change in Russia-US relations.

 

Croatia rejects B&H’s request to process Jelavic (Hina)

 

Croatian authorities have rejected B&H’s request to process former Croat member of the B&H collective presidency Ante Jelavic, suspected of organizing a Croat self-government unit in the Federation of B&H in 2001 and dissolving the Croat military component by which he jeopardized the combat readiness of the country, Jelavic’s attorney Josip Muselimovic said Saturday. Muselimovic told the media that the Croatian Foreign and European Affairs Ministry had rejected Sarajevo’s request with an explanation that this was a political and military process. “In my opinion, the ministry’s position is entirely understandable, given that incriminating allegations refer to establishing whether the acts of Mr Jelavic affected Bosnia’s combat readiness. If this is the case, then this act is exclusively of a political and defense nature,” lawyer Muselimovic told Hina, saying that this was the only possible response of the Croatian authorities. “It is not normal for a country to discuss political and military issues of  another country,” Muselimovic said. He expressed his expectation that the B&H Prosecutor’s Office would drop the criminal prosecution of his client, given that it is impossible to try him in absentia. Jelavic has been living in Croatia since 2005.

 

Markovic: Russian military structures responsible for the incident (MINA)

 

Military structures connected to Russia are responsible for the incident that occurred during the Election Day, said Montenegrin Prime Minister Dusko Markovic. “Montenegrin case was a sort of modus operandi for Russian paramilitary formations that act in other countries as well“, Markovic said. In this interview, he accused Russian paramilitary services for the attempted state coup on the Election Day.  “Can you imagine the idea of someone connecting Russian and Serbian nationals and organize such an event,” Markovic stated. He said that the leadership in Serbia, after initially denying Montenegrin claims, came to agree with them. They are now actively contributing to the investigation.

 

Maliqi: Montenegro has nothing to fear from Albania and Kosovo (Analitika/Pobijeda)

 

Albania and Kosovo will not try to take away any Montenegrin territories, advisor to the Albanian Prime Minister Shkelzen Maliqi told Pobjeda. “The idea of Greater Albania is not an official policy of either Albania or Kosovo. It might be present as an ideology of fringe groups. The idea of Albania and Kosovo uniting has more supporters, although this is not a priority idea. The official policy is to unite Albanians under EU flag,” Maliqi said. He is one of the most respected Albanian and Yugoslavian intellectuals and philosophers. He said that Ivica Dacic is a personification of contradictions of Serbian politics that is best expressed through “Both EU and Kosovo“, “Both EU and Rusija“ mantras. “They want EU integration, but also want to keep control over Kosovo, which they lost in 1999,” he said. Maliqi said that he expected that France would let Ramush Haradinaj on bail, because he was charged for war crimes twice, and both time he was released. He said he does not expect France to extradite him to Serbia.

 

VMRO DPMNE: Albanian conditions for forming the government unacceptable (MIA)

 

Mandate holder for forming the new government in Macedonia Nikola Gruevski, VMRO DPMNE, announced that the conditions for the formation of the ruling coalition, which were set by the DUI Ali Ahmeti are unacceptable. Presidency of the Albanian party, DUI, defined the key elements of which they will not give up in negotiations with any party. These are the formalization of the Albanian language, extending the mandate of the Special Prosecutor's Office for intercepts (targeting high official investigations VMRO DPMNE) and the acceleration of the process of European integration. However, VMRO DPMNE stated that it would not negotiate or amend the Constitution to allow the Albanian language to become the second official language of Macedonia.

 

INTERNATIONAL PRESS

 

Multi-ethnic States Have Failed in the Balkans (BIRN, by Timothy Less, 16 January 2016)

 

In response to Jasmin Mujanovic’s comment article, ‘New Partitions are the Last Thing the Balkans Need,’ Timothy Less maintains that the Balkan countries lack even the most basic elements needed to make multi-ethnicity work, so it is time to consider a new territorial settlement.

The starting point when formulating policy is to recognise the world as it is, not as one would like it to be.

In the Balkans, political reality is sadly very far from the “vibrant and organic multiculturalism” that Jasmin Mujanovic describes. On the contrary, the region is one of the least stable in Europe, where divided, multi-ethnic states subsist in a state of frozen conflict, requiring the presence of thousands of international peacekeepers on the ground to prevent a relapse into violence.

The causes of this malaise have been analysed at length but a mass of complexity ultimately boils down to two basic points. The first is that minority populations do not want to be a part of another group’s state if that means living as second-class citizens without adequate security, rights and opportunities. And the second is that majority populations do not want their minorities to leave with their land because they claim the territory on which the minorities live. Wherever these contradictory objectives clash, the result is tension and dysfunctionality.

