It is a deep paradox of the EU's position towards Kosovo - on the one hand, for punitive measures it shows an extraordinary unity, on the other hand, for seventeen years it has failed to build a unique position for the need for international recognition of the state of Kosovo. even after the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which they previously declared that they would respect
The EU's punitive measures against Kosovo, imposed in 2023, are a dated and worrying topic, which will be faced by the new government that will emerge from the February 9 elections. Despite the fact that these measures were imposed by the EU due to the actions of the Government of Kosovo in the north of the country, the approach of the EU can be described as unfair and with double standards. First of all, the unstable situation in the north is a consequence of the continuous intervention of Serbia, which has openly challenged the EU, the USA, KFOR and EULEX for the establishment of legality in this part of the country. Although parallel structures operate in this part of Kosovo, which are an extension of Serbia within the territory of Kosovo, the responsibility for this lies directly with the internationals, who have tolerated Belgrade in its attempt to undermine the West's success in Kosovo. In addition to the punitive measures, the EU has discriminated against the citizens of Kosovo for decades, not liberalizing visas, while half of its citizens live in EU countries. Recently, it has opposed Kosovo's efforts for membership in the Council of Europe (CoE).
On the other hand, even though the Government of Kosovo was right in its actions in the north, it failed to convince the USA and the EU for the placement of Albanian mayors in municipalities with a Serbian majority and for police actions in the north. This situation, provoked by Belgrade and similar to the period of the 80s, when the group of Serbian extremists, led by Miroslav Sholeviq, was operating in Kosovo Field, had three main objectives: the direct communication of the Kosovo Serbs, which meant the persuasion of theirs only towards Belgrade and not towards Pristina; the victimization of local Serbs, presenting them as persecuted and threatened by the Kosovar state authorities; and the spread of hatred against Albanians, instrumentalizing the Serbs against the Kosovo state authorities.
Five reasons why stocks are unstable:
Banjska, testing the EU: The attack in Banjska in September 2023, just a few months after the signing of the Ohrid Agreement, is a clear indication that Serbia is testing the limits of tolerance and the seriousness of the West to see how far it can go without faced serious consequences. This incident marked the first time since the end of the war in June 1999 that Belgrade had undertaken such a military operation against Kosovo in such an open and planned manner.
This act, which resembles the tactics used by Russia in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, is clear evidence that Serbia continues to be a source of instability in the Western Balkans. The involvement of armed structures and logistical support from Belgrade for this attack highlight Serbia's destructive role in the region and challenge international efforts to consolidate peace and stability.
The asymmetry of the EU's approach: The imposition of punitive measures against Kosovo, despite the reaching of the Brussels and Ohrid Agreements in March 2023, and keeping them in force even after the military aggression in Banjska, highlights an asymmetric and unfair position of the European Union . This approach is particularly worrying, given the EU's role as a facilitator of the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue process.
Punitive measures against Kosovo not only damage the EU's credibility as a neutral mediator, but also strengthen Belgrade's position at the negotiating table. This is a clear example of double standards, which not only shows an injustice towards Kosovo, but also legitimizes the aggressive and destructive policies of Belgrade. Instead of promoting the integration of Serbs into the Kosovo state system, these measures contribute to increasing tensions and creating an insecure environment in the region, undermining Kosovo's efforts to dismantle Serbian parallel and criminal structures, which are an extension of Serbia within Kosovo. To make matters worse, these criminal groups are financed with the funds of the state of Serbia which come as financial aid from the EU itself.
The hypocrisy of recognizing Serbian passports: The EU's acceptance of illegal passports issued by Serbia, which describe Kosovo as part of Serbian territory, constitutes a serious violation of Kosovo's sovereignty. This approach not only undermines Kosovo's efforts to consolidate its statehood, but also reinforces the Serbian narrative about the temporality of Kosovo's status.
Furthermore, this EU action creates false expectations among local Serbs, leaving them to believe that the current status of Kosovo may be changed in the future. At the same time, such a decision inhibits the integration of Serbs in the state system of Kosovo and at the same time discourages all those who are already part of this system.
