West must welcome shift of territories between Kosovo and Serbia

Europe has a strong and understandable fear of changing national boundaries. But discussions on a possible exchange of territories between Kosovo and Serbia, which were in a major conflict for two decades, merit careful support.

That means the end of years of conventional thinking in Western foreign policy circles. But tensions between Serbia and Kosovo are a major headache for Europe, which was to be overcome. It fosters instability on the southeastern EU side and presents a major obstacle to the integration of the Western Balkans into the bloc.

Serbia does not recognise Kosovo's declared independence in 2008 and officially recognises that territory whose population is mainly with ethnic Albanians as a rebel province. Five EU members do not recognise Kosovo, too. Most of them, like Spain, already fear separation for themselves. Russia and China keep Kosovo out of the UN and in an international mist.

As the deadlock continues, no country has real hope for EU membership. Brussels has made it clear to Belgrade that the problem must be resolved with Kosovo before membership occurs.

There is no solution for Kosovo's condom without an agreement that both sides would support, and the exchange of territories seems the key to such an agreement. Kosovo would provide its Serb-run northern municipalities for Albanian majority parts in southwest Serbia. Serbia would recognise Kosovo and would not oppose its UN membership; Kosovo would be devoted to protecting medieval Serb monasteries and the rest of the Serb minority in Kosovo.

Why would Serbia accept such an agreement? Because it shows an admission that American and European policies towards them have failed. Kosovo emerged from international supervision and now Serbia must recognise its independence and territorial integrity. A territorial exchange allows Serbia to say: “You tried to do this with us, but it didn't work.” Such statements are positive, especially when countries connected with emotionally charged issues such as history, identity, and territory.

For its part, Kosovo takes full membership in the international community and wins a clear path to EU membership. She can immediately join the Council of Europe, giving her people the protection of the European Court for Human Rights.

Why, then, is there so much opposition? Chancellor Angela Merkel said last week that “there are attempts perhaps to talk about borders and we cannot do it.” Carl Bildt, who has been involved in the region for nearly 30 years, called the idea “a reception for geopolitical instability.” [On the other hand, Wolfgang Petritsch, the EU's chief negotiator in peaceful talks, supports the idea. ]

The main challenge is that changing borders somewhere threatens with changes of borders in the region. Macedonia has a large ethnic ethnic Albanian minority that dominates the section of territory extending to the outskirts of the capital, Skopje; a secession would mean another terrible war. The Serb-dominated region in Bosnia and Herzegovina constantly threatens division. Would a shift in territories raise their voices?

Eight years ago, I went to Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina for the International Crisis Group to investigate this threat. Me and my Albanian and Serbian colleagues concluded the danger was real but manageable. Since then, Macedonia has become more stable, and has a multiethnic and progressive government; Membership in Natto is possible early next year. The country's Albanian population is pragmatic and content to live in a country with good future and European integration and prosperity.

Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina poses another issue. Its leader and most of the population really want to secede. Yet, they know that it is impossible.

Let's take a look at the map. Its region includes two-half: a small and poor birth along the border with Serbia and a rich and large share along the border with Croatia. You can join those little Brcko self-government district. Serbs can declare independence tomorrow, but two-thirds or more of its population may remain in the West, without land routes in the rest of the friendly territory. Bosnia and Herzegovina's constitution already gives him the region enormous autonomy, which could be lost in a failed secession effort.

Many old Balkan hands instinctively say no to changing borders, arguing that they reflect the logic of the brutal ethnic cleansing in the 90s. Such cases may be aggressive, but the very opposite can happen. Kosovo and Serbia are talking about an agreement both can benefit from, with considerable support for the people to be directly affected. It promises to bring more co-operation, a quality missing in the region.

Taken from Polytico.eu cervix: Periscope