For the last two decades, minorities have had little choice but to accept their place in their adoptive state at the insistence of a hegemonic West, which has vetoed any changes to the political arrangements put in place after the collapse of Yugoslavia. The quid pro quo was that NATO agreed to guarantee their security and the EU their rights and prosperity, provided the locals could meet the conditions for entry to these two organisations.

However, this chapter in the Balkans’ history is coming to a close, without resolution. With the political crisis in the EU deepening, the Europeans have lost their focus, their authority and their main policy lever in the region, namely the promise of EU integration. Meanwhile, the Americans have more important concerns than the Balkans on their plate. In the space vacated by the West, Russia and Turkey are asserting their presence and pushing their own self-interested agendas.

Unsurprisingly, disaffected minorities have begun to exploit the shifting geopolitics to advance the separation they have always seen as the only guarantee of their security and rights.

Last September, the Bosnian Serbs directly challenged the Dayton arrangements in a referendum endorsed by Russia, which met no effective resistance from the West. Now the Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik is threatening another referendum this year, probably on the authority of Bosnia’s Constitutional Court. If matters continue in this way, by early next decade, Republika Srpska may have cut most of its links with the rest of Bosnia.

Other disaffected minority groups are making similar moves to distance themselves from their political centres. Kosovo Serbs are threatening to establish an Association of Serbian Municipalities next month without authorisation from the Kosovo parliament. Bosnian Croats are sharpening their demands for a third entity. Macedonia’s Albanians are refusing to participate in government unless their Macedonian counterparts accept a new political settlement. There is now a risk of a breakdown in the interethnic power-sharing arrangements which have hitherto held the country together.

This is not the stuff of radical, fringe politics. It is being driven now by mainstream politicians acting on behalf of their electorates whose core political goal is to live in conditions of dignity and security.

After a period of stasis, it is becoming increasingly clear that the ground is now shifting, risking a fragile stability. Majority populations in multiethnic states stand to lose control of territory to which they are emotionally attached and, in some cases, from which they have been ethnically cleansed. In a worst-case scenario, they may forcibly resist any moves towards separation.

So what is to be done?

The first task is to wake people up to the reality of what is happening, especially those who are committed to peace in the region. That is why I wrote a hard-hitting article in Foreign Affairs. Given the risk of a security breakdown, it is vital to start a proper debate about the future of the Balkans, at both local and international level, that gets beyond the paralysed policy of European integration.

After that, the task is to examine the options, of which there are four.

The first is to continue as now with what Jasmin Mujanović describes as the “generational task of genuine, grassroots-led reform and democratization”.

On the face of it, this is a noble objective because reform and democracy are undoubtedly good things. Unfortunately, however, there are two fundamental flaws with this approach. One is that, after 20 years of trying, efforts at nation-building have so far failed to yield any tangible results. The political atmosphere in the region remains poisonous, democracy is regressing and the various national groups are more divided than ever.

And the other problem, simply, is that time is running out. The Bosnian Serbs are making their plans to leave and the prospect of melding them and the Croats into a single, Bosnian political community in the timescale required to halt their departure and save the Bosnian state is precisely nil. As Jasmin himself conceded, this is “the stuff of fantasy”.

A second option is for the West to offer disaffected minorities some new incentives to accept the political status quo. In many ways, this would be the ideal outcome because it would neutralise the threat of separatism in a peaceful and orderly way.

Again, however, there is a basic problem with this approach. With EU enlargement in abeyance, there is nothing the West can really offer vulnerable minorities that could compensate them for their fundamental lack of security and political rights.

A third option, therefore, is to coerce minorities into accepting the status quo by threatening them with sanctions or some other form of punishment if they make any moves towards separation. However, as the aftermath of the referendum in Republika Srpska has shown, there is no international consensus on sanctioning separatists whose actions may be destructive but are ostensibly peaceful and do not directly threaten the West.

Meanwhile, it goes without saying that majority groups should not be allowed to clamp down violently on recalcitrant minorities. That would trigger the very outcome that everyone is trying to avoid.

This leaves a fourth and final option. If disaffected minorities cannot be made to accept the status quo and are willing, if necessary, to assert their separation unilaterally, then the interests of peace require the majority population to accept some kind of new territorial settlement for their minorities.

At this point, the salient question is how deep and how far this should go. The ideal is that majority and minority groups can together agree on a form of devolution which both preserves the state and satisfies the primary demands of the minority group. If this can happen, that is the end of the matter.

However, precedent from the region suggests that anything less than a hard international border is unlikely to provide the freedom from external interference and protection from the threat of potential aggression which minorities around the region fear. In the early 1990s, Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks and others felt compelled to declare independence from Yugoslavia. Kosovo Albanians would not accept “maximal autonomy” within Serbia after 1999. And Bosnian Serbs reject even the deep autonomy that they have today.

