This week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss issues ranging from missile defense to discussing the future status of Kosovo. Although the development of a missile defense system is a hot topic, I would like to discuss the latter, since it has not been given considerable attention since the NATO campaign in 1999.
Firstly, I would like to give a brief historical background of the events that I find relevant to the Kosovo question. This province has a very significant heritage in Serbian history. The region was part of a battleground in stopping the spread of Ottoman authority (Turkey). The Serbian kingdom would lose in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 (although the exact effect of Ottoman rule did not occur until later in the 1400s). Regional politics of the time was very complicating, involving many different leaders and kingdoms contending for power and influence. Some of these leaders would side with the Ottomans, in hope for better political advantage. Nevertheless, this battle was the turning point in the collapse of the Serbian kingdom and the beginning of the struggle for preserving their identity. The Albanian peoples have claimed their ancestry to the Illyrians or possibly the Thracians or Dacians - or a combination of these ancestries. Over the centuries, they have migrated across the Balkans and some have assimilated into certain ethnic groups. During the 1980s and 1990s, the battle over Kosovo accelerated between the Albanian and Serbian peoples. These events led to the NATO campaign in 1999 and the turnover of administration presently governed by the United Nations.
Currently, the U.N. proposal for the future status of Kosovo has been to grant autonomy. In the Serbian point of view, this is giving the Albanian majority the opportunity to declare full independence. The Russians also see the proposal in the same manner. In my opinion, the current proposal takes into account the Albanian peoples, but it does not fully take into account the Serbian position. I believe that the heart of diplomacy is working toward a compromise that both sides can agree. I understand the Albanian view and it should be heard, but this should not diminish the Serbian stake in the proposal (even if they are a minority). Currently, the plan only receives strong Albanian support. I believe that further negotiations and talks between the Albanians and Serbians can result in a much better and balanced proposal. Maybe, revisiting the partition plan might be a good starting point. Although I do not know the details of these negotiations, this idea seems more balanced. If this was a bad approach in its ideal, other types of proposals could also be introduced, which have not been considered. Whatever proposal is presented, it should lead to the goal of establishing lasting peace in Kosovo with both sides in agreement. I believe that a more balance agreement would get full support from the UN Security Council. I have also discussed my general view of diplomacy in my other commentary, Peace in the Middle East.
If this issue continues into 2009, I believe a Barack Obama administration should address the future of Kosovo with more diplomatic importance than it has received in the past seven-to-eight years. A lasting resolution toward ending this conflict should be contemplated and acted upon. As I have written in Peace in the Middle East:
"...it is important that both sides can freely express their concerns. Even if a certain concern is sensitive, it should not be brushed aside. All issues should be resolved and agreed upon before . . . " any agreement "is signed, in order for it to have a lasting impact. A mixture of compromise, patience, and pressure should be brought in the discussions. Even if the initial U.S." and U.N. "vision for peace is not totally followed through precisely, this should not stall the peace process. The format . . . should be worked based on where progress leads it."
Matthew Negrete
Comments are closed for this post.
