Serbian president Boris Tadic
The conundrum in relations between Serbia and Kosovo is that milestones are passed but no distance is travelled; there is much talk about talking, but no consensus on the topic of such talks.
The International Court of Justice’s opinion, in July 2010, that the 2008 declaration of independence in Pristina was not in breach of international law, not in breach of United Nations Resolution 1244 and the constitutional framework adopted by the UN Mission, did nothing to change opinions in the respective camps for and against Kosovo’s independence – given that it is highly questionable that anyone would have expected that it would.
The subsequent UN General Assembly resolution on September 10, the result of an 11th-hour deal between the European Union and Belgrade, was hailed by many voices as opening the way for talks, but even then disputes remained about the process of such talks. Predictably, even the meaning of the UN resolution itself is disputed. And again, even if there were talks, what they would be about.
‘Interstate co-operation’
Kosovo was triumphalist in its messages after the UN September resolution.
Foreign minister Skënder Hyseni, writing to UN member states that had not recognised Kosovo to urge them to do so, argued that the resolution in effect backed independence. Serbia, according to Hyseni, had recognised this "at least indirectly" when it voted in favour of the resolution (the resolution was adopted by acclamation, meaning no formal vote was taken).
On September 14, Kosovo prime minister Hashim Thaçi insisted that between Kosovo and Serbia there would be "interstate co-operation and not negotiations".
The UN resolution, according to Thaçi, "determines that any consultations with Serbia will take place only as two equal, independent, and sovereign states. Such co-operation will be part of efforts to build new interstate relations".
However, according to a poll by the Foreign Policy Club and Forum 2015, reported in Kosovo daily Koha Ditore on September 14, most Kosovars continued to favour talks between Belgrade and Priština, even though the number who held this view was decreasing, the pollsters said.
‘Ready for dialogue’
Serbia’s minister for Kosovo, Goran Bogdanović, said that Belgrade was ready for dialogue and insisted that the UN resolution left Kosovo no excuses for avoiding negotiations.
Touching on one of the most intractable issues between Serbia and Kosovo, Bogdanović said that these talks should include issues about the northern part of Kosovo, which is predominantly populated by ethnic Serbs. Dialogue, he said, was the only way to resolve such issues.
Bogdanović said that Serbia wanted the UN, Russia and the United States involved in the talks, though the EU would have the central role, because without the "experience and influence" of the UN, Moscow and Washington, it was difficult to imagine stable management of an already complicated and difficult process.
Bogdanović’s reference to non-EU players came against the background of several voices that see the EU as taking the leading role – and Serbia’s position on this issue is not strengthened by the stated position of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has been communicating with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton about the way forward for talks between Serbia and Kosovo.
The day after the September resolution, Ban issued a statement welcoming the readiness of the EU to facilitate dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo; reiterating the importance of dialogue between the parties "as a factor promoting peace, security and stability in the context of the European perspective for the region", Ban reaffirmed the readiness of the EU to contribute to this effort "in close co-ordination" with the EU.
Other voices
After the September resolution was adopted, Bulgaria said that as co-author of the resolution, it was convinced that the resolution harboured new opportunities for the region’s European prospects.
The resolution expressed the UN’s support for the EU’s leading role in the forthcoming dialogue between Belgrade and Priština," Foreign Minister spokesperson Vessela Tcherneva said in Sofia.
The consensus reached by the countries that had co-sponsored the resolution’s text attested to the fact that the Serbian government had made a choice in favour of good neighbourly relations and their country’s European prospects.
Having visited the countries of the Western Balkans, Foreign Minister Nikolai Mladenov had called on Belgrade and Priština to establish immediate and pragmatic dialogue to resolve specific problems. Bulgaria, Tcherneva said, was convinced that such dialogue was "more than necessary" and would therefore actively support Ashton’s efforts in this direction.
EU prospects
Soon after the resolution, there were some encouraging messages about Serbia’s EU prospects, from both camps, those who accept and those who reject Kosovo’s independence.
Greek foreign minister Dimitris Droutsas, whose country does not recognise Kosovo, called for Serbia to be given EU candidate status as soon as possible.
Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini, whose country recognises Kosovo, said on September 14 that he hoped the next meeting of EU foreign ministers would see Serbia’s request to join the EU forwarded to the European Commission (EC) for approval. Serbian foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, after meeting Frattini, said that Serbia had proved its determination to continue its European integration and, Jeremic said, he hoped that the EU would return the gesture.
Serbian president Boris Tadić was quoted by news agency Tanjug on September 15 as saying that there was a "very favourable climate" in the EU for forwarding Serbia’s candidacy application to the EC.
Tadić said that Serbia had to carry out reforms fully and adopt the required laws, adding that recently the government and parliament had slowed down in adopting laws.
It was important for Serbia to receive the EU questionnaire right after getting candidate status, noting that EU membership brought with it enormous funds. Serbia’s EU accession should be an indispensable goal of every future government, Tadić said.
