Paul Williams, professor at the American University in Washington and expert in international law, believes that the decision of the Serbian List to boycott the votes for the dismissal of the mayors in the four municipalities in the north of Kosovo, contradicts the interests of Serbian citizens in Kosovo.
Prof. Williams estimates that the normalization process has stalled because Serbia rejects the fact that Kosovo is independent and causes provocations and obstacles, including recently attempts to block Kosovo’s membership in the Council of Europe. In an interview for the Voice of America, Prof. Williams says that Americans and Europeans must make it clear to Serbia that it must choose between the West and Russia. 25 years after NATO’s intervention, Prof. Williams, who was an adviser to the Kosovo delegation in Rambuje, in the conversation with his colleague Keida Kostreci, calls Kosovo a great success story, since with that intervention the atrocities were stopped and its future was saved, but also because the US learned the value of humanitarian intervention and protection of its allies and friends.
Voice of America: Professor Williams, Lista Serbe decided not to participate in the voting for the dismissal of the mayors of four municipalities in the north of Kosovo, in order to pave the way for new elections. The United States and the European Union criticized this decision. What is your opinion on this attitude of the main political entity of the Kosovo Serbs?
Read Also:
Paul Williams: It is a real disappointment that the Serbian List has decided to boycott the polls again. A quarter of a century has already passed since Kosovo was independent and on the journey towards democracy, the functioning of the rule of law. And this tactic of boycotting democratic votes is not a serious way to protect the interests of Kosovo Serb citizens. Kosovo has demonstrated its abilities to adhere to the rule of law, to have democratic elections. Frankly, the time has come for the leaders of the Serbs in Kosovo to fully embrace democracy, just as everyone else in Europe engages in the political process.
Voice of America: This is just the latest complication that is not only related to the north, but in general to the stalled normalization process between Kosovo and Serbia. In fact, the EU envoy, Miroslav Lajçak, commenting on this process, said that the parties are not ready for normalization. What factors do you think influence this lack of will to respect last year’s agreements and move forward with normalization?
Paul Williams: I think it is important not to follow the version of the European Union or Serbia, according to which both sides are responsible, that it is a mutual reluctance. Honestly, every time there is progress towards normalization, Serbia will harass Kosovo, or create a provocation so that it can say ‘look, the Kosovar government is not as interested in this normalization as we are’. I think that Serbia has failed to understand that Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia, that it is an independent country and on the way to Europe. Serbia has not yet decided whether it is going towards Europe or towards Russia, and I think it continues to hold onto Kosovo as something it can use to draw attention away from its position in Europe. Kosovo has done everything that was asked of it by the international community, to democratize, to reform economically, to be a good ally of the West. The time has come for Americans and Europeans to fully support Kosovo’s political initiative and let Serbia know that now is the time to decide: West or East? If Serbia goes to the East, there is no problem. We see what has happened to those who have attached their future to Russia. It didn’t work out so well for them.
Voice of America: On the other hand, some of the actions of the Kosovo government and Prime Minister Albin Kurti have been criticized as non-constructive, such as the issue of the dinar or earlier that of license plates, and have caused high American officials to express disappointment. Do you think that their criticisms and warnings that these actions endanger the partnership are justified?
Paul Williams: I see it from the perspective of international law. There are 216 countries around the globe. Kosovo is one of them. What are their rights, privileges and obligations? They are sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. From a legal point of view, the government of Kosovo has full right to decide which currencies are acceptable, within its jurisdiction. Of course it can do this in a subtle way, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask citizens in your territory to use your license plates, use your currency and obey the laws of your country. And it is not entirely appropriate for Europeans and Americans to limit Kosovo’s sovereignty somehow, saying that ‘in 90% of your territory, for 95% of your population, the rules apply, but there is an exception for this other territory’. We have seen what happened in Bosnia, with Republika Srpska. Any acceptance of the interests of Republika Srpska brings more divisions and divisions within Bosnia. I think that Kosovo is very wise to think that ‘we don’t need a Republika Srpska in Kosovo, we need a complete country’. You should bear in mind that I would not say these things if Kosovo had not made the progress it has made for the rule of law, the protection of human rights and democracy. If there was another type of regime, then there might be some question marks about it, but in 25 years Kosovo has made significant progress, according to the standards that we in the United States and in Western Europe use to evaluate countries.
VOA: Their arguments are that there are some actions that can be avoided in order not to worsen a process that they think can achieve results. How would you respond to these arguments?
Paul Williams: I think unfortunately one of the main chapters in the diplomatic rulebook is accommodation of the aggressor. In this case, Serbia was a military aggressor a quarter of a century ago, but also a political aggressor. Not to confuse things, but we saw what happened in 2014 when the West accommodated Russia’s activities and aggression against Ukraine and brought about the war we have now. I do not agree with the notion that the weaker side, or our ally or friend, should not respond to the provocations of the aggressor state. I think we have learned that when a country tries to bully another country, not only should the latter protect its rights and privileges, but its allies should also support it, and not try to minimize its response. I think we have seen the consequences, when we did not support the allies when they opposed political aggression, or even military aggression. And these consequences are not good.
