Kosovo
Expected Council Action
The Council is expected to discuss a report on the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) in October. The Secretary-General’s Special Representative and head of UNMIK, Lamberto Zannier, is likely to provide details of the reconfiguration of UNMIK in light of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. UNMIK is projected to shrink significantly, with personnel dropping by about 70 percent.
Serbia’s proposal that the General Assembly should request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the status of Kosovo is likely to be debated in early October.
Recent Key Developments
In his first briefing to the Council, Zannier on 25 July said the situation in Kosovo had changed “fundamentally” in the previous few months contributing to a “profoundly new operating reality” for UNMIK.
Zannier met with UNMIK staff in Pristina on 19 September and gave details of the mission’s reconfigured role and stressed that it would evolve in light of realities on the ground. The scaled-down mission would continue facilitating dialogue and other key functions mandated by resolution 1244, which established UNMIK in 1999. It would also maintain its field presence in Mitrovica and three smaller offices elsewhere in Kosovo and increase interaction with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Minority communities would continue to be a focus.
During talks with Pristina on 8 August, the Acting Principal Deputy Special Representative for Kosovo, Nicholas Haysom, confirmed that in conjunction with UNMIK downsizing the EU would be taking up an enhanced operational role in the area of rule of law. This would be under the wider UN umbrella proposed in the Secretary-General’s 12 June report.
Since the end of July, UNMIK has been active in talks with Kosovo and Serbia trying to arrange face-to-face meetings between the two parties. These talks would address practical problems and not try to revisit the issue of status. Kosovo officials said they were ready for such discussions. However, Serbia is unwilling to engage in direct discussions with Pristina.
Addressing the OSCE on 4 September, Zannier said reconfiguring and downsizing of UNMIK opens up space for a larger OSCE role. The OSCE mission is an integral part of UNMIK and has been involved in institution building and human rights. It is expected to be a key part of a reconfigured mission particularly in areas of protection of cultural heritage and the safe passage of families and individuals to their homes.
On 19 September the OSCE named Austrian diplomat Werner Almhofer as head of mission in Kosovo. Russia objected, claiming the appointment was made without consulting OSCE member states. Serbia says it would lobby against the decision.
Serbia, on 15 August, submitted a request to the General Assembly to include an agenda item to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ on whether Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. On 17 September the General Committee agreed to put the item on the proposed agenda of the 63rd General Assembly and to consider Serbia’s draft resolution. A simple majority in the General Assembly could transmit the request to the ICJ.
On 6 August, the Council was briefed in closed consultations by Edmond Mulet, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, on the UN’s review of actions of UN peacekeepers at Mitrovica on 17 March after Serbian protestors occupied a UN courthouse.
Serbia, on 17 September, announced that it had reached agreement with UNMIK to allow international judges and prosecutors to return to the northern part of Mitrovica. The court will start work on 3 October for a period of sixty days while Serbian authorities negotiate the inclusion of local judges and prosecutors in UN-run courthouses. The UN has said that it will reopen its courts in the north, but no date has been set.
UNMIK signed a technical agreement with the EU Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) on 18 September, on transfer of various assets. The European mission had expected to be deployed and ready to work by the end of August. Serbia opposes the agreement as it has not accepted EULEX. It seems that Russia may also raise objections in the Council.
Forty-seven countries have recognised Kosovo. There is talk that Macedonia and Montenegro, Kosovo’s neighbours, are poised to extend recognition.
Options
The Council has the following options:
-
discussing operational aspects of UNMIK’s downsizing but taking no action;
-
supporting the Secretary-General’s changes to UNMIK through a presidential statement or press statement; and
-
requesting the Secretary-General to ensure that the UNMIK umbrella is sufficiently well staffed and equipped to ensure the oversight envisaged in resolution 1244.
Key Issues
Since Kosovo authorities have increasingly assumed administrative powers and responsibilities, the scope for UNMIK to exercise formal legal authority has diminished. Although under resolution 1244 the head of UNMIK still has executive responsibility, the tools to implement administrative functions are now in the hands of Kosovars. The issue that arises is not only the need to avoid resource duplication but also the extent to which the UNMIK “umbrella” remains informed and able to guide policy in accordance with UN standards.
A second issue is that Kosovo Serbs are not cooperating with the Pristina government. Kosovo-Serb police officers refuse to work in the Kosovo Police Service and Customs. Zannier suggests special autonomy within the police for Serb officers and a Hong Kong-style model of one territory with two customs areas in northern Kosovo.
A related issue is how UNMIK will maintain a neutral status in the current operating environment and what it should do with the parallel institutions set up as a result of local elections in the north on 11 May (which UNMIK declared illegal) and now operating in all Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo.
A question is UNMIK’s security as it downsizes and reduces its police functions. NATO forces operating under resolution 1244 may need to provide protection capability.
Another issue is how EULEX will be brought under the UN umbrella. Discussions are ongoing. Closely related is whether EULEX will be accepted throughout Kosovo. UNMIK’s final numbers will depend on how these two issues are resolved.
Council Dynamics
Having been preoccupied by the Georgian conflict in recent months the Council has been less focused on Kosovo. It is unclear how Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (and its involvement in the Georgian conflict) will play out in Council dynamics on Kosovo. Finding consensus is unlikely to be easy.
The US and the Europeans are now focused on the EU role in Kosovo and are not looking for much involvement from the Council. It seems likely that Russia’s position will follow the line it previously adopted. In particular, given the prospect of legal proceedings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, it is likely to want to ensure that nothing happens to prejudice the Serbian case and, if possible, to show the legal position in the best light. Other Council members seem likely to want to avoid any active role at this point.
|
Security Council Resolution |
|
|
Selected Presidential Statement |
|
|
Selected Letters |
|
|
Selected Reports |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Special Representative of the Secretary-General |
|
Lamberto Zannier (Italy) |
|
UNMIK |
|
|
Cost |
|
$210.6 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 (not including OSCE, EU and NATO expenditures) |
|
KFOR (NATO FORCE) |
|
General Xavier de Marnhac (France) |
|
Size and Composition of Mission |
|
-
Statement issued on 17 February 2008 by the UK, France, Croatia, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the US.
-
Statement issued on 20 July 2007 by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, UK and the US, co-sponsors of the draft resolution on Kosovo presented to the Council on 17 July.
