Early parliamentary elections of May 11 in Serbia have been transformed immediately into an international problem. This has happened regularly with all parliamentary, presidential and local elections that have taken place in Serbia since year 2000, when in power in Belgrade came forces considered democratic.

Governments in Belgrade have continuously made their elections international problems, in the function of the Serb strategy of pressure on the international community so that they can win something in return. Through this tactic Serbia has gained favors from the international community on Kosovo, Montenegro, EU and NATO integration, Hague noncooperation, nonperformance of democratic reforms in Serbia, etc.
 
This is happening again, now that Serbia has determined May 11 to hold early parliamentary and local elections. Serbia is also aiming to hold its elections on the territory of another – sovereign and independent – state, the state of Kosovo. And it has immediately transformed this issue into an international problem.
 
This is manifested firstly in the hot debate created within the international community, regarding the stance that should be taken on the Serbian elections and the attempts by Belgrade to hold them in the independent state of Kosovo. State Department spokesperson declared that Serb elections cannot be held on Kosovo territory, because it is another country. European Union spokesperson held another stance, stating that Serbia has the right to organize elections on Kosovo territory. UNMIK, as an international administration, chose a middle path, stating that Serbia has no right to hold local elections in Kosovo, with the exception of the five enclaves with Serb majority, where they must be held under UNMIK jurisdiction. UNMIK did not object to the parliamentary elections. For Moscow, Belgrade has the right to organize parliamentary and local elections on the territory of Kosovo, which Moscow continues to call Serb sovereignty.
 
Clearly, Serb elections have created an international debate, which is far from demonstrating a unified stance on this issue. This internationalization of Serb elections interests Serbia and Russia, which for them supports the argument that the recognition of Kosovo by the Western states was unjustified and that negotiations on Kosovo should continue further as if nothing had happened.
 
It should be noted here that only the United States, in a direct and realistic way, expresses a stance which is based on the new reality in Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state and that no other state has the right to organize its elections on the territory of another state. Whereas Brussels, UNMIK, Moscow and some other capitals, although based on different positioning, are striving to find arguments for or against on this issue based on Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council of 1999. But the reality of the new state in Kosovo should be the determining criteria of the position that should be held towards the Serb decision to organize Serb elections in Kosovo.
 
The reality of the independent state of Kosovo should be taken in consideration when formulating the EU stance towards Serb elections, despite the fact that some of the member countries still waver on recognition. Brussels cannot consider the situation in Kosovo and the Kosovo-Serbia relations the same way as before 17 February, 2008. Eighteen EU countries, including its major members, have recognized Kosovo. It is not realistic that because of the countries that still have not recognized Kosovo, EU should continue to treat the election issue based on the evasive concepts of before February 17. None of the EU members allows the organization in their territories of elections from another member state of the EU. It is another issue the right of citizens, who have the citizenship of another country, to vote on those elections.
 
The reality of the Kosovar state should be taken into consideration even when the UNMIK stance is created on these elections. Rightfully so, UNMIK chief, Joachim Rucker, declared on April 10 that based on Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council, only UNMIK is responsible for the organization of elections on the Kosovo territory and that all other elections are null and void. But UNMIK should not only declare, but also stop any Serb attempt in this regard. It is clear to UNMIK that now we are undergoing a four-month period of transfer of competencies to the democratically elected institutions of Kosovo and to EULEX.
 
UNMIK does not make only a protocol mistake to enter relations with a minister of Serbian government, Slobodan Samardzic, called minister for Kosovo and an actor and public provocateur of vandalism in Mitrovica. First, he is the minister of a fallen government and second, he does not represent nor does he have the mandate of the Serb government. UNMIK accepted from him a letter last month, where he had proposed the “functional division” of Kosovo along ethnic lines, a letter which did not have the approval nor the awareness of the democratic ministers in the Serb cabinet. Resolution 1244, which UNMIK works under, does not recognize the right of some self-announced governor of Kosovo, like Samardzic, to make deals with UNMIK on the question of sovereignty of Kosovo.
 
As was the case on past parliamentary, presidential, and local Serb elections, again Serbia and some of her allies in the EU are using the clash between European and anti-European forces in Serbia. Requests are being made to use Kosovo and compromises on its sovereignty, to confirm the support of pro-European forces in Serbia. In Brussels there is an opinion that, by making concessions to Serbia on the issue of holding Serb elections on Kosovo territory, Serb electorate can be encouraged to support pro-European forces. But the political developments in Serbia during the last eight years since the fall of Milosevic do not support such claims made by certain European factions tolerant towards Serbia. The arrogant Serb attitude towards the Stability-Association Agreement with the EU should have shaken some diplomatic portraits in Brussels.

One thing has resulted from the EU relationship with Serbia in the last eight years. EU indulgence has helped nationalist forces and has put to sleep the democratic forces, which have not focused on reforms to win the electorate, but got used to expect electoral hand-outs from Brussels. It is important to note that with the Serb strategy to hold Serb parliamentary and local elections in Kosovo, great damage will be done to the stability and security in Kosovo and around it. In one way or another, allowing the organization of Serb elections in Kosovo would damage the integrity and sovereignty of the independent state of Kosovo. Something like that would encourage Russia on its obstructionist strategy of pressure against Europe and the Balkans.  
 
Something like that would damage the democratic forces in Serbia and would be useful to the anti-European radical forces, for the simple fact that Serb minority in Kosovo is oriented towards the radical and nationalist forces in Belgrade. Allowing them to vote on Serbian elections adds to the radical and nationalist anti-European votes in Belgrade. Public opinion polls among the Serb minority in Kosovo have shown that over 90% of them support relations with Russia and are against NATO and the EU. In such a situation it is important the determination of a clear position by the international factor for the method of participation of the Serb minority in Kosovo in the parliamentary and local Serb elections of May 11. This is a strategic and principal issue, because democracy in Serbia is supported by the democratization of life and society in Serbia, and not by feeding nationalist and colonialist illusions on Kosovo.