Analysis in The New York Times: This is an offensive plan for the Balkans that the United States must support

He says the exchange of territories would be a peaceful ethnic cleansing, but at least would bring lasting peace to the Balkans.

If the parties reach agreement, according to Kupchan, everyone should support them.

That's the opinion of American professor Charles A. Kupchan published in the “The New York Times”:

An offensive plan for the Balkans that the US must support

The Balkans remain in strategic uncertainty. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia ten years ago, but Serbia has still failed to reconcile its loss by refusing to recognise Kosovo and fuelling problems between the country's ethnic Serbs and the ethnic Albanian majority. Nearly two decades after NATO bombing campaign to expel Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, about 4,000 NATO troops remain there to maintain peace.

An advantage may now be close to life. Such an offensive advance, but which the United States and the European Union still must support.

Serbia's President Aleksandar Vuciq and Kosovo President Hashim Thaci are apparently working on a proposal to commit to an exchange of territories that could bring an end to the heated conflict. Kosovo's north, which is mainly populated by ethnic Serbs and limited to Serbia, would be carried over to Serbia. In exchange, a large part of the Presevo Valley, located in Serbia, populated by an overwhelming part of ethnic Albanians and limited to Kosovo, will become part of Kosovo.

This exchange of territories effectively constitutes a peaceful form of ethnic cleansing. However, it is the right thing to do. In this case, pragmatism must triumph over the principle of securing an agreement that promises to end years of bloodshed and border changes that have resulted from the breakup of Yugoslavia.

The proposed territorial exchange has been hidden in the background since the early days of Kosovo's independence. But the issue has not moved at all because the United States and the European Union have firmly opposed it.

As expected, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently said that “territorial integrity of the Western Balkan states is established and is incompatible”. Supporting Chancellor Merkel, dozens of prominent academics and policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic signed an open letter condemning the proposal and urging the United States and the European Union to reject “the return to the ordination of states and borders”.

But there are signs that some Western officials are enjoying this idea. John Bolton, president Trump's national security adviser, hinted last month: our “politics, US policy, is that if both sides can work together and reach agreement, we do not exclude territorial arrangements”, he said. Mr. Bolton is thinking clearly, at least on this level. While Serbian and Kosovo governments agree on the agreement and can provide sufficient political support to citizens and their legislatures the United States of America and the European Union must support it.

Of the approximately two million residents of Kosovo, approximately 90 per cent are ethnic Albanians, and about 6 per cent are of ethnic Serb affiliation. It is difficult to meet in reliable numbers, but about half of Kosovo Serbs estimate the number of 70,000 live in northern Kosovo, where they make up about 90 per cent of the population. Because of the Serb majority, the north of Kosovo (about 10 per cent of the country's territory) has been part of the state only nominally since independence. Serbia has continued to maintain the political and economic influence there, thus leaving a significant part of their state that has no interest in Kosovo independent.

The Presevo Valley in Serbia is reportedly inhabited by about 60,000 ethnic Albanians and is in comparable size with northern Kosovo. How many parts of this area Serbia can carry Kosovo is unclear. However, the trade in northern Kosovo for at least a part of the Presevo Valley would widely preserve the territorial size and current population of Serbia and Kosovo.

The Serbian government will have difficulty making formal recognition of independent Kosovo in any circumstances. Kosovo has historical and cultural significance for Serbian Serbs and religious objects and marks Kosovo. But if the proposed swap offers Serbia to save its face to normalise relations with Kosovo and enable the Balkans to move forward, Kosovars and their international supporters must insist on supporting the exchange.

In fact, Serbs remaining in Kosovo would be an even smaller minority if the north joins Serbia. In fact, some Serbs will probably leave. Unsavory population transfers are expected to take place even in the Presevo Valley since ethnic Albanians move to the areas destined to become part of Kosovo, which Serbs will abandon. But establishing formal relations between Kosovo and Serbia will bring Kosovo a sense of normality and stability, encouraging those Serbs who remain there to commit more to the future of the state. And so far Kosovo has done a popular job protecting minority rights.

Exchange critics claim the exchange would set a dangerous precedent at a time when ethnic nationalism is growing in Europe and beyond. In particular, the exchange could spur calls to other parts of the Balkans to redefine borders along ethnic lines. Fair enough. Separatic feelings among ethnic Serbs in Bosnia, ethnic Albanians in Macedonia or minorities elsewhere can be strengthened.

But nowhere else in the Balkans has there been a consensual adjustment of borders on the table. If the proposed exchange is alive, the international community should stress that it supports it as an extraordinary exception.

Instead of causing a spread of ethnic division, normalising relations between Serbia and Kosovo could do the opposite. Serbia is the region's dominant player. It can be turned from being an angry troublemaker to a happy actress. Serbia's assistance would be especially welcome in discouraging Republika Srpska, the Serb-dominated region in Bosnia, established in the 1990s, from the quest to secede. The positive effects of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo justify a unilateral sacrifice of pluralistic principles.

Recently, the European Union has made it clear that Serbia and Kosovo should normalise relations if they want to join the EU a step that would greatly improve Balkan stability and prosperity. The first exchange of territory brings closer this better future.

Serbian and Kosovo presidents have difficult negotiations ahead. But if Mr. Mr. Wuch and Mr. Thaci can come out, the United States of America and the European Union must embrace the agreement. By offering a green light today, Washington and Brussels can offer decisive encouragement and help secure public support for an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/opinion/Kosovo-Serbia-land-swap.html