The main issue is Kosovo's sovereignty, not the exchange of territories

David Kanin, professor of European Studies at “Johns Hopkins” in Washington, says Europe's history is a history of changing borders.

But in his view, the renewed debate on this topic is secondary, and the most important issue is that of Kosovo's sovereignty, which will remain open as long as it is not recognised by Serbia and by the five EU members who have not accepted its independence.

Voice of America: Mr. Kanin, you are among the experts who recognise the region who have carefully followed the renewed discussion on the exchange of territory, border changes, or partition between Kosovo and Serbia. But I think you are probably the only one who has expressed concern that this poses a threat to Kosovo's status. Why?

David Khan: I don't think this discussion threatens Kosovo's status. Kosovo's status was threatened from the start. The context is Kosovo's curtailed sovereignty. It's not a popular country. No matter how many countries recognise it, five European Union countries do not recognise it, and of course Serbia, Russia and China. The issue is Kosovo's controversial status. The current discussion on partitioning, however noisy, deals with the secondary issue of which (place) takes over. The question of Kosovo's sovereignty is the main issue and will remain open as long as it is not recognised by Serbia and of the five EU members that do not recognise it, and I see no indication it will change. This whole discussion has nothing to do with it.

Voice of America: The exchange of territories can take place between two sovereign states. Does this mean that Serbia must recognise Kosovo first? How can Serbia get into question with a territory that, according to her, is not a state?

David Khan: No, it's not. Part of the discussions has been the possibility that Kosovo will take a seat in the United Nations, that it will not be officially recognised (from Serbia). This would enable Serbia to avoid recognition of Kosovo's de jure. Many Western academics and diplomats would be satisfied with UN membership, thinking the country in the UN meant recognition of independence. No, that's not what it means. Kosovo would be at the UN and a trade in territory could happen and I repeat that this is theoretical and I don't believe it will happen but Kosovo would have something less than full status. Taiwan had a seat in the UN and the Security Council for decades, until the balance of power changed and now China is in the UN and Taiwan is not. Kosovo is not Taiwan, it is another context, but the similarity between the two situations would be that Kosovo would not have sovereignty, there would be only one seat in the UN, which is much less. That was part of the discussion. In my view, if Kosovo initially accepts less than complete sovereignty as part of the initial agreement, then it has lost the game.

Voice of America: What do you think of the idea in yourself?

David Khan: The divorce?

Voice of America: People are calling territory exchange, border change. I don't know if it can be called partition if the parties agree...

David Khan: Any exchange of territory and population movement ? And both would happen with this idea, however you name it, would be sacrilege in the eyes of Western institutions, diplomats NGOs, academics and public intellectuals, who have some pathological loyalty to secular, multiethnic, integrated democracies, like the only way to move forward, the European road. Angela Merkel said again that borders in the Balkans will not change. European history is a story of changing borders and movement of populations. This has not stopped. Any change in Yugoslavia since Yugoslavia was dissolved has been for changes in human movements, some supported by the West, and some rejected.

What I'm saying is that Western elites who claim to dominate the region continue to tell people in the region that there is no alternative but to integrated multiethnic, secular democracies. Any territory that would bring human movements and the recognition of everything on ethnic grounds is sacrilege, attacked as an idea, everyone says it's terrible, that it can't happen. So it's something about Western politics and its sense of privilege in the region, its uncertainties about its own problems and its models, and I think pathology about this notion, reduces discussion, means that you're not allowed to examine these kinds of ideas. And it is this lack of review of the possibility for change that would be similar to the changes that have occurred and continue to occur in Europe, leaving all those outside, changing the direction of the discussion and causing it not to be very true in my opinion, and resulting in a lack of solution, leaves current status on hold, and I think the day will come when there will be a new round of fighting, whether in Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, there will be new rounds of difficulties, because considering other opportunities except those allowed by Western institutions are not allowed.

Voice of America: So you think opposition from the West changes the course of the discussion?

David Khan: I think he changes direction and restrains discussion, keeps the region in positions of addiction. “are not ready for this or that”. This all assumes that foreigners allow themselves the right to tell people in the region what they do. You block discussion.

Voice of America: You just talked about Chancellor Merkel's position, the position of the European Union, but the position of the United States has been less clear. Previously it was said there would be no changes in borders and exchange of territories, while now it is said that the parties should be flexible and the solution should come from them. But there is no firm stand for or against. Is this a rift between the European Union and the United States?

David Khan: First of all, since I worked for the government that the thoughts I'm expressing are mine, not the government. I'm glad to see a lack of clarity in the position of the United States, because it has opened a lot of things for discussion. I feel that the false accuracy of the traditional Western perspective and of the view that Europe still has is overwhelming. The idea of exchange of territories, movement of populations, has been on the table since the beginning. In private, people talk about it in the region all the time, this discussion has never stopped. The question about America's attitude has taken the cover off this discussion and now it's getting open and that's good. It does not mean that it will bring change of territory or division, or whatever you call it. I do not believe there will be solutions, diplomatic or any other kind, for a long time in the region. I think this situation will continue for a long time, until certain aspects of the context move, in terms of outside powers and locals. But I think the lack of clarity in the American position is not that bad, given the problems in the region and the damage done by the restriction (sequity cap) that the West has imposed for so long. It's constructive.

Voice of America: When you say lack of clarity, do you mind the lack of public expression of a position, or the lack of a consistent policy, because there are those who might say the lack of a consistent American policy would be problematic.

David Khan: I'm not sure there's a consistent American policy. I don't see there. That doesn't bother me very much. We always talk about what the West thinks, what Western politics is, whether the people of the Western Balkans are going to enter the European Union or not, whether Americans have a policy or not. I think the more locals take matters into their own hands, the better, whatever happens. I think the only chance for a long-term solution is if you can agree on it from your countries and that it would have its problems. Not only is it not easy, and there are many issues that prevent a solution soon. But I think as long as there is in the region the status imposed by the West, imposed on the outside, pressure will continue to increase. There will come a day when the wars of the 1990s will be long gone in the past, that one will conclude that they are no longer concerned about the damage caused, people will forget about the damage, a new generation will come and there will be fighting again, I think that this is likely to happen. The good news about a lack of conflict is that there are enough people who remember the horror and do not want to experience it again. But this will not last as new generations arrive. There will be a time when the current status quo is attempting and nothing has been resolved in the south of the Iber River, the time will come when there will be another conflict if there is not to start expanding discussion, taking any other direction, and if local decision-makers do not begin to assume authority and responsibility for what is happening in their region and feel the responsibility of accountability to other local actors who have interests, not only to Americans, Europeans or even Russians or others.

Voice of America: But how can this happen when these countries aspire to join the club where these countries of the Western European Union are?

David Khan: I think aspirations for the EU are part of pathology. They will not enter it for at least the near future. The date that exists today is 2025, but Europeans continue to postpone it. There are no signs that Europeans are close to accepting either one or the other. Continued delays keep the situation as it is, frozen. But the status quo will not continue forever, as will other security restrictions imposed by the West since the Berlin Congress, have been able to extend for a period of time and then when the security situation changes, when the external conditions of security change, when the context changes then things fall (fall apart) into the region. And with the current situation, if nothing changes that will lead to further conflict.

Voice of America: So you're saying it's not a bad idea but it's not realistic?

David Khan: It's not a bad idea, it's a constructive basis for discussion. There's nothing on the table, on anybody's table, there's nothing in Washington, sure there's nothing in Brussels, nothing in Moscow that would solve this issue, no ideas, no proposals. None of the outside parties will solve that. What they can do is to freeze it (freeze) for a while, and they have done so. The problem is that one day when this freeze breaks down, when this situation breaks down, the people who will be victims will be the people of the region because they will find themselves in a situation where things will still be possible to get taken.

Voice of America: What freezes you?

David Khan: They try to freeze borders and control discussion of possible solutions. Nothing is acceptable in Brussels unless “is produced” in Brussels. The European Union needs to use the Balkans to take credit for every “resolution” and say it in the fingernails, because it doesn't have a solution, but for every “solution they can give, because Europeans are concerned because they're now small, they don't have the impact they've had. And it's just Europe's attempt to prove to itself and others that they're still important in the world. The Balkans are just an instrument in this direction, nothing more.

Voice of America: If this idea is put on the table and the EU and Washington agree, does that put Kosovo in a weaker position than Serbia, since it is what Serbia and other countries have not recognised?

David Khan: Kosovo is in a weaker position than Serbia because it is a country that is not recognised by all. That doesn't change unless Serbia changes it. Serbia has the advantage that is a universally recognised country that has the right to grant or not to recognise Kosovo. Kosovo does not have that relationship with Serbia. The way Kosovo's independence was made in 2008, and we did it, we are to blame, it has blocked its sovereignty and put Kosovo in a unfavourable position. This discussion does not change that.

Voice of America: How do you think this initiative affects the wider region, first Macedonia since the referendum is approaching, but the region?

David Khan: The link to Macedonia is clear. The two issues are not identical, but they are not even parallel. Europeans need some good news, they need something to go well in Kosovo, or Macedonia. These two issues will not determine each other, but if things don't go well in Macedonia, it would exert more pressure on Serbs and Kosovars from Europeans to find something, so they can call normalisation, which I find very bad term. If the Macedonia issue is successful, then there will be another type of pressure on Kosovo to keep people's attention. I am concerned that Macedonia's problem will fail in Greece. I think the government of Macedonia will be able to succeed in the referendum and, in turn, sign the agreement, but I am not very sure of Greece. The Greek opposition could reject it. The two processes will affect each other because of the EU's need for success, due to the uncertainty of the American stance, because it enables Russia to maneuver in the two parts of the region has plenty of room to operate in the two parts of the region, as well as in Bosnia, but everything is somewhat indefinite and as long as these discussions continue, this situation will continue. My prediction is that in the end we will not have much change for Kosovo, which this discussion will amount to a certain point and then begin to fade. I think Macedonia's issue is much more critical because there will either be a deal or we will not have ratification. With Kosovo, the discussion of division, the exchange of territories can continue until some time, fade and then continue with the same situation. But with Macedonia having had an agreement between the two countries, if it fails it would be much more serious.

Voice of America: One of the topics that has been opened with the territorial exchange discussion is that some people started to express concern about what would happen in the future if Kosovo wants to join Albania. If the two countries agreed, what would be wrong?

David Khan: The problem is that not all will agree, nor will all in the Albanian world agree. It's not that simple. Let's not talk about economics, some cultural and historical issues. For Macedonian Albanians, the problem becomes sharp. They will question themselves. What are we gonna do? Can we join them? And Macedonians will ask what this means to their country, can we rely on Albanians to be part of this coalition they have had since 1990, with the government with representatives from both communities? He questions Macedonia. But I don't think we should worry about that, because opposition to a Greater Albania, within the Albanian community, is considerable. It's not that simple. And of course those who are not Albanians would have many doubts about the issue. These things can happen in an indefinite future, but only as a result of further conflict. Unfortunately, if there is no conflict, it is very difficult to have permanent solutions. I am not being a lawyer for conflict, but historically negotiations are not successful as far as permanent and universally accepted agreements are concerned. Therefore, I would not see the actual discussion as the basis for Greater Albania, or partition of Kosovo, or membership of the Western Balkans in the European Union. None of this is likely to happen.

Voice of America: So the situation will remain for the near future as it is?

David Khan: It will remain for the near future, undefined. “As it is” is questionable. We've seen changes. Most of the changes we have seen since the 1990s have been territory exchanges, or division, or population movements, all of the things that Western governments and intellectuals say cannot happen and have said can't happen since the 1990s. Look at the statements of Western governments, academics and NGOs throughout this time, which say whatever the status quo is, there can be no more border change, and in fact, border changes have been made and then it becomes status quo. The statue cannot last forever. The actual statue, in my opinion, will change again.