In May 2023, serious violence broke out in Kosovo.
Sparked by attempts by the Kosovo government to install Albanian mayors in the largely
Serb-inhabited areas in the north, clashes erupted that left dozens of NATO peacekeepers injured.
All this has again focused international attention
on this long-running source of tension in the Balkans.
But while efforts have so far been centred on self-government for the ethnic Serbs,
is it now time to consider a more radical plan? Partition.
Hello and welcome. If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and
here I take an informed look at international relations, conflict, security, and statehood.
In the modern era, attempts to resolve ethnic conflicts
have tended to be focused on peaceful settlements that keep groups together.
Given an international system built around the idea of states,
conflict resolution has tended to be centred on maintaining borders.
This usually leads to a degree of self-government, ranging from
limited language and religious rights to extensive territorial autonomy or even federal arrangements.
However, very occasionally, the end outcome will be separation.
A territory will break away and pursue independence or unification with another state.
One of the most significant debates between these two models focuses on Kosovo. h
Having controversially broken away from Serbia in 2008,
it faces a Serbian community in the north that rejects the central government's authority.
This has led to a seemingly perpetual cycle of crises, including the most recent incident.
But while international efforts to address the issue have been
centred on some form of autonomy, 10 years of talks have led nowhere.
As a result, many now ask whether the answer would be to allow them to secede as well.
Kosovo lies in the Western Balkans.
Recognised by the United States, most of the EU, and around half the members of the United Nations
as the Republic of Kosovo, an independent sovereign state, Serbia and the other half
of the UN, including Russia and China, officially regard it as Serbian territory under UN authority.
At just under 11 000 square kilometres,
or 4 200 square miles, if it were to join the UN it would be the 161st largest member.
Its population stands at around 1.9 million.
According to the most recent estimates,
ethnic Albanians comprise around 90 per cent of its inhabitants.
The next largest community are ethnic Serbs, at around six or seven per cent.
While there are pockets of Serbs in Central and Southern areas of Kosovo,
they make up a majority in the four Northern municipalities - Zvecan, Leopsavic,
Zubin Potok and North Mitrovica, the main Serbian town in Kosovo.
While both Albanians and serbs have deep ties to Kosovo, something I've explored in other videos,
our story really starts in the early 20th century when Serbia conquered the
predominantly Albanian-inhabited region from the Ottoman Empire.
Following the First World War Kosovo, as part of Serbia,
was then incorporated into the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.
This later evolved into the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, comprising six republics:
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia.
But despite repeated calls for Kosovo to become a republic in its own right,
it remained a part of Serbia - albeit as an autonomous province.
Meanwhile, several Serb-inhabited areas were
attached to the north to balance the ethnic Albanian population.
As the 1980s ended, Yugoslavia was collapsing.
Amidst long-standing tensions in Kosovo, Serbia stripped it of its autonomy - prompting an
unofficial referendum by Kosovo Albanians that overwhelmingly endorsed independence.
But while the international community eventually recognised the six republics
as separate countries, Kosovo's quest for independence was rejected.
This was because it was seen as a province
of Serbia and not a federal republic in its own rights.
As a result, the Kosovo Albanians launched an armed Independence campaign.
Amidst growing violence, peace talks were convened in early 1999.
However, when these collapsed,
NATO launched an air campaign to force Serbian troops from the province.
Three months later, Kosovo, which formally remained under Serbian sovereignty,
was placed under UN administration pending a deal on its final status.
Over the following years, tensions grew in Kosovo and in 2006 UN-led status
talks began under the auspices of Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland.
However, from the start, the two sides were at odds.
While Serbia offered Kosovo extensive autonomy, the Kosovo Albanians insisted on independence.
The following year, Ahtisaari decided that continued Serbian sovereignty was unfeasible.
Instead, he proposed supervised independence based on extensive Serb minority rights.
But crucially, and despite calls for the Serbian areas in the north to be kept
under Serb sovereignty, thus respecting their wishes and providing a face-saving
way out for Belgrade, he ruled out any attempt to change Kosovo's boundaries.
But while Ahtisaari's proposal was accepted by the United States, France,
and Britain, Russia rejected it, arguing that any settlement must be acceptable to both sides.
After another round of unsuccessful talks, Kosovo unilaterally declared
independence on 17 February 2008 - a step taken with widespread Western support.
As well as the deep divisions within the international community over Kosovo's new
status, tensions continued within Kosovo itself.
While the Serbs in the South essentially accepted the new situation, those in the
four Northern municipalities refused to accept the Kosovo government's authority.
This led to severe clashes in 2011, when Pristina attempted to impose control by force.
In response to this, the EU held talks between Belgrade and Pristina.
And this led to a breakthrough in April 2013, when Kosovo Serbs agreed to participate in the Kosovo
police in return for a degree of autonomy under a so-called Association of Serbian Municipalities.
But while this was undoubtedly a step forward, the main issue remained.
Serbia still refused to accept Kosovo as an independent sovereign state.
Meanwhile, Western efforts to secure Kosovo's full recognition,
including UN membership, began to stall.
As it was now becoming clear that Kosovo would only gain full and
unfettered international acceptance would need Serbia's approval, and many Kosovo
Albanians were becoming increasingly concerned about trying to take control of the north,
the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo revisited the idea of territorial adjustments.
In return for Serbian recognition, the Serb areas
in the north would be passed back to Belgrade's full sovereignty.
Meanwhile, several Albanian villages in southern Serbia would be ceded to Kosovo.