In every case, the reason for this is the same: the Balkans lacks the most basic elements needed to make multi-ethnicity work, except in conditions of authoritarian rule. A weak tradition of constitutional liberalism means minorities lack confidence in shared institutions. A history of violence and atrocities has destroyed trust between different national groups. And endemic corruption and widespread poverty conspire to keep the people on edge.

That is why I have reached the conclusion that the optimal solution to the structural security crisis in the region is a transition to nation states based on the principle that political borders should coincide as much as possible with demographic realities on the ground.

The nation state has two main virtues. Domestically, the vast majority of its inhabitants belong to a single political community in which they can enjoy their rights and opportunities without any fear of ethnic discrimination.

And externally, nation states allow vulnerable groups to live in conditions of relative security behind an internationally recognised border. Relations between Croatia and Serbia, or Serbia and Albania, or Albania and Greece are far from perfect but they are basically functional because, except for minor border disputes, none of them makes a claim on the territory of any of the others.

This contrasts starkly with the situation in multiethnic states such as Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo where the territory on which the minority lives is simultaneously claimed by the majority group. In the first scenario, there is peace. In this second, the unresolved question of ownership contains within it the omnipresent risk of conflict.

I should emphasise that, nowhere in this framework, am I suggesting that new nation states need to be pure ethnic states. If Bosniaks have chosen to live in Republika Srpska because they have ancestral roots there, or Macedonians have chosen to remain in the Albanian-dominated parts of the country, they should be encouraged to stay and all efforts made to uphold their rights.

This is not an impossible goal. Most regional states have demonstrated their ability to accommodate small numbers of a minority group for the simple reason that they do not pose any threat to the territorial integrity or identity of the state.

It is also a completely different proposition to the situation that exists in Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo today where large, disaffected minorities live in compact territories adjacent to their titular state, and consistently make demands that anger and distress the majority population.

While I have stated my position, I am not naïve about the difficulties involved in achieving a transition to nation states, given the resistance of majority populations to ceding land they consider to be an integral part of their state and whose secession they have a right to block under international law.

My suggestion is a graduated and negotiated approach, led by a broad international coalition, which steers the region towards this eventual outcome. Perhaps there are better solutions: these issues are profoundly difficult and policymakers have not even begun to think them through.

However, the point that must be kept firmly in mind is that, with the effective end of EU enlargement, the nature of the challenge has changed. Since disaffected minorities are already starting to extricate themselves from states they have long considered illegitimate, the question is no longer how to make these multiethnic states work. That was yesterday’s problem.

Today, the dilemma policymakers face is whether to let the region fragment in an improvised, uncontrolled manner, driven by local separatists, or whether to take control of that process and minimise the risk of violent reprisals by the majority population.

Others are free, of course, to criticise my proposal; where criticism is constructive, it will help to move the debate forward and ensure the outcome that everyone wants, namely a sustainable peace in the region.

However, those who defend the current political arrangements to the exclusion of all alternatives need to provide some pretty compelling answers to the following questions.

First, if multi-ethnicity is working, why are minority populations around the region all so concerned about their basic rights and security? Second, what do they plan to do in the short term to address these minorities’ manifest concerns? And third, if these plans fail, how do they intend to stop minorities unilaterally separating themselves from the rest of the state?

For the record, I do not accept the following answers.

First, that minorities are afraid because they are brainwashed by nationalist leaders spinning fictitious threats. Not only is this suggestion an insult to their intelligence but it also fails to understand how a crude democracy in the Balkans works.

Second, that minorities already enjoy full rights: only minorities can be the judge of that and they say otherwise. Nor is it permissible to withhold these rights from minorities because of crimes committed in the 1990s, especially when these minorities have themselves suffered historically.

And, third, the means of arresting separatism can never be the use of violence.

While the Balkans may be peaceful for now, the trajectory is not good. The problem of separatism, contained for two decades, is returning to the region, enabled by a shifting geopolitical environment, which has tipped the local balance of power in favour of revisionists.

If peace is to be maintained, it is vital that those who care about the region focus on how to manage this problem while there is still time to avoid a breakdown in security.

Stability is not served by pretending that everything is fine on the ground when the tectonic plates are shifting just below the surface. Nor is it helped by casting aspersions, closing down debate with moral exhortations, or insisting on “universal” solutions that clearly embody the interests of just one national group.

This is my viewpoint and some will no doubt continue to reject it. But while they cling to an abstract idealism and a set of outmoded policies in the belief that these are the only guarantee of peace, minorities on the ground are pressing ahead with their goal of separation.

That is political reality and the sooner others recognise it, the sooner the process of addressing this problem can begin.

Timothy Less is the Director of the Nova Europa political risk agency and a former British diplomat in Macedonia and Bosnia.