- November 14, 2022
- Posted by: admin
- Category: English Publications
Serbia’s Rejection Of German-French Plan: A Step Closer To War
The peace policy promoted by the Albanian government in our two republics should not be naive in the face of Serbia’s goals, namely its preparations for returning to Kosovo, through the occupation of the north. Even less should the West be naive in relation to Belgrade’s attitudes.
Geostrategic interests and politics based on religion on the one hand and human rights are usually in conflict or in particular circumstances subordinate to each other.
Peacekeeping and the implementation of universal human rights are the basis on which the Kosovar foreign policy is conceived. In the governing program of the current government, the two goals are emphasized. Both goals are necessary: war leads to the most serious violations of human rights. Therefore, in the numerous interviews of the two leaders of our Republic – the president and the prime minister, the risk of carrying the war to this part of our continent has been emphasized, since the Serbian governments have continuously planned the military return of Serbia to Kosovo.
And where geostrategy dominates and the myth of geopolitics superimposes human rights, human rights are massively violated and peace is endangered.
In general, advocates of a largely peace-oriented foreign policy prefer to argue from a geopolitical perspective. They place the conflict zones in the context of a struggle for global dominance (US vs. China) and for the protection of geostrategic interests (NATO eastward expansion, the New Silk Road).[1]
The positioning of Kosovo and the Albanians in general as a nation alongside the Western bloc has given new tones to the foreign policy of Kosovo and the Albanians in general. In this realignment, above all as a product of the war in Ukraine, the imposed political system that was superimposed on our Republic through the imposition of the Ahtisaari Plan is coming to an end.
In this era of deep geopolitical changes, our society is predisposed to move with epochal steps towards change, as much as our northern neighbor’s fear of this change that is imposed on us – affects the course of history between the two nations (as in the years 1878, 1913, 1944 and 1998/99) and not infrequently these clashes that were accompanied by the recycling of the Serbian genocide against the Albanians for a full four times with the risk of causing a conflict of international character.
Meanwhile, the tendency to recycle history to the detriment of Albanians is rearing its head in Belgrade.
The instrumentalization of the Serbian minority in Kosovo, with an emphasis on that in the north of the Republic, is an additional evidence, in addition to the permanent Serbian arming and Serbia’s alignment with Putinist Russia.
Escalation of the situation in the north – casus belli
The basic reason why the situation escalated in the north of Kosovo and why the Serbian List was withdrawn from the central institutions and those in the north (in the four northern municipalities) has meanwhile been made public.
The Serbian analyst Sonja Biserko, within twenty-four hours of this situation, on the dramatic surface, has estimated that the situation in the north of Kosovo was created by Belgrade to avoid a serious agreement with Kosovo, specifically the Franco-German plan. [2]
The Franco-German plan [3] foresees the solution of the issues in several stages; it also foresees the recognition of Kosovo by the five EU member states that currently do not yet recognize it: Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia, thus paving the way for Kosovo’s accession to NATO.
The withdrawal of the Serbian List from the institutions is meanwhile being used by Belgrade as a casus belli.
Thus Belgrade with these actions is openly provoking at least one Blickrieg, respectively it is claiming to use it as a justification for the new Albanian-Serbian war.
In the interview she gave to the show #KallxoPernime, Biserko spoke in the clearest language possible, shedding light on the instrumentalization of Kosovo Serbs by Belgrade, as well as the manipulation of public opinion in Serbia by the government and its media and not less so from the clero-fascist opposition.
This act is part of the scenario directed by the Serbian president, it is pure manipulation, Mrs. Biserko concludes. “This whole matter of signs … is a minor issue, it is not a real problem why Serbs are withdrawing from the institutions. This is an action towards … the SEPARATION of Kosovo.”
This action, warned also in the analyzes and comments of our researchers published on this portal of the GHJ, was and remains as part of the Serbian-Russian efforts, quite similar to what Russia applied in Ukraine, Donbask, etc.
But the measured counteraction of the government of Kosovo and the coordination of these actions with our natural allies (first of all with the USA, Great Britain and Germany), is the biggest contribution on the eve of the historic decisions – and that was related to complete neutralization of the effect of the Serbian List.
As a political force, this deeply incriminated structure, as is known, was a product of the agreement of April 19, 2013, signed by the respective former prime ministers – Hashim Thaçi and Ivica Daciq.
It was no coincidence that they were both in charge of the project that the Serbian side described as “razgraniçenje” (redefinition of borders), while the Albanian side (the Rama-Thaçi duo) described it as “exchange of territories”!
