The big and the little "Holbrooke maneuvers" of many potential Holbrookes are continuing in addition to ever increasing numbers of bombs and the accompanying accidents of the "humanitarian intervention" against the Yugoslav people. In the insincere search for a peaceful solution, we find mentioned, among other things, in more and more diverse sources different variants for the partition of Kosovo.
Completely unexpectedly, the idea of partition was launched last Friday [May 21] by the president of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, as his peace initiative during a reception of the ambassadors of the Group of Eight countries, the European Big Three, China and the Vatican. As a possible solution to the Kosovo crisis he proposes "the complete withdrawal of all Serbian forces and of the Yugoslav Army into the northern portion of Kosovo, where peace would be secured by UN peacekeeping troops" led by Russia. In the remaining portion of Kosovo "international military forces" (he did not indicate which ones) would be deployed which would open the door to refugee returns.
A member of the Albanian negotiating team with whom we spoke believes that nevertheless there will not be a strict partition into zones as there were at one time in Berlin, that what is being discussed relates only to the commands while the patrols will be ethnically mixed, except possible at a regional level, in ethnic Serbian villages. He stresses that the above mentioned districts in the north have a small population, that a significant number of Serbs live in the villages close to Pristina, Pec, Gnjilane and Kamenica, and interpreted the story about Russians in the north portion of the region primarily as defense of the roadways for the withdrawal into Serbia proper.
According to some sources, in the negotiations regarding the composition and deployment of the future peacekeeping forces, one idea in circulation concerned Russian forces as well as a kind of broad "Green Line" between withdrawing Yugoslav Army forces and Western country forces which would enter Kosovo from Macedonia and Albania while accompanying the returning refugees.
"It is certain that under these circumstances the Russians will not allow their role to be purely decorative, like in Bosnia," says Dr. Dusan Batakovic, historian, forecasting a more significant role for Russian forces in the implementation of the agreement and especially in those parts of Kosovo where Serbs form the majority of the population. The author of a project according to which the Serbs and Montenegrans in Kosmet would enjoy local administration in five cantons, as well as mixed administration in the cities, Mr. Batakovic believes that situation on the ground will resemble his model.
"Considering the agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, some kind of partition into entities would represent a compromise which would satisfy both sides, only I am afraid that now it is too late for that and that this kind of solution is not being considered due to problems which have emerged in Macedonia," he says, emphasizing that he considers advocacy of an outright partition politically irresponsible.
Another domestic expert on Kosovo, Dr. Dusan Janjic, shares the opinion that the creation of a partition is not a real option at this time.
"The background for this speculation lies in the fact that the deployment of some kind of military forces always means a plan for their arrangement on the ground which is, among other things, a topic of negotiation. There existed also an idea regarding the creation of zones of priority for the return of refugees, that is, regarding the gradual entrance of NATO troops which would accompany them. I think that the return of refuges from Macedonia and Albania will be precisely agreed upon in terms of their numbers, rhythm, areas and everything else, and that that will have to be honored regardless of whose forces will be in the field," says Dr. Janjic.
"Considering the migrations inside Kosovo, it is possible that a new ethnopolitical demography and ethnopolitical geography will be established, that is that permanent changes to the territorial distribution of the population will occur. The security situation and the degree of damage to houses in every individual town will likewise influence the movement of the population. Therefore, there will be no partition, but it is possible that we will have a new administrative organization of the region, which greatly depends on the method of establishing civil government, that is, on who is going form the regional government and in how they are going to do this," evaluates Janjic, reminding us that ethnonationalists regularly appear in these types of situations.
Academy member Jovicic best defined the one-time advocacy of a portion of the Serbian intelligentsia to resolve, among others, the problem of Kosovo by a constitutional reorganization of Serbia. His concept of regionalization, adopted by several of the opposition parties, is legally correct and politically wise, but assumes fundamental changes in the political system and at least the minimal acquiescence of the Albanians, which did not exist.
From the ratification of the 1990 Constitution the republic governments also follow a legalistic approach by insisting on the fact that autonomy is already defined by existing laws.
Since the conflict due to its complexity has not been resolved by either of these two approaches which are accepted by public opinion, Dr. Slobodan Samardzic, a researcher at the Institute for European Studies, believes that it is essential to utilize radical, albeit unpopular, solutions.
"The proposal regarding partition has two great advantages: it definitively resolves the complex, age-old Serbian-Albanian conflict, and it is just because both sides share gain and loss. The Serbs bear the loss of a portion of the territory of the present country in the name of lasting peace, and the Albanians give up pretensions to a portion of the territory on which they wish to establish their own country.
Of course, criteria would have to be agreed upon. Dr. Samardzic believes that they consist of ethnic composition, territorial distribution of cultural landmarks, structure of land ownership and material investment since 1945.
"These four criteria taken as a whole present a solution of sorts, which could be further elaborated during negotiations. This would be the test for the international community to see whether it wishes to establish a lasting peace or whether it in fact needs a perpetual source of conflict. This differs from the common methods of resolving ethnic conflicts and standards of minority protection, but existing standards are already not being considered in the case of the Albanians in Kosovo, neither by the international community nor by their nationalistic movement. The precedent is justified when the problem is irresolvable, as was thought earlier in the case of Greece and Turkey, India and Pakistan. The principle of inviolability of borders would remain unaffected because they would be inviolable; however, they are not unchangeable if both sides agree to change them.
Samardzic's counter-argument to the objection that this kind of move is being avoided because it could possibly set a bad example for Albanians in Macedonia, Hungarians in Transylvania or Turks in Bulgaria is that the international community, in that instance, must convince the Albanians in Kosovo to accept the status and standards that exist in Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria...
Of course, even this enormous Serbian sacrifice would have some justification were it possible believe that NATO was seeking a lasting peace, something that is now harder to believe in that the possibility of the partition of the southernmost region of Serbia.