Public Authors of Secret Autonomy

Already a year has passed since the death toll in Kosovo has begun to mount on a daily basis, and there is still no clear idea as to what could ultimately happen with Kosovo — that is to say, what sort of status the region could assume.  The only thing that is known is that the Contact Group has taken the matter in its own hands, and that its political chiefs have stated on July 8 in Bonn that “the Contact Group had agreed to suggest a solution to the question of settling the status of Kosovo to the members of negotiating teams (i.e. Serbs and Albanians)”, and that it “will work on defining possible further elements of the future of Kosovo”, which will be placed at the disposal of the authorities in Belgrade and of the leadership of Kosovo’s Albanians with a view to dialogue with international participation.

Claus Kinkel, German Minister of Foreign Affairs, stressed that the plan on autonomy will be “confidentially presented” to both sides.  Inclusion of the Contact Group in the definition of the status of Kosovo is otherwise no surprise.  The German Minister had already announced several days ago that “the Contact Group will be making a draft for Kosovo’s autonomy, because it appears that neither side is in a position to do that”, and added: “We in the Contact Group will consider how to guarantee security to both sides.”
What kinds of solutions for Kosovo are currently on the table?

INDEPENDENCE - NOPE: Just like six months ago, influential foreign factors are unanimously stating daily that they are against independence in Kosovo.  Diplomatic chiefs of the European Union have done this in the past two weeks in Luxemburg (“EU continues to be firmly against independence in Kosovo”); as was also done on several occasions by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke (“All Albanians are seeking an independent Kosovo, but the international community cannot support this under any circumstance”, “We are all unanimous in the basic attitude that Kosovo must remain within FRY”).  The General Secretary of NATO, Xavier Solana “clearly and categorically” told the leader of Kosovo’s Albanians, Ibrahim Rugova, that the international community does not support independence of the Southern Region of Serbia.  In an interview for German Radio, “Deutchlandfunk”, Claus Kinkel warned Kosovo’s Albanians “not to harbor illusions in regard to acquiring independence”, nor in connection with possibilities that NATO will intervene in Kosovo as soon as tomorrow.  Bronislav Geremek, OEBS Chairman, stressed at a session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council that it is necessary to respect the principle of integrity of borders in resolving the problem in Kosovo and Metohija, and disagreed with demands for independence in Kosovo.  Akis Cohadropulos, Greek Minister of Defense, on the occasion of a meeting with his Albanian colleague, Luan Hajderang, stated that any change of borders in the Balkans is out of the question.  The Albanian Premier, Fatos Nano stated that his Government is not against the rights of the Albanian people in Kosovo for self-rule, but that the Albanian State respects the principle that borders cannot be changed through violent means.

IRREPLACEABLE AND INDIVISIBLE: It is interesting that Ph.D. Mira Markovic’s Chinese guest, Ju Ven, otherwise the Vice-President of the Chinese Association for International Understanding, stated that “the Chinese People have always considered that the region of Kosovo and Metohija is an irreplaceable and indivisible part of the territory of Serbia and Yugoslavia.”  Yugoslav Premier Momir Bulatovic (according to Tanjug reports) was not quite as precise at the Economic and Political Forum in Cran Montagne, stating that “FRY is investing efforts in resolving this question through political dialogue, but only with full acknowledgment of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of FRY” (without mentioning Serbia).  But that is why Slobodan Milosevic, at a meeting with the Yugoslav Minister of Foreign Affairs, Zivadin Jovanovic, and the President of JUL and of the Foreign Political Council of the Assembly of Citizens of the Federal Parliament, Ljubisa Ristic, (in his cabinet, and with better treatment than Richard Holbrooke gets) stated that “solutions, including the realization of local self-rule and autonomy in Serbia, must begin with respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia and Yugoslavia.”

Therefore, no one wants independence in Kosovo — except for Kosovo’s Albanians (at least publicly), who are not showing that they are impressed with such unanimity.  Ibrahim Rugova still continues to state that “the best solution is an independent and neutral Kosovo”, he still continues to seek NATO intervention and to demand that Kosovo become a demilitarized, international protectorate before receiving independence.  Azem Vlasi stated that “no single Albanian would ever settle for any type of autonomy within FRY”, because “the regime which had only given us naked repression in the past ten years can no longer offer us anything.”

WHICH PROPOSAL: And what is the mentioned regime offering?  Yevgeni Primakov, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced some ten days ago that the initiative rests now with Albanians for expressing themselves on Slobodan Milosevic’ offer of autonomy.  Valeri Nesterushkin, Spokesman for the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated that the Contact Group had received the proposal on autonomy of Kosovo from the Yugoslav Government, and that above all else, this option will come first under consideration, and “only if it proves satisfactory, will the German proposal be considered after.”  Which proposal by the Yugoslav Government?  The Government, that is to say Slobodan Milosevic, never informed the Yugoslav public about any proposal, nor did he then inform any assembly, neither the one of the republic or the federation.  However, we can hope that maybe the Contact Group will inform the citizens of this country exactly what it is he is proposing — either through Nesterushkin, or someone else.
So far, the only announcements indicate that the basis of the proposal offered by the Government of Serbia concerns early local elections as well as elections for regional parliament, as well as that preparations for a new law on local self-rule have been “intensified”  — but that the Government will not make further statements on this until Albanians give their opinion.

