Recently a ‘technical arrangement’ was signed between UNMIK and the EU Planning Team, which is responsible for setting up the EULEX mission in Kosova. It was called ‘technical’ (as it is) only because this was made possible by the earlier political agreement between the two missions. This political agreement is evident in the contents of the ‘technical arrangement’.
In the preamble, it states that it is ‘to facilitate the deployment of
EULEX within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 1244
(1999) and the overall authority of the United Nations.’ This confirms
that the future mission will operate as a pillar inside the UN so there
will be no contradiction between the two missions which will operate on
the basis of Resolution 1244, whilst the Kosova government will
function according to the Constitution. In addition, clause ten states
that the arrangement is valid for one year which indicates that UNMIK,
despite all the promises and propaganda, is not leaving. Instead, as it
gathers a new mission under its umbrella, it is growing in size.’
This week there has been an interesting shift in the definition of
‘multi-ethnic’ in Kosova. When the term was placed in the constitution
and used in the Ahtisaari Plan, it was used for political reasons to
imply that Kosova is a country in which live many ethnic groups of
roughly equal sizes and thus, it is a country without one dominant
identity. The term was being used to deny the reality that 95% of the
population of Kosova is Albanian. In practice, the term ‘multi-ethnic’
has been used to justify the implementation of the Ahtisaari Plan,
which focuses solely on the rights of the Serb minority, treats Kosova
as a Serb-Albanian entity and divides it on this basis. In this sense,
the term ‘multi-ethnic’ has ignored the existence of Turks, Bosniaks,
Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian in Kosova. It was simply a political tool to
pacify Serbia and to ease the path for the creation of a new ‘Kosova’
identity.
Now Tim Guildmann, the head of the OSCE Mission in Kosova has altered
the interpretation of this term multi-ethnic in order to make another
political move. He is quoted as saying, “Kosovo is not some-thing that
we can call a multiethnic society. There are different communities
living in Kosovo, but a multiethnic society would imply integration,
mutual under-standing, tolerance, and co-existence. And we are not
seeing this.” Now multi-ethnic is being used to refer to the relations
between groups of people and not the number and size of the groups
which constitute society. It is being used now to imply that the lack
of integration is an internal problem to Kosova and that responsibility
lies with Prishtina and not with Belgrade.
The report by the OSCE which supports Guildman’s claim explains the
lack of integration in Kosova, but it does not explain why this exists.
There is no mention of the active and aggressive policy that Serbia has
been pursuing within and outside Kosova in order to undermine its
independence and territorial integrity and to prevent the Serb minority
from integrating institutionally and socially. The report makes no
mention at all of the shooting and murder by Serbs of a Ukrainian
police officer on 17th March. When it does refer to the burning of the
border posts on 19th February and the occupation of the court house in
Mitrovica on 17th March, there is no mention of Serbia’s involvement.
There is instead a vague reference to the ‘continued stalemate’ between
Prishtina and Belgrade, which implies that both sides are equally to
blame for this failure to integrate. This attempt to hide behind the
mask of so-called ‘objectivity’ simply removes all political
responsibility from Belgrade. It is not fair or just to hold Kosova
accountable for the non–integration of the Serb community when this is
made impossible by Belgrade’s policies inside Kosova and the
international community’s tolerance of these very same policies.
Albin Kurti leads Vetëvendosje (Self-determination) Movement, which opposes international administration of Kosovo.
|