The dispute between Kosovo and Serbia is seen as the greatest potential source of instability in the Balkans, according to the latest Watch List published by International Crisis Group.
Despite the fact that Serbia does not recognize Kosovo’s independence and as the report points that “the dispute has no natural expiration date”, it says there hope for a possible shared vision on how to end it.
“One path to compromise might involve recognition of Kosovo’s sovereignty in exchange for important concessions such as the creation of highly autonomous districts for Serbs in northern Kosovo and Albanians in Presevo, Serbia,” the report reads.
A more contentious one according to the report, would see a redrawing of borders so that the governments swap jurisdiction over those two regions.
Another issue generating confusion is the fact that the mediators, Washington, Brussels and European capitals are not on the same page, the report reads.
The document suggests that to help put the parties on a path to resolution, the EU and its member states, among others, should: “empower mediators to encourage a solution broadly acceptable to as many citizens of Kosovo and Serbia as possible, without a priori ruling out any solution to which the parties agree, including territorial exchange, so long as it is compatible with human rights and international law”.
It also suggests an assess whether there is support for changing their common position so that it expressly focuses on achieving a final agreement based on mutual recognition.
However, Kosovo does not refuse recognizing Serbia with the actual borders since it declared independence in 2008, while Serbia continues to claim it as part of its territory.
The report reads that as long as the impasse persists, both Serbia and Kosovo may be tempted to expand their influence where they still can.
“Belgrade could seek to reassert some of the control it ceded over the four Serb-majority municipalities in northern Kosovo and over the border; in response, Pristina might attempt to forcibly integrate these areas, drive out Serbia’s remaining institutions on its territory, question the status and security of the medieval Serbian Orthodox monuments, or encourage separatism in Serbia’s Albanian-majority Presevo valley,” it reads.
A much broader autonomy for Serbian minority in Kosovo and a similar arrangements to communities in Presevo that house major Albanian populations, is both the better alternative and the preferred choice of many European governments, the report notes.
However, autonomy appears to provoke the strongest negative reactions on both sides, it adds.
In order to find a solution, the report suggests that the EU can help the parties in five ways.
A cooperation with U.S. to help Pristina consolidate a viable approach to talks, is one of the five ways according the report.
“For many reasons, including the role the U.S. played in the 1999 conflict and in the 2008 declaration of independence, Pristina’s elite trusts Washington more than it does any European actor, and the U.S. will likely need to play a leading role in helping Pristina clarify its negotiating platform. The EU should support this,” reads the report.