The acceptance of these passports by the EU, especially by the countries that have recognized Kosovo, is as harmful as the acceptance of Russian passports for the occupied territories in Ukraine. Such an action by the EU creates a dangerous precedent, undermines international norms and sends the wrong signal regarding respect for a state's sovereignty. On the other hand, this decision of the EU has surprisingly been passed almost in silence by all parties in Kosovo.
Dualism of the EU: The approach of the EU towards Kosovo, with or without intention, contributes to the strengthening of the Serbian policy for the construction of a functional duality in Kosovo. This means that the Serbs of Kosovo simultaneously participate in the decision-making structures of the state of Kosovo and continue to maintain the parallel institutions of Serbia within its territory.
Kosovo Serbs use Serbian license plates and passports, while the teachers of the Serbian community receive salaries from the Ministry of Education of Kosovo and simultaneously from the Ministry of Education of Serbia. They cooperate with the educational institutions of Kosovo, but implement the guidelines and curricula of Belgrade.
This approach also applies to Serbian deputies (Lista Serbe) in the Parliament of Kosovo, who receive salaries from the budget of Kosovo, but follow an agenda that represents the hegemonic interests of Serbia. This dualism was also reinforced by the resolution of the UN General Assembly in September 2010, which together with the agreement on asterisk (February 2012) opened the way to a situation, which from the perspective of international law can also be read as a moratorium on independence, since from this moment, Kosovo agreed to present itself in regional forums as an entity without state attributes. Although this agreement was only for the level of regional meetings in the Western Balkans, the EU unilaterally applied such a model with Kosovo even in the case of reaching the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA). Therefore, as much as the way the sui generis legal formula was found for reaching such an agreement with Kosovo can be considered a success, it can also be considered an obstacle for future relations in the integration process (candidate status and membership) of Kosovo. in the European Union, bearing in mind that the 22 EU countries must take into consideration the positions of the 5 states that have not yet recognized Kosovo's independence.
The lack of recognition of Kosovo by the five European countries: It is a deep paradox of the EU's attitude towards Kosovo - on the one hand, for punitive measures it shows an extraordinary unity, on the other hand, for seventeen years it has failed to build a unique attitude for the need for international recognition of the state of Kosovo, even after the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which they previously declared that they would respect. For the Western Balkans to become part of the EU, both the European Union and the five non-recognizing countries must be ready to change their attitude towards Kosovo. The EU must build a unique position towards Kosovo, especially when Kosovo has unilaterally aligned itself with the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Such an action would constitute the EU's most important geopolitical investment in the region.
In contrast, the position of the five European countries on the non-recognition of Kosovo damages Kosovo's historical aspirations and European orientation more than the non-recognition by Serbia, which, if this position were to change, would lose any opportunity to hinder the Euro-Atlantic integration of Kosovo . As long as this status quo continues, it is pointless to expect common progress towards realizing the vision of a fully Europeanized region.
The EU's lack of will and determination to meet its goals is clearly seen in Brussels' approach to the Ohrid Agreement and Annex, the acceptance of which was said to lead to recognition by the five non-recognizing EU countries. However, two years later, nothing has changed, except for the addition of demands for the creation of the Association of Municipalities with a Serbian Majority, an issue that is being accompanied by international pressure similar to that exerted for the creation of the Special Court. One thing was promised that recognition by the five EU countries would happen. But, 2 years later, things have remained the same, except that the demands on the Association of Municipalities with a Serbian Majority have increased, an issue that is being accompanied by international pressure similar to that for the creation of the Special Court, an issue that is being accompanied by a international pressure similar to that exerted for the creation of the Special Court. Coincidentally, the five non-recognizing European countries, Russia and Serbia, are also on the same line, which consider the Association as a top priority in the next phase of the dialogue in Brussels.
An illustrative example of this absurdity in European non-cohesion politics is Spain's decision to recognize Palestine a few weeks after the major terrorist attack by Hamas against Israel. Such a decision took place outside of any political process, while in the case of Kosovo, Madrid is positioned in favor of the "arguments" and the position of Moscow, Belgrade, Tehran and other capitals. This non-recognition attitude of the five EU member states not only undermines the credibility of the EU as a block built on common values, but also proves that some member states have given up on the principles on which it was founded and the European Union still exists. (vijon)