Multilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo

Whenever someone mentions that Kosovo on February 17, 2008 made a “unilateral declaration of independence,” the intention is to relativize this act or make it problematic. Declarations of independence are by nature unilateral. That is, they are made by representatives of a people in a territory, while others decide whether to recognize it or not. Such was the declaration of independence of Albania in 1912, and that of Croatia and Slovenia in 1991. But no declaration of independence in modern Europe has been less “unilateral” than that of Kosovo. The process that led to it, the coordination with the main international factors, the conditions under which it was declared, the timeframe, the content of the Constitution, the flag, the anthem, and many other elements actually make the declaration of independence of Kosovo multilateral.

Kosovo is marking its 17th anniversary of the declaration of independence. If this age is compared to that of a human being, then next year Kosovo will reach adulthood, turning 18. Even this anniversary is finding Kosovo in a situation in which it has reached a maturity as a state, in many areas better than some other neighboring countries, it has functional state structures, but on the other hand, it has not rounded off its international subjectivity.

In fact, the strengthening of international subjectivity has been stalled for several years now. With the exception of recognition by Israel, there have been no new recognitions by any other state for many years.

There have been no new attempts to become a member of international organizations such as UNESCO and Interpol, where Kosovo had failed many years ago. And Kosovo, with or without its own fault, in 2024 failed to become a member of the Council of Europe, where it was very, very close. The failure to become a member of the Council of Europe was orchestrated by friendly countries such as France, Italy, Great Britain, and finally Germany, and it is doing this with the support of the United States of America.

The reason was the refusal of the Kosovo government to listen to the advice of the countries that make up the Quint group to send a draft statute of the Association of Serb-majority Municipalities for review to the Constitutional Court of Kosovo. Either it was a miscalculation by the Kosovo government, believing that, faced with the fact that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had strongly recommended membership, these countries would change their minds, or it was a deliberate calculation, estimating that the damages from the Association would be greater than the benefits from membership in the Council of Europe.

And in the end, those diplomats who thought that “a quick procedure and an extraordinary meeting will take place within a few months to recognize Kosovo” were proven wrong. Not that it didn't happen, but it can't happen until May, if even then.   

Kosovo's failures in strengthening its international subjectivity are also a consequence of the incorrect and unprincipled behavior of international organizations, and in particular the European Union. It is also a consequence of the dialogue, which with the facilitation of the EU is taking place in Brussels. This dialogue, instead of helping Kosovo to integrate into international organizations, has become one of the main obstacles to achieving this goal.

The EU has deliberately remained silent whenever Serbia has taken steps, both formal and informal, against Kosovo’s recognition and integration into international structures. This is a violation of what the EU calls the “Agreement on the path towards normalization of relations,” one of the points of which states that “Serbia will not oppose Kosovo’s membership in any international organization.”

This anniversary of Kosovo's independence also finds it in a situation where the positions of the United States of America in international politics, especially relations with European allies, are completely unpredictable.

The changes are so dramatic that the American president threatens to annex the territories of allied countries such as Canada and Denmark, while warning of cooperation with Russia and China. We have a president who still does not recognize the results of the 2020 elections, has begun the dismantling of state agencies that have been part of America's image in the world, has also entered those of national security, while his closest associates want to interfere in the elections of allied countries by supporting far-right political forces.

While they have respect for dictators and authoritarian leaders. Knowing exactly how this American administration will behave with Kosovo seems a bit pretentious. And for Kosovo, as for other parts of the region, a conflict between America and its European allies cannot bring benefits. Although the Balkans, with Kosovo in it, is part of Europe, as an enclave surrounded by EU countries, the problems in this region have been solved only with full military, political, economic and humanitarian cooperation between the EU and the United States of America. No one can know how this cooperation will go from now on.

The international community should be reminded that since the beginning of the wars in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo has heeded the demands and advice of the international community more than anyone else. And it has not been easy. From the acceptance of the Rambouillet Agreement to the Ahtisaari Package.

Whenever someone mentions that Kosovo on February 17, 2008 made a “unilateral declaration of independence,” the intention is to relativize this act or make it problematic. Declarations of independence are by nature unilateral. That is, they are made by representatives of a people in a territory, while others decide whether to recognize it or not. Such was the declaration of independence of Albania in 1912, and that of Croatia and Slovenia in 1991. But no declaration of independence in modern Europe has been less “unilateral” than that of Kosovo.

The process that led to it, the coordination with key international factors, the conditions under which it was declared, the timeframe, the content of the Constitution, the flag, the anthem, and many other elements actually make the declaration of independence of Kosovo multilateral.     

Even the recognitions were achieved in the first phase mostly thanks to the joint, coordinated action of the countries that were an active part of the multilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence. Most of the countries that recognized Kosovo belong to what is known as the "Western democratic world" or allies and partners of the West and countries where the West has influence. This is clearly visible even today if one looks at the world map with the countries that have recognized Kosovo.