On the occasion of a visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, at the end of June, Ljubisa Ristic was not very precise on the question of the Status of Kosovo, but that is why he was very generous: “FRY is ready to deal with the question of Kosovo with political means.  In this, all forms of autonomy will be acceptable.”  Member of the Chief Council of SPS, Zivorad Igic, became a bright light with his statement that “Serbs should be brought back to Kosovo”, and that he supports “the verification of ethnic backgrounds in Kosovo and Metohija” so that it could be ascertained who came from where, and who emigrated.

As far as the Serbian opposition is concerned, the Social Democrats kept the busiest.  At the International Forum of the Bertesman Foundation (which is chaired by the President of Germany, Roman Herzog), Vuk Obradovic and associates presented Xavier Solana and Claus Kinkel with a draft of a plan for Kosovo, where besides a bicameral parliament of the republic, a regional council and council of minority groups are being stipulated within such a parliament; where Albanians would be required to participate in fair and democratic elections in Yugoslavia; and where a constitutional law would guarantee freedoms and rights for minority groups, as well as a constitutional law on establishing the widest possible autonomy for Kosovo and Metohija, which would include the right to dual citizenship, the carrying of national symbols, corresponding representation in the professional membership of the Yugoslav Army, with the Albanians in Kosovo being scheduled for not having to serve the army within the next five years.  Albanian officers in an army belonging to the state in which they are at war with, and from which they wish to separate?  Who knows?  But it hardly seems likely.

FOREIGN TROOPS: And then what sort of status could Kosovo have?

Even though, in an interview with the Spiegl daily, Ibrahim Rugova stated that he refuses the status of a third republic within the Yugoslav federation, it appears that he will not be offered this for the time being.  According to Washington Post reports on July 8, the Contact Group will not formulate a proposal on turning Kosovo into a third republic because of Russian opposition.  On the domestic front, it appears that Montenegro is even less in favor of such a possibility than Serbia.  As Dragisa Burzan, Vice-President of the Social Democratic Party of Montenegro, recently explained, giving Kosovo the status of a third federal unit would bring into question the state integrity of Montenegro. 

Montenegro would disappear, and we would get the kind of autonomy which was once enjoyed by Vojvodina,” he stated, adding that after a certain period certain regions of Montenegro would begin to demand their own autonomy.  The President of Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, stated that giving back the autonomy from 1974 to Kosovo would be “quite acceptable”.

In the interview with the mentioned German radio, Claus Kinkel stated that “Albanians would accept as a transitional solution an international protectorate with guarantees for the Serb population,” but that “there will be no protectorate.”  Kinkel stated that “autonomy should be established without a right to secession.  That means no protectorate, but perhaps international establishment of a future, autonomous Kosovo.”  Kinkel also stated that a new status for Kosovo would “include autonomy and self-rule which could not be reversed, controlled or limited in a way which Serbs might wish.”  This should be similar, or even broader than the position Kosovo enjoyed in the 1974 SFRY Constitution (when regions had significant elements of statehood, being equal with republics in every respect, except in regard to the right to secession).  However, it is clear that autonomy which would not be controlled by Serb authorities would assume some kind of international monitoring: “We are working toward limited security borders, but it is not quite so simple, because we cannot impose anything from outside.  What is at issue are internal questions of a country.”

Without question, the priority of the great powers at the moment is to secure a cease-fire in Kosovo.  Recently, NATO threats of intervention in Kosovo have grown far less frequent, but it is fairly clear that no cease-fire, if and when it happens, can be established without foreign troops which would ensure it.  It was already stated that troops would not include only NATO armed forces, but also those of other countries, and especially of Russia.  As AFP reports, diplomatic sources claim that 50,000 alliance soldiers would be required for maintaining the cease-fire in Kosovo.

Thus, NATO (“rent-a-NATO”, as someone observed cynically) can be expected in Kosovo in one form or another, which would free Milosevic of the enormous cost of maintaining all those security forces in the Region, while foreign soldiers would guard the few Serbs that remain there, at the expense of their respective countries.  And if NATO is allowed entry, then certain foreign civilian factors, which will guarantee the respect of a certain, future autonomous status of Kosovo, will also have to be allowed access.  The problem would not be permanently solved in this way, but it would at least be under some kind of control.  The key question is how many people will have to die until that happens.

Messages for Albanians

As it had called for “a temporary interruption of hostilities” at it’s July 8 meeting in Bonn, the Contact Group — in addition to the customary warnings for Slobodan Milosevic — sent a message to Kosovo’s Albanians on several matters.  In this way the Contact group announced that “armed groups of Kosovo’s Albanians are obligated to avoid violence and all armed activities,” concluding that all who are on the side of Kosovo’s Albanians should commit to dialogue and a peaceful solution, and should give up violence and terrorist acts.  The Contact Group “insists that those outside FRY who are providing financial support, arms and military training to Kosovo’s Albanians must stop doing this immediately.  It further demands that all states quickly carry out all measures in keeping with their domestic legal systems and relevant decrees from international law and order to prevent the collection of funds on their territories which are being used against Resolution 1160 of the UN Security Council.”

The inclusion of the Liberation Army of Kosovo in the negotiations was not explicitly mentioned in the Contact Group’s statement, but it was stated that the negotiating team of Kosovo’s Albanians “must fully represent their community” so that it can negotiate with required authority.