VOA: But you have been mediating negotiations between parties in different countries for a long time. Isn’t flexibility and concessions on both sides one of the elements for success?
Paul Williams: If the parties negotiate in good faith and try to respond to each other’s interests, then yes, one side has a position, the other side has a position of its own. They give and take to learn how their interests can be met. But this is a traditional approach to trade negotiations, or negotiations where friends and allies have a disagreement. In this situation, Serbia has not accepted that as a result of its cruel crimes, Kosovo, already separated from Serbia, became an independent country recognized by the West. And that there are a number of Serbs living in Kosovo who are citizens of Kosovo. They are not citizens of the Republic of Serbia. Kosovo should not be put under any pressure to separate Kosovo Serb citizens from the state of Kosovo.
Voice of America: One of the sharpest issues, if not the sharpest, is the Association of Serbian Municipalities, for which the West, the US and the EU say that Kosovo is not showing readiness to implement it, although it has signed an agreement. Kosovo fears that its implementation would lead to the repetition of a scenario like that of Bosnia. How do you see this issue?
Paul Williams: I think that Kosovo has learned from history. When we work with our clients on negotiations, we always talk about comparisons with similar state practices, what has happened to other countries. Kosovo only needs to look 100 miles away to see what has happened to the Dayton Accords. In theory, the agreements were designed to unite Bosnia. President Milosevic and others insisted on a Republika Srpska, and it was kind of a soft approach, so that the Bosnian Serb members would have their own community and grouping. They have used this to undermine the sovereignty and frankly the territorial integrity of Bosnia for the past 25 years. So, Kosovo looks at these and has many doubts about this association, that it could be a Trojan horse. In theory, it sounds good, and if the international community had expressed the commitment to keep it as an association, where there would be coordination for education, culture, language, as a financial cooperation, then it would be fine. But it is often sold as a soft approach, that it is a coordination, that it is an association. And it actually turns into a political entity, which can be used to damage the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kosovo. So Kosovo has agreed to the association, but they need iron guarantees that it will not be used to harm its sovereignty. You can say to trust the word of Serbia, but we have Bosnia as an example of what they have done with this type of association, or political identity.
Voice of America: The United States has said that the Association would not violate the integrity and authority of Kosovo and would be in accordance with its Constitution. Why not accept such a guarantee?
Paul Williams: In theory it probably wouldn’t, but in reality, and based on previous state practice, it could be used as a platform if it weren’t for these ironclad safeguards. I was with the Bosniaks as their adviser in Dayton and then with the Kosovars as their adviser in Rambuje and we heard the version that the Republika Srpska, the Federation would work. That they were just temporary. That we had to rebuild and unite Bosnia. But we have seen how it actually turned out in practice. So the words on paper may look okay, but it’s important to be very skeptical. Again the association may go ahead, but there may be other clarification or statement of intent documents. There is no reason why the United States and the European Union should say that, if it is harmless, they can make a bilateral agreement with Kosovo, where the worldview of the United States of this agreement for the association, or of the Europeans, is clearly articulated, and which commits the United States to taking certain measures in case it does not develop as stated.
Voice of America: On the other hand, President Aleksandar Vucic is not fulfilling the obligations of the Serbian side. The most recent indicator is the attempt to do everything to prevent Kosovo’s membership in the European Council, although according to last year’s agreements, both sides should not prevent each other’s integration. How would you characterize these actions?
Paul Williams: I think that these actions remove all doubts or uncertainties about Serbia’s approach to Kosovo. The Council of Europe offers the possibility that the population of Kosovo, whether Albanians or Serbs, or others, can bring their human rights issues to the European Court of Human Rights. It is a way to be part of the European community of countries, that is, other countries that are committed to democracy and the rule of law. So the question arises as to why Serbia opposes the presence of Kosovo in the Council of Europe, which would actually help to support and protect the human rights of the Serbian population in Kosovo. Serbia is only interested in antagonizing Kosovo and finding ways to undermine its political independence, and the time has come for the Europeans and Americans to see through Serbia’s bluff and take seriously the resolution of this issue between Serbia and Kosovo.
Voice of America: The increased pressure to solve this issue cannot be seen outside the context of the war in Ukraine and the efforts for Serbia not to line up with Russia but to look to the West, right?