Regarding the number of recognitions, Serbia claims that 29 of those that had recognized Kosovo have withdrawn their recognition. There is no such confirmation from Kosovo. It would be logical for a country that withdraws recognition to notify the respective country for which it has withdrawn it and not any other country. Therefore, it cannot be seen with complete certainty how many countries there are today that have recognized Kosovo.

This depends on many factors.

For example, Croatia has not yet been recognized by three countries, even though Croatia's independence was declared 34 years ago. And all three of these countries were among the first to recognize Kosovo. Many people heard their names for the first time when it was announced that they had recognized Kosovo.    

But for Kosovo, recognitions are of greater importance than for Croatia, since Kosovo has obstacles to becoming a member not only of organizations where Russia has the right of veto, but also of the EU. The fact that after two years, Kosovo's application for EU membership has not been considered at all proves this best. And the EU had the main role in coordinating the declaration of independence 17 years ago, because its role was also determined after that declaration. This is precisely why Koha Ditore, a few weeks before the declaration of independence, had written on its front page that it would be declared on February 17, although no one knew this exactly at the time.

Coordination is still important today to explain how the European Union turned out to be the main element that did not adhere to the agreement and expectations that had existed in the joint undertaking of declaring Kosovo's multilateral independence.

The declaration of independence itself came after an international political process, led by Martti Ahtisaari as the special envoy of the UN Secretary-General.

The negotiations were conducted according to the Contact Group guidelines, which were agreed upon not only by the EU but also by Russia. And in that process, special attention was paid to the needs of the EU and the role it was expected to play in the continuation of the process. In Ahtisaari's team, the largest number of EU representatives was present. Even in the Troika that followed Ahtisaari's proposal, in addition to the US and Russian representatives, there was also the EU representative.

It therefore came as a big surprise when the EU was badly divided over the status of Kosovo following the multilateral declaration of independence on Monday 18 February 2008 at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels. This was the second time that the EU had betrayed a process in which it had played a leading role. A year earlier, a small number of EU states had not supported the Ahtisaari Package.

Thus, EU Ministers, under the chairmanship of Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, issued an unusual statement. In it, they stated:

“On 17 February 2008, the Assembly of Kosovo adopted a resolution declaring Kosovo independent. The Council notes that this resolution obliges Kosovo to respect the principles of democracy and equality of its citizens, the protection of Serbs and other minorities, the protection of cultural and religious heritage, and international supervision.”

The Council also underlined that the EU remains committed to the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, including the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and the UN Security Council resolutions. “Underlines the belief that, given the conflicts of the 1990s and the prolonged period of international administration under UNSCR 1244, Kosovo represents a sui generis case that does not call into question these principles and resolutions.” 

The EU Council communiqué also spoke of the EU's readiness to play a role on the ground in Kosovo through its presence, and welcomed the readiness of other international presences.

Nothing in this first EU reaction was said about the status itself and the EU's position on the status. This was a major political failure of the EU, the consequences of which are still being felt today, both for Kosovo and for the EU. The vast majority of EU countries recognized Kosovo's independence, but 5 countries (Greece, Cyprus, Slovakia, Romania and Spain) did not recognize it.

They interpreted that by not recognizing Kosovo's independence they were "respecting international law." In this way, they sided with Russia against most EU countries.

The EU institutions decided to use a formal argument, saying that “the EU does not recognize states but this is the individual competence of the member states”. But this is not entirely true.  True. The EU usually takes a political stance on recognizing states, while each member state formalizes this by establishing diplomatic relations with that state.

Before Kosovo, Montenegro had declared its independence. In that case, the EU had called on its member states to “establish relations with Montenegro as a sovereign state”. The EU had also collectively recognized Croatia on January 15, 1992. Croatia still celebrates the recognition by the 12 then-members of the EU as “the day of international recognition of Croatia”. In the case of Kosovo, there was no agreement on this and there is none today.

The EU had missed three important opportunities for Kosovo. It failed in 2007 to unanimously support the Ahtisaari Package. It failed on February 18, 2008, to have a common political position on recognizing Kosovo as a state.

It failed in 2011 to recognize Kosovo's statehood by all states because the argument that Kosovo's declaration of independence violated international law was no longer valid. Because the world's leading authority for interpreting international law, the International Court of Justice, had stated that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law or UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Even now, 17 years later, 5 EU countries still maintain the same position against the vast majority of EU and NATO countries. The consequences are huge for Kosovo, but also for the credibility of the EU, which aims to be a "global actor" and has no position on an important issue in its own backyard. 

And indeed, today, when the EU laments that it is not being considered a factor in the world, that it is being ignored by the US in the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, it should think carefully about how much it has contributed to this being the case. If the EU, after 14 years of dialogue, is not able to open a bridge connecting two parts of a city in Kosovo, how can it be a respected factor in the case of Ukraine or Gaza? Even 17 years after independence, even 14 years after the start of the dialogue, we hear from the EU about Kosovo how they will "sit down and see how to proceed!!!".