But while the idea found some support in certain parts of the international community,
including within the Trump Administration, Britain and Germany steadfastly rejected
any talk of changing borders and the discussions were soon killed off.
In the following period, tensions between Belgrade and Pristina grew again,
especially after a new government emerged in Kosovo in March 2021.
Seen as an uncompromising nationalist hardliner. the new prime minister,
Albin Kurti, rejected any talk of ethnic autonomy, let alone partition.
And it's this that explains the latest crisis.
Arguing that the government in Pristina had reneged on its promise of autonomy,
the Serbs in the north withdrew from Kosovo's institutions in November 2022.
Then, in April 2023, they boycotted local elections.
Despite this, the vote went ahead leading to the election of Albanian Mayors.
But while the United States and the European Union called for restraint, in late May Kurti
ordered Kosovo's special police to escort the new mayors to their offices in the north.
As local serbs protested, NATO peacekeepers stepped in, leading to clashes.
Coming just months after Kosovo marked the 15th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence,
all this has yet again underscored the serious problems that Kosovo faces.
And the need for a final comprehensive settlement.
However, with Kurti steadfastly opposed to an association,
an idea also rejected by many ordinary Kosovo Albanians,
there have been suggestions that maybe the answer is to revisit the idea of partition.
But is this really the solution?
Certainly, there are some very good reasons to consider it.
Just as the Kosovo Albanians never accepted Serbian rule,
so the Kosovo Serbs in the north will never accept Albanian control.
A clean break might therefore be the answer,
especially as giving up the north could open the way for a comprehensive peace deal with
Serbia that would see Kosovo finally assume its place as a fully recognised U.N member.
That said, one can also see why many observers are nervous about the idea.
Opening discussions about borders in the Balkans is seemingly fraught with problems.
But, if we dig a little deeper, there are in fact good arguments
white isn't nearly as radical, nor as dangerous, as it might initially seem.
Before going any further, it's crucial to emphasise that this wouldn't be a
population exchange, as seen, for example, between Greece and Turkey in the 1920s.
Forcibly uprooting people is contrary to international law.
Instead, it would merely see Serbian areas pass from Kosovo's nominal
control to Serbian sovereignty and vice versa no one would be forced to move;
although some may subsequently choose to leave.
As for the argument that this risks opening the question of Balkan borders,
this has in fact already happened.
Notwithstanding the sound arguments for an independent Kosovo, the Western-recognised
unilateral secession of Kosovo in 2008 essentially amounted to the partition of Serbia.
In this sense, borders have therefore already been redrawn.
And if this partition didn't raise questions about the boundaries of
neighbouring countries, such as Bosnia and North Macedonia, when Serbia opposed it,
there's no logical reason why consensual changes should create difficulties now.
Indeed, a final agreement could allow both sides to commit to respecting borders across the region.
More generally, the idea has no apparent legal or political impediments.
There's nothing in international law that prevents two countries
from voluntarily adjusting their boundaries.
As for the often heard suggestions that somehow this would be un-European, it's easy to forget
that the most successful European peace deal at the past quarter century is the Good Friday
agreement in Northern Ireland - an agreement built on an explicit recognition of the change
of borders between the United Kingdom and Ireland when the majority in Northern Ireland wants it.
But perhaps the most compelling argument against the idea is that while this would see the serbs
in the north reintegrated back into Serbia it would leave those in the South within Kosovo.
But while this is true, as noted they've been far more willing
to accept the situation more to the point they're at dwindling Community .
Many young now make their way to Serbia for studies - and few return.
The idea also has many other advantages.
For a start, it would mark the end of any question about Kosovo's status.
An agreement over territory would be based on Serbian acceptance of Kosovo's sovereignty.
But, additionally, it would benefit Kosovo.
Quite apart from solving the matter of the perpetually unruly Northerners,
it would free Kosovo to amend its Constitution.
While it would still be expected to respect minority rights, it could remove the parts
of its Constitution that gives Serbs what many see as excessive powers.
And, on top of this, it would undoubtedly transform broader regional ties.
Serbia and Albania have had surprisingly good relations in recent years.
A final Kosovo settlement would likely enhance that.
Lastly, it would have hugely valuable political advantages for the West.
As well as freeing up Kosovo and Serbia to join the European Union,
it would be a vital step towards limiting Russian involvement in the Balkans.
Nothing gives Moscow more leverage over Serbia than the Kosovo issue.
Solving it would remove a key source of Russian regional power.
Indeed, one could argue that, all things considered, the current unresolved situation
is far more destabilising than the consensual territorial settlement that would have allowed
the sides to recognise each other and start to build up a positive relationship many years ago.
Ultimately, while the clear preference remains for some sort of autonomy arrangement,
partition isn't nearly as radical, nor as dangerous, as it might seem.
It also has more supporters than one might expect.
While many officials publicly disavowed the idea, in private they acknowledge it offers advantages.
Several years ago, a former senior U.S Diplomat
was asked at the conference I attended whether we should discuss partition.
But instead of rejecting it, he called it "an idea whose time had yet to come".
After decades of conflict, one must wonder whether that moment is in fact coming.
For the sake of a comprehensive settlement that will finally see Kosovo recognised
and allow Serbia to move on, maybe it is time to discuss this idea - especially as
many in Kosovo strongly reject the only other realistic alternative: autonomy for the Serbs.
I hope you found that helpful.
If so, here are some more videos on the western Balkans that you might find interesting.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.