Paul Williams: The West has been trying for three decades to draw Serbia into the Western camp. Serbia needs the West. The West does not need Serbia. Serbia sees its future, and has always been clear about it, linked to Russia. And if you look at the status of Russia, right now they’re losing or in a stalemate against a country that was a former republic of the Soviet Union and is a quarter of its size, has a quarter of its economic output. Russia is really a paper tiger. The future of Europe, east or west however you want to define it, is not in Russia’s hands. It is in the hands of the European Union and the United States. If America wants to shrug and let Serbia follow its fate, that’s fine. What we have learned from the conflict in Ukraine is that we need to invest even more in the relationship with our allies, as this is how we can influence the global order and keep the world safe, not by accommodating and pleasing our enemies, or those who are undecided, like Serbia.
Voice of America: President Vladimir Putin presented NATO’s intervention in Kosovo as a precedent, establishing a parallel between it and Russian aggression in Ukraine. How do you see this rhetoric?
Paul Williams: Putin has a long history of distorting history, law and precedent. Serbia had committed atrocity crimes in Croatia, had committed atrocity crimes and genocide in Bosnia, and was committing atrocity crimes in Kosovo. The solution for Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo was independence. If you are part of a territory, a country that is trying to kill its own people, you have the right to secede and become independent, to protect your people. None of these facts apply to the situation in Ukraine. Ukraine was democratic, based on the rule of law, with a European orientation. Putin simply did not want Ukraine to align itself with the West, so he decided to first take some of the territory of Crimea and Donbass. The West did nothing and he decided to come in to get everything. Fortunately, the Ukrainians stood up, in this case supported by the Americans and the Europeans, and they have been able to stop and to some extent curb that aggression, but there is no parallel between what the international community did to protect the people of Kosovo from Serbia, which you could say was a genocidal regime, based on what they had done in Bosnia. There is no comparison to what Russia is doing. On the contrary, as we are seeing with the indictment against Putin at the International Criminal Court, the Russians have committed crimes, atrocities against the people of Ukraine. So they are more in the position that Serbia was.
VOA: President Vucic is also trying to block a UN resolution next month that would call what Serbia did in Bosnia genocide. How do you see this attempt of his for a document that would not have binding force?
Paul Williams: Because the policies that Milosevic followed, and the territorial aggression in Croatia, the genocide against Bosnia and the atrocious crimes against Kosovo, still have deep traces in the Vucic government. If there had been a real democratic transition, if there had been a transformation of the Serbian regime, the Serbian government, then such an initiative would not have bothered them. Many countries that have been in situations where previous leaders committed atrocity crimes or genocide are willing to accept that and willing to say yes, that is in the past. Now we have turned a page and we are a new government. But Serbia still hasn’t broken away from the Milosevic era. And that’s why they’re so against acknowledging the fact that the Milosevic regime committed genocide in Bosnia, and I think it’s important that today’s decision-makers are aware of that. If they follow the same accommodation scenario as 30 years ago and put pressure on our friends and allies, they will have the same results, they will have a failed process.
VOA: 25 years have passed since the NATO-led intervention in Kosovo due to Milosevic’s refusal to sign an agreement that would have given Kosovo autonomy. As someone who was involved in the Rambouillet negotiations, how do you see that decision today and how do you see the situation today?
Paul Williams: Today we talk about the association agreement, boycotting elections and license plates. I think that if we detach a little and see where the situation was 25 years ago, it was very terrible for the people of Kosovo. It was very terrible for security in Europe. The European Union barely made it through the war in Bosnia; The UN was delegitimized with the failure of the UNPROFOR mission, the UN protection forces in Bosnia, and the 2 million people of Kosovo, many of whom had been expelled, displaced, were in real danger of disappearing as a people. NATO launched a humanitarian intervention, which was the right thing to do. He opposed the Milosevic regime, to basically say ‘No. We will finally draw the line. You cannot do these atrocities’. And they put Kosovo on the path to independence and it was recognized by over 100 countries. And what is more important, Kosovo has had peaceful democratic transitions, every time elections have been held. It has been passed from one party to another and so on. Transitions towards democracy are difficult, but Kosovo has achieved this transition. So nobody in the United States can look back and say maybe we shouldn’t have gotten involved politically, maybe we shouldn’t have done the humanitarian intervention. So honestly, day-to-day issues aside, the overall picture is that this is a tremendous success for all the people of Kosovo who were spared atrocities and for all their children and future generations.
And for the United States to have understood the value of a lesson learned from a humanitarian intervention, and of support for allies and friends. I would also mention something else, if time permits, that the people of Kosovo deserve tremendous respect for what they have achieved. If you look at the last 20 years, there have been several other countries, like Iraq and Afghanistan, or look at Libya, where the international community stepped in and provided the spaces for people to undertake a democratic transformation. And they squandered it. They have not done what is needed to have peace, security, democracy and the rule of law. It’s not easy. So regardless of the daily concerns that may have existed in these 25 years, it is a good moment to realize that not only did we save ourselves, not only did the Americans and Europeans help us to save, but we have had 25 years of democracy and progress and rule of law. So little difficulties here and there, but nothing compared to other countries. Other countries have squandered opportunities. Kosovo has not wasted the opportunity.