It seems that Thaçi’s meeting with Putin (2018), clearly coordinated by the Serbian and Russian services, would mark a major turning point in American diplomacy. The creation of a real alibi that would serve Putin on the eve of the start of the war in Ukraine, using the case of Kosovo (the annexation of the north in exchange for some neighborhoods of Presheva!), will serve for urgent actions from the American side.
The subsequent flow is known.
The use of the Serbian List and the northern Serbs as the last wildcard for the possible division of the north is related to the concept of lies and truth in Serbian political and diplomatic semantics.
“For the Serbs, the biggest enemy is the truth”, said the well-known Jewish publicist, Leo Freundlich, and concludes that it is exactly that, i.e. “the truth, that endangers their existence”.
Meanwhile, through the blackmailing political act that it undertook last week, by boycotting the institutions, the Serbian List as an instrument of the Serbian president, took the second step which claims first the destabilization of the Republic and then the imposition of the “Community of Municipalities with a Serbian majority”, as a step the first towards the separation, respectively the annexation of the north of Kosovo.
The Serbian side, pro forma, to mask the truth, connected this act with the decision on the issue of license plates. Belgrade’s action to make secessionism a legitimate right to the physical existence of Serbs in the north of Kosovo, again has nothing to do with Serbian citizens. In fact, this action has a pronounced geostrategic and geoeconomic character. First, to ensure the support of Belgrade’s allies within the EU to exchange Serbia’s “separation” from Russian influence through their support for territorial gains to the detriment of Albanians, specifically the right to the gradual annexation of northern Kosovo , known for its rich mineral wealth and Lake Uman, as an exceptional geo-economic asset.
The second one concerns the possible revision of the position of a neighborhood of EU states in relation to NATO’s intervention in the historic bombing of Serbia for a full 78 days (March-June 1999). All this with the aim of changing the Serbian position in relation to Russia, making it easier for it to move Serbia to the side of the Western bloc.
In this revisionist positioning of the politics of a neighborhood of European states in relation to the position they had, or that was imposed on you, in the spring of 1999, it endangers peace and prosperity in the Western Balkans even more.
Brussels, respectively the head of the EU’s foreign policy, Josep Borrell, in relation to the new developments in the north of Kosovo, reacted by using the invention of European diplomacy – the symmetry of guilt! With this behavior, European diplomacy reminds us of La Fontaine’s famous fables, whose main characters are sometimes the wolf and the donkey, and sometimes the wolf and the lamb.
The time has come for Western diplomacy to understand that Serbia, with its subversive acts in the north of Kosovo, which meanwhile culminated in open political blackmail and military threats, is entirely at the service of Putin, provoking a new war front in this part of Europe. Serbia is using the license plate pretext, treating it as a casus belli.
Why did the Ahtisaari Plan fail?
But, the spectacular action of the official Belgrade, even warning of an escalation of the situation and military intervention in the north of Kosovo, seems to have ended the status quo on the ground, highlighting the weaknesses of our political system that was based on the land with that of promoted the Ahtisaari Plan.
Why the Ahtisaari Plan can already be described as a failure?
It was, as is well known, drafted by the honorable former president of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, and had as its objective the provision of a stable political system for the youngest Republic on the old continent. Somewhat similar to that of Germany.
Until now, this system was claimed to be completely in line with European interests in ensuring peace and stability in the region. As such, they had supported the Western powers that had supported NATO’s intervention (1999) and then recognized the independence of Kosovo (2008), the product of this plan.
The war in Ukraine, specifically the Russian project to destabilize Europe, together with the Serbian project to destabilize the Western Balkans, primarily Kosovo and Bosnia, shows that the system established, based on Ahtisaari’s plan, is coming to an end.
Through that plan, the Republic of Kosovo was designed by the Westerners and accepted by the local political factor as a compromise in relation to the Albanian nation’s right to unification.
Serbia’s insistence to annex the north of Kosovo should be a sufficient fact for the review of this positioning and the accelerated progress towards the creation of the Albanian Federation, as the only solution that guarantees security, peace, stability and economic prosperity of the region.
The peace policy promoted by the Albanian governments in our two republics should not be naive in the face of Serbia’s goals, namely its preparations for returning to Kosovo, through the occupation of the north. Even less should the West be naive in relation to Belgrade’s attitudes.
Therefore, Western politicians should see as quite possible the collision of NATO with the Serbian army on the territory of Kosovo, which cannot remain only within its borders, if Serbia must at all costs be separated from Russian influence. Therefore, this clash must be carried and will be concluded in Belgrade.
*Dr. Sadri Ramabaja, Executive Director of the Albanian Institute for Geopolitics /Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and National Security, ILIRIA University/ Republic of Kosova.
Footnotes: