Idea of Division of Territory Re-Activated

Kosovo

AIM Podgorica, 15 February, 1999 (By AIM correspondent from Belgrade)

In the shadow of talks in Rambouillet extensively covered by the media, an idea for resolving the problem of Kosovo which cannot be said to be new, but rather re-activated, passed almost unnoticed. It is the idea on exchange of territories, or ultimately on division of Kosovo. The idea might have been ignored if it had not been uttered by David Owen, former British foreign minister and special negotiator for Bosnia in the period between 1992 and 1995 and if the idea had not been placed by the columnist of famous The New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman.

Referring to the experience of forced multiethnicity of Bosnia marked as unsuccessful by both Friedman and Owen, they comtemplate about resolving the Balkan issue in the "Balkan way", advocating changes of international borders. According to Owen, this would imply that for every square mile he would give Kosovo Albanians, Milosevic would be compensated by square miles around Pale. This, of course, would open numerous questions, such as trading with territories of another state - Bosnia & Herzegovina.

The columnist, however, believes that in this way, along with Serbia, Bosnia would also be stabilized, because, as he says, chances would be increased for the remaining Serbs, Muslims and Croats to live together, without foreign troops. There had been such ideas before when exchange was proposed between Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro and Croatia, that is hinterland near Dubrovnik for Prevlaka. This has ended without changes of internationally recognised borders, of course.

The essence of this re-activated idea is that internationally recognised borders should be changed for the sake of stability in the region. The only question that arises is - according to what principle? Ethnic, cultural and historical, geographic, economic or combined? It is not realistic to expect that this would end between Belgrade, Pale and Pristina with no impact on other Balkan states and nations for the simple reason that should such a precedent be made, others would refer to it.

In international relations, the principle of unchangable borders is one of the primary principles. However, this refers to forcible changes of borders, but not to changes by agreement. This means that if a change of borders would be determined by agreement of interested parties, the international community would support it. The problem is that this would at this moment be almost unfeasible in the Balkans in view of how ethnically intermingled it is and of mutual open and hidden territorial aspirations.

The idea of Lord Owen has stirred up again another, quite marginal but never completely discarded scenario - division of Kosovo. One of the quite often mentioned ways in which Kosovo would be divided is creation of two entities by model of "Dayton Bosnia" which enables close relations with "parent" countries, and in the future a painless division. For example, the unavoidable provision in all Christopher Hill's plans, the one on undisturbed contacts with respective ethnic communities outside FRY reminds of Dayton and "special relations". In this sense it is possible to expect demands of the Kosovo Serbs for direct connections with Belgrade and a different terrotorial and administrative organization of Kosovo and Metohija, such as the one proposed by a local architect Branislav Krstic, the author of the book "Kosovo between Historical and Ethnic Right".

This would, in fact, be territorial and administrative interconnecting of mostly "Serb" (cutltural, historical and ethnic) regions and preparation for a possible scenario of division. The idea of cantonisation which was formulated by historian Dusan Batakovic and which was supported by Bishop Artemije and Momcilo Trajkovic, is founded on other foundations: creation of territories of mutually unconnected Serb canons which would also disturb homogeneity of Albanian territories. Regardless of the fact that those who are in the background of this option do not advocate division of Kosovo, but on the contrary its unity and more intimate connections with Serbia, cantonisation would basically, if division will be considered at all, with minor changes, be the backbone of the Serb part of the territory.

When speaking of the division of Kosovo, except of the question of criteria according to which division would be carried out, the question arises of who would back this political option? The story about the division of Kosovo on the Serb side is usually linked to Dobrica Cosic, the first president of FRY. However, the story on division caused commotin on the Kosovo, but also on the Serbian political scene, and the region in general, only after the speech of the president of the Academy of Sciences and Arts, Aleksandar Despic, at the annual convention two years ago, and it is still topical. Among other, he said at the time that it should be assessed whether it would be possible to preserve civil Serbia which would be acceptable for the Albanians. If it proves that this is impossible, according to him, "talks should begin with those who insist on secession of Kosovo on a possible civilised split and demarcation, in order to avoid repetition of the tragic experience in the recent past".

The ruling party at the time condemned the idea on division, exactly like the opposition, taking into account federal and local elections which were in sight (November 1996), but also emotional connections of the Serbs with Kosovo.

Kosovo Albanian political leaders mostly thought the idea on division unfavourable except when they identified it with secession of Kosovo in its present administrative borders with the possibility of certain minor changes according to the principle "a part of Kosovo for a part of southern Serb territory". Among the Serbs, the so-called independent intellectuals mostly speak about the division as well as members of some parties, but usually only among their party colleagues. This question is still too sensitive and it could be used by the opponents in political disqualification or for hits below the belt. But as usual for this space, that which is a taboo now, may practically tomorrow be proclaimed to be politically wise.

As concerning the citizens, a Yugoslav public opinion poll carried out by the Centre for Politicological Research and Public Opinion of the Institute of Social Sciences, shows that only four per cent of the pollees are in favour of such a solution. The biggest number of pollees according to the poll, is in favour of maintenance of the status this province has now - 40 per cent of them, or 49 per cent of pollees of Serb ethic origin. A large number of Serbs is in favour of abolishment of every form of autonomy - 16 per cent, and 9.5 per cent of pollees declared themselves in favour of a special status which is the closest to the one offered by negotiators in Rambouillet. But it is questionable how they would declare themselves if the official stand or at least its interpretations would change.

That is why we are all attentively waiting to see how the talks in Rambouillet will end and how a possible agreement and its previous stands will be interpreted by the coalition in power, and a new investigation will show what the citizens have to say about it.

Zoran Lutovac

(AIM)