Kosovo at the gates

It can be seen that the talks have gone a long way – we only now take the strings and echoes of what, it seems, has long been arranged in a far more intimate format

Petar Arsovski

That esoteric meeting of Vucic and Zaev at the border, where they opened some kind of project for the so-called One Stop Shop just warmed up the analytical kitchens – we in the Balkans are prone to plots and gossip, and the marginal and unspecified statements about Kosovo, which as an outsider have been cast in the official agenda, just fueled our imagination. After increasing the intensity of Thaci-Vucic’s meetings, and through the format of their statements, the contour of some sort of shift from the status quo situation to Kosovo is looming. The two politicians seem to prepare the public for a larger project, how to play “trial balloons” – and judging by the content of their statements, they are testing exactly the solution that would, of course, involve exchanging territories.

Here we come to the first obstacle. For this region of the world, the axiom of borderlessness has existed so far. Those who deal with the Balkans will say that any shift on any border, immediately problematizes all borders in the Balkans. Hence, and understandably, with enormous skepticism and fear, this solution is welcomed in the surrounding countries (certainly in our country), but also with some of the EU members. Many analysts will say “there is no chance of such a thing”, it is too early to say that it has been shown too many times that such solutions are destabilizing, they will not be allowed to change a big geostrategic paradigm, they will not manage to agree, and such.

I am not convinced that this last attempt should be rejected with such ease as impossible. There are several variables that have changed, and which can shift this from a theoretical idea on paper, to become a capital geostrategic real project very quickly. First, the international community, even those who oppose such a solution, will find it difficult to find remarks about the process – seemingly it meets all the criteria imposed precisely by those who would now stop it: alone, without international assistance, countries are trying to resolve the decade problem and find a mutually acceptable solution. There is not much room to criticize Thaci and Vucic, and they unreservedly use it in response to any criticism.

So, now we have less formal space for remarks. Then, we can see that the talks have gone far – we only now take the strings and echoes of what, it seems, has long been arranged in a far more intimate format. The analyzes, the reactions from official Brussels, and the relative passivity of Washington are at least partly due to the fact that the two leaders managed to reach the “package” quickly. Now, when the package is ready, it is much more difficult to dissolve and criticize. Thirdly, the international community’s hysterical riches are now reduced to shyness. It is obvious that Brussels, and Washington, certainly do not see the same skepticism of such a project. Whether this is due to the good news from Macedonia and Greece, to the new EU interest in the Western Balkans (which means that the possible solved problems would be quickly rewarded), that does not matter. It is important that when we now mention the exchange of territory and population, it is no longer a taboo. If it is not taboo then it is a legitimate choice. If, however, it is a legitimate choice, then Thaci and Vucic will choose.

What is the problem with this solution, and why should we introduce a dose of concern in the way we analyze this problem. Of course, the first instinct is pragmatic: “We will join NATO, start negotiations with the EU, so they must break their head afterward.” But is that right? First, the splitting of Kosovo is the victory of a diametrically opposite paradigm of resolving open multiethnic issues, from the one upon which Macedonia is based. So far, the rule has been multicultural societies with a focus on minority rights and stable borders. This is different: the boundaries are changing, multiculturalism is impossible, therefore ethnically clean countries should be created. By analogy, if the project succeeds, should we try the same here?

Secondly, the fragmented pieces will not wait for a new nuisance of recognition – they will be joined to the motherland. It is already the creation of new big states, which threatens to be transferred to Bosnia and thus put the region constantly in crisis. In the end, if this scenario suits Vucic and Putin, the odds are that they do not suit us, because we have conflicting interests – we want in the EU and NATO, and he does not want us there.

Lastly, Eurosceptics, even within the EU itself, can use this shift as an excuse for a new postponement of integration, which for most aspirants (for us of course) would be a cataclysm in the socio-political sense. So, we have to be careful in the observation, but clear in defending our interest – and it is primarily a fast Euro-Atlantic integration in which the borders become unimportant.