NATO Declaration, Words Missing for Kosovo

At times, we must read between lines. And sometimes we have to stop talking about details. Depending on the situation. But seemingly small lines can make a difference and a difference in the future in a different situation. There are some fundamental differences between positions for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, clearly seen in NATO's official communiqué.

Secretary Mark Rutte's visit has slightly calmed the region down at a time of global turbulence. It was understood that he was also the incumbent US representative or ambassador to NATO.

But for Kosovo, the statement from NATO visits signals and tells of NATO's official reality when Kosovo is in question.
While the statement says at the beginning of the communiqué that Rutte and senior delegation to Sarajevo “met with senior Bosnia and Herzegovina officials”, that is, the state of BiH, in the part for Kosovo the sentence starts with a “more than” and for meeting with the president and Kosovo prime minister only shows at the end of all other similarities.

The communique says: “For more, the secretary general met with representatives of Kosovo institutions for bilateral discussions”. This section, compared to the BiH declaration, is presented at the end of the paragraph of the statement.
The fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina refers to its country's name is also exposed here, while only “Pristina” is used for Kosovo, thus reducing the importance of the state. This is not something new, because NATO functions on the basis of UN Resolution 1244, but it is good to stress, just to be aware of the situation.

The rest, perhaps most important for Kosovo, is the fact that a special emphasis is placed on Bosnia and Herzegovina's sovereignty and territorial integrity is placed on the part for BiH. It says: “NATO remains steadfastly devoted to the stability of this region and to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ”

While in Kosovo's case, the emphasis is not on sovereignty and territorial integrity, but on ensuring a secure and stable environment, without providing much security for state status. Communication states: “KFOR works hard to ensure a safe and stable environment for all people and communities living in Kosovo. ”

Basically, nothing new. But these are the main differences in access and language used in the official communiqué from the visit. Maybe that's normal because of the mission. NATO is based on a UN resolution that does not recognise Kosovo's independence. For this reason, sovereignty and territorial integrity were not mentioned, as in BiH's case, nor were key institutions mentioned as the presidency or the government.

This may be nothing more than a pragmatic issue... but in another moment, it can turn into a technical and political problem if things don't work out right. Especially if NATO is modified and in the coming years the US begins to leave Europe, as predicted in its new budget cuts plan. In that case, there will be countries in Europe that will become highly creative in the way they communicate the revision of KFOR's role.

From a small technical issue, this could become an issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity. In an unreasonable and changing world, everything is possible.