http://online.wsj.com/public/page/0,,opinion,00.html?mod=1%5F0045
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Tuesday, February 1, 2005 Page A12 Commentary
Set Kosovo Free
By WESLEY CLARK
In his visionary inaugural address, President Bush talked about the
challenges of promoting freedom abroad. Naturally our attention has been
focused on the elections in Iraq. But to focus exclusively on Iraq will
raise dangers elsewhere, such as in the Balkans. With each passing day,
tensions in Kosovo grow, threatening to destroy hard-won freedoms with
renewed conflict. In 2005, the U.S. and the international community must
address the resolution of Kosovo's final status before it is too late to
prevent tragedy.
Since NATO's intervention in 1999, Kosovo's final status has never been
resolved. It is a U.N.-administered province whose sovereignty still
formally rests with Serbia and Montenegro. But after a decade of Belgrade's
oppression capped by war, mass expulsion and atrocities, Kosovo's 90%
Albanian majority rejects completely any renewed link with Serbia and will
not settle for less than independence.
Nearly six years on, Serbs and Albanians still cannot live together.
Serbia's avowed aim is to prevent Kosovo from becoming independent. With
conflict simmering, Kosovo's Albanian majority regards the Serb minority as
a fifth column, and neither side is ready for bridge-building. The puzzle of
Kosovo is clearly not going to resolve itself.
Tensions in Kosovo and Serbia are now on the rise again, and a violent
collision may occur before year-end if not headed off by a concerted Western
effort. Further clashes, like the ones last spring, in which 20 people died
and another 800 were wounded, could result in an emergency partition of
Kosovo's territory, creating a precedent threatening to unravel U.S. and EU
investments in stabilizing multi-ethnic states throughout the Balkans.
After the rioting of last March, some have questioned whether this fragile,
volatile and underdeveloped society either deserves or can sustain its own
state. While these concerns are valid, it is important to remember that
Kosovo has already held two democratic elections and developed the
foundations of a modern, functioning economy. It has laid the basis for
statehood. But the protection of minority rights cannot be assured without
progress in resolving final status. And this, of course, is the key issue.
Some in Serbia's political, security and media establishment have signally
failed to move on from the Milosevic era in their attitudes toward Kosovo,
and a territorial carve-up takes higher priority in their maneuvering than
the welfare of the Serb minority on the ground.
They see advantage in further Albanian frustration and violence, and are
making a sustained effort to provoke it in order to force a partition
solution that would hive off the Serb-inhabited northern municipalities of
Kosovo and part of the divided town of Mitrovica (a perennial flashpoint for
violence), while jettisoning the two-thirds of Kosovo's remaining Serbs who
live farther south.
A relentless Serbian media campaign predicting new Albanian riots,
saber-rattling over the Albanian-inhabited Presevo Valley in south Serbia,
and a southward redeployment of the Serbian army in December, may mark just
the opening salvoes in a strategy of provocation.
To head off the nightmare scenario of a Kosovo Albanian rebellion triggering
all-out fighting over Mitrovica and a Serbian army adventure to secure north
Kosovo, a vigorous U.S.-led drive to resolve Kosovo's status has to begin
now.
The six-nation Contact Group (the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy,
Russia) and the U.N. Security Council have set mid-2005 as a date for
deciding whether to begin a process to decide Kosovo's future status.
Beginning immediately, they should set the ground rules for negotiations and
a timeline for a settlement. The framework for Kosovo's future should be: no
return to Belgrade rule; no partition of its territory; and no future union
with Albania or any neighboring territory. The pace at which Kosovo is
allowed to progress toward full independence should be made contingent on
its treatment of minorities. This last point is absolutely critical.
The U.N. secretary general should also appoint a special envoy to begin
consultations on a draft settlement text, the "Kosovo Accord," to include a
new Kosovo constitution guaranteeing minority rights and continuing
international monitoring, assistance and security presences in a new Kosovo
state.
Finally, an international conference should be organized in late 2005 to
finalize and endorse the Kosovo Accord. If Serbia cooperates, it will gain a
role in shaping guarantees for Serbs in Kosovo's new constitution, to be
drafted by Kosovo's Assembly in agreement with the conference's
international sponsors. But if Serbia boycotts the process and refuses
formally to relinquish sovereignty, Kosovo is in too fragile a condition to
be kept hostage. Similarly, should resolution of Kosovo's status be blocked
in the Security Council, the U.S. should lead a coalition of its European
allies to organize the conference; endorse a Kosovo referendum for adoption
of the new constitution to go ahead in early 2006; and then give diplomatic
recognition and sustained support to Kosovo as a new state.
Unlike the case of Iraq, there is today no active conflict in Kosovo. But
prompt measures to resolve Kosovo's final status are warranted now, lest we
lose both peace and freedom in the Balkans.
/Gen. (Ret.) Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999
Kosovo campaign and is currently a board member of the International Crisis
Group, whose new report, "Kosovo: Toward Final Status," can be viewed at
www.crisisgroup.org./
Serbian News Network - SNN
news@antic.org
http://www.antic.org/