The International Court of Justice’s opinion, in July 2010, that the 2008 declaration of independence in Pristina was not in breach of international law, not in breach of United Nations Resolution 1244 and the constitutional framework adopted by the UN Mission, did nothing to change opinions in the respective camps for and against Kosovo’s independence – given that it is highly questionable that anyone would have expected that it would.
The subsequent UN General Assembly resolution on September 10, the result of an 11th-hour deal between the European Union and Belgrade, was hailed by many voices as opening the way for talks, but even then disputes remained about the process of such talks. Predictably, even the meaning of the UN resolution itself is disputed. And again, even if there were talks, what they would be about.
‘Interstate co-operation’
Kosovo was triumphalist in its messages after the UN September resolution.
Foreign minister Skënder Hyseni, writing to UN member states that had not recognised Kosovo to urge them to do so, argued that the resolution in effect backed independence. Serbia, according to Hyseni, had recognised this "at least indirectly" when it voted in favour of the resolution (the resolution was adopted by acclamation, meaning no formal vote was taken).
On September 14, Kosovo prime minister Hashim Thaçi insisted that between Kosovo and Serbia there would be "interstate co-operation and not negotiations".
The UN resolution, according to Thaçi, "determines that any consultations with Serbia will take place only as two equal, independent, and sovereign states. Such co-operation will be part of efforts to build new interstate relations".
However, according to a poll by the Foreign Policy Club and Forum 2015, reported in Kosovo daily Koha Ditore on September 14, most Kosovars continued to favour talks between Belgrade and Priština, even though the number who held this view was decreasing, the pollsters said.
‘Ready for dialogue’
Serbia’s minister for Kosovo, Goran Bogdanović, said that Belgrade was ready for dialogue and insisted that the UN resolution left Kosovo no excuses for avoiding negotiations.
Touching on one of the most intractable issues between Serbia and Kosovo, Bogdanović said that these talks should include issues about the northern part of Kosovo, which is predominantly populated by ethnic Serbs. Dialogue, he said, was the only way to resolve such issues.
Bogdanović said that Serbia wanted the UN, Russia and the United States involved in the talks, though the EU would have the central role, because without the "experience and influence" of the UN, Moscow and Washington, it was difficult to imagine stable management of an already complicated and difficult process.
Bogdanović’s reference to non-EU players came against the background of several voices that see the EU as taking the leading role – and Serbia’s position on this issue is not strengthened by the stated position of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has been communicating with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton about the way forward for talks between Serbia and Kosovo.
The day after the September resolution, Ban issued a statement welcoming the readiness of the EU to facilitate dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo; reiterating the importance of dialogue between the parties "as a factor promoting peace, security and stability in the context of the European perspective for the region", Ban reaffirmed the readiness of the EU to contribute to this effort "in close co-ordination" with the EU.
Other voices
After the September resolution was adopted, Bulgaria said that as co-author of the resolution, it was convinced that the resolution harboured new opportunities for the region’s European prospects.
The resolution expressed the UN’s support for the EU’s leading role in the forthcoming dialogue between Belgrade and Priština," Foreign Minister spokesperson Vessela Tcherneva said in Sofia.
The consensus reached by the countries that had co-sponsored the resolution’s text attested to the fact that the Serbian government had made a choice in favour of good neighbourly relations and their country’s European prospects.
Having visited the countries of the Western Balkans, Foreign Minister Nikolai Mladenov had called on Belgrade and Priština to establish immediate and pragmatic dialogue to resolve specific problems. Bulgaria, Tcherneva said, was convinced that such dialogue was "more than necessary" and would therefore actively support Ashton’s efforts in this direction.
EU prospects
Soon after the resolution, there were some encouraging messages about Serbia’s EU prospects, from both camps, those who accept and those who reject Kosovo’s independence.
Greek foreign minister Dimitris Droutsas, whose country does not recognise Kosovo, called for Serbia to be given EU candidate status as soon as possible.
Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini, whose country recognises Kosovo, said on September 14 that he hoped the next meeting of EU foreign ministers would see Serbia’s request to join the EU forwarded to the European Commission (EC) for approval. Serbian foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, after meeting Frattini, said that Serbia had proved its determination to continue its European integration and, Jeremic said, he hoped that the EU would return the gesture.
Serbian president Boris Tadić was quoted by news agency Tanjug on September 15 as saying that there was a "very favourable climate" in the EU for forwarding Serbia’s candidacy application to the EC.
Tadić said that Serbia had to carry out reforms fully and adopt the required laws, adding that recently the government and parliament had slowed down in adopting laws.
It was important for Serbia to receive the EU questionnaire right after getting candidate status, noting that EU membership brought with it enormous funds. Serbia’s EU accession should be an indispensable goal of every future government, Tadić said.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento