The Kosovo-Serbia Deal and the EU’s Enduring Attraction

Serbia; EU
Strategic Europe
Summary
The EU should use the landmark agreement between Belgrade and Pristina to change the political landscape across the western Balkans and foster democracy further afield.
Related Media and Tools
 

There was huge excitement at the annual Globsec meeting in Bratislava when the news broke that Kosovo and Serbia had signed a historic deal.

The excitement was a welcome reprieve for conference delegates. During three days of panel discussions, hardly a good word had been said about the EU. You would think the entire postwar European edifice was about to collapse.

Then came the Kosovo-Serbia agreement—aimed at normalizing relations between the two neighbors—that could close one of the last and most complicated chapters of the bloody Yugoslav wars.

The deal, which sets out a complex system of power-sharing and autonomy for the Serb minority in northern Kosovo, reveals two important things about the EU.

The first is how the European club continues to be enormously attractive to potential members. That is despite the euro crisis and all the (often justified) criticism about the EU’s foreign and defense policy. “The continuing lure of the EU [should] not be underestimated,” said Ian Brzezinski, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank. If Serbia had not become an EU candidate member last year, it is highly unlikely the Belgrade leadership would have negotiated with Kosovo.

The second revelation is the special role played by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s top diplomat. For once, no European leader or foreign minister tried to undermine her. And for once, too, because of her personal friendship with former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Ashton was given a free hand by Washington to broker the accord.

“Without Ashton, the deal would not have been possible,” said Sonja Licht, a veteran prodemocracy activist and president of the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence, an NGO. “Ashton never bragged. She created an atmosphere of trust for the leaders. She handed the EU a great success.”

But all observers of Kosovo and Serbia agree that once the euphoria ends, the hard work will begin.

Licht is right when she says extremists on either side could attempt to sabotage the deal because they would lose their raison d’être. Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dačić and his Kosovar counterpart, Hashim Thaçi, will have to work very hard to sell the agreement to their constituents.

Implementation will be crucial too. The EU will have to do a far better job than it has to date in helping to build strong institutions in Serbia and Kosovo. Neither state will prosper if corruption remains endemic.

The accord has implications for the rest of the western Balkans region. The deal just might encourage ethnic groups in Bosnia to put their enmity behind them and finally build a functioning state. The Bosnian Serbs have seen how Belgrade has pursued a pragmatic, pro-European strategy, making their own course of establishing a Serb “statelet” within Bosnia far more difficult.

There is also the unresolved Macedonia naming dispute. Greece, thanks to its veto power in the EU and NATO, has been able to prevent the former Yugoslav republic from calling itself Macedonia. Greece has also blocked EU and NATO talks with Skopje in order to maintain leverage over its northern neighbor. For the most part, international institutions have bowed to Greek pressure, using the absurd acronym of FYROM (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).

The EU needs to confront Montenegro’s rampant corruption as well, not to speak of “clientelism” and trafficking in Albania. The EU has a lot of unfinished business in the western Balkans. It should persist.

The Kosovo-Serbia deal also has positive repercussions beyond the immediate neighborhood of the Balkans.

For prodemocracy and pro-European movements, especially in Belarus and Moldova, the accord shows that the EU is effective when it chooses to use its entire panoply of soft-power tools. But how can the EU apply these instruments to countries like Belarus or Moldova?

“The Kosovo-Serbia deal is good news for us. But there is really no template. Each conflict is so different,” said Andrei Sannikov, a Belarusian opposition leader who challenged President Aleksandr Lukashenko at the 2010 election. He was subsequently imprisoned along with hundreds of other prodemocracy activists. After his release last year, he fled to Britain, where he now coordinates the project European Belarus, which campaigns for EU membership for the former Soviet state.

“The EU should toughen the sanctions against the regime and do much more to support activists and the independent media. The EU should become relevant to Belarusians,” Sannikov added.

The EU is working hard to make itself relevant in Moldova, where a pro-European political movement is trying to orientate the country toward Europe. The biggest problem is the breakaway region of Transnistria. There, a Moscow-backed movement is using this frozen conflict to help the Kremlin maintain its influence in this part of Europe.

Ashton could do much more in both Belarus and Moldova, but she needs unanimous support from the member states. Without the perspective of eventual EU membership, which exists for Serbia and Kosovo, her job vis-à-vis Moldova or Belarus is much more difficult. Yet it remains very much in Europe’s interest to foster democracy beyond the EU’s borders.

 

End of document

Comments (3)

 
 
  • Andrea Lorenzo Capussela
    I agree entirely: great EU success. And a good deal too: for the two sides, and for the civic notion of statehood and citizenship. Still, I fail to see what interest the EU had in forcing that territory into a state they don’t wish to belong to, especially because this threatened the pro-European orientation of the central and largest country of the Balkans. This policy was a very risky one, because with Russian help Serbia could have become a real nuisance. And it was a morally dubious one, for structurally there is no difference between the Serbia-Kosovo question and the Kosovo-north question: rhetoric aside, the independence of Kosovo was the partition of Serbia on an essentially ethnic basis. Triple praise, therefore: for having marked a rare EU success, having avoided a serious risk, and having defeated the ethnic discourse. But even if it has been vindicated, the policy that led to this deal remains rather unconvincing, if seen ex ante.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
    • Law and Justice? replies...
      Those who know the world right (UN law), know that this is a wrongful act. But I understand that the West needs to get cheaper drugs from Albanians (especially heroin and marijuana) and also selling organs (yellow house) and the weakening of Russian influence in Europe. This is very sad for the whole world, because the large can always force small ones. There isn't a point of world justice, and world law, and the UN. What is next? The Great Albanian Empire of the Black Market? Basque Country? North Cyprus (or Turkish Cyprus)... Where is this world going when terrorists and butchers can have their own country!? Shame on you!
       
       
  • Marko
    A kind of success? After the 1991 collapse of EU FAP, the option of secession of Cataluna, Padania, Corse, Northern Ireland, Euskadi and other regions remains open. What's the objective, having 30-50 states of a United States of Europe? The leaders of the EU must summon NOW and set a common foreign policy AND TAKE A PERMANENT SEAT ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS or face a further disintegration. Receiving tweets even BAYERN AND HESSEN are considering the best options for them after the federal government sought more funding from them to support ex Deutsche Demokratische Republik lands. That is the way it started in Yugoslavia... Slovenia pulled out first and the rest is HISTORY.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
Source http://carnegieeurope.euhttp://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=51580

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Europe
 
Carnegie Europe Rue du Congrès, 15 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 2 735 56 50 Fax: +32 2736 6222
Please note...

You are leaving the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy's website and entering another Carnegie global site.

请注意...

您离开卡内基 - 清华全球政策中心网站,进入另一个卡内基全球网站。