The situation in Kosovo is unique given its history and the extent of Security Council involvement over the last 9 years. The international legal framework for Kosovo stems from UN Security Council Resolution 1244 adopted in 1999. That resolution created a political process as well as establishing an international regime for Kosovo within the territory of Serbia. It was about restoring peace and security. Resolution 1244 does not determine or constrain the final status process, nor exclude outcomes. But it does envisage a final status process and it needs to be brought to a conclusion.
Independence has been declared by Kosovo after a totally exhaustive series of negotiations under which the settlement brokered by the UN Special Envoy could not be agreed because Serbia could not countenance the principle of independence, even with the degree of international supervision and limitations envisaged in the UN Special Envoy's proposal. It is important not to be confused by 1244's references to the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia)". This is a qualified preambular reference which in its context clearly refers only to the interim phase of administration in Kosovo. Importantly it is qualified by reference to the Helsinki Final Act, a political declaration, with 10 interacting principles covering human rights as well sovereignty and territorial integrity. We need to balance these claims. Furthermore the reference to Annex 2 of the UN resolution is important - it deals with the interim status of Kosovo, rather than its final status, which is important given the arguments about what the resolution means.
The situation on the ground is moving quite fast, after a couple of months of calm since the end of the discussion process on december 10th. The presence of Nato forces has been an important influence and the political lead from Europe and elsewhere important too. Over the next few hours and days we need to be clear about European determination to speak to the European perspective for all the countries of the former Yugoslavia. It will then be for individual countries to make decisions about recognition.
Centre for European Reform - Great Work, Job Half Done
Thursday marked the tenth birthday party of the Centre for European reform which I helped to found in the 1990s. The CER has done outstanding work under the leadership of Charles Grant. It was set up with two purposes: to help reshape the debate in Europe about the future of the EU, and to help reshape the debate in Britain about its relationship to the EU. The CER has been strikingly more successful in one than the other (you can guess which).
In terms of the debate about the future direction of the EU, there is a different EU than ten years ago - marked by enlargement as well as EMU. The CER has contributed to that - issues like Turkish accession, defence co-operation, and energy security (including relations with Russia) have been led from the CER. But the debate in Britain often seems stuck in a prism of 1940s Europe rather than the present day. Sometimes the EU has contributed to its own difficulties - whether with qualified accounts or interminable institutional wrangling and that is why the Reform word is important in the CER's title. But we also have to update our own way of engaging.
Here are some starters. We don't need to see or describe the EU as a plot from which we are seeking perpetual protection - other countries also want to maintain sovereignty on key issues like foreign policy and the agenda for the EU is now dominated by issues of shared interest not invasions of sovereignty. We can benefit from as well as lead European debate - it is not a one way street. We should trumpet the modern successes of the EU - from climate change to trade and stability on our borders in the new accession countries. We need to see reform as a shared project - negotiating successfully with Russia on a Europe wide basis is in all our interests, so is continuing the reform of the CAP and the greening of the budget.
Posted at 19:47 17 February 2008 by David Miliband | Comments[30]

Posted by (Rev) Ian Falconer on February 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM GMT #
Posted by Francis on February 18, 2008 at 02:16 PM GMT #
Posted by Mikhail Mayorov on February 18, 2008 at 05:13 PM GMT #
Posted by lee coleman , hampton london . on February 18, 2008 at 07:24 PM GMT #
Posted by biswas on February 19, 2008 at 01:22 AM GMT #
Posted by Olga Desnica on February 19, 2008 at 08:24 AM GMT #
Posted by tahir ishaque on February 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM GMT #
Posted by Richard Hayes on February 19, 2008 at 08:45 PM GMT #
Posted by Paul Everest on February 19, 2008 at 09:41 PM GMT #
Posted by Christine Williams on February 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM GMT #
Posted by Ann Burgess on February 20, 2008 at 01:28 AM GMT #
Posted by Jon on February 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM GMT #
Posted by Alexander Djikic on February 22, 2008 at 12:41 AM GMT #
Posted by Ibrahim Dogus on February 23, 2008 at 01:12 AM GMT #
Posted by Ljiljana Vukicevic on February 23, 2008 at 03:15 AM GMT #
Posted by Charles on February 25, 2008 at 12:55 PM GMT #
Posted by sevand on February 25, 2008 at 03:09 PM GMT #
Posted by Peda Uk on February 25, 2008 at 04:46 PM GMT #
Posted by Peda UK on February 26, 2008 at 10:14 AM GMT #
Posted by David J. Jones on February 27, 2008 at 09:01 PM GMT #
Posted by David J. Jones on March 02, 2008 at 06:16 AM GMT #
Posted by quintin hoare on March 02, 2008 at 09:24 PM GMT #
Posted by quintin hoare on March 02, 2008 at 09:38 PM GMT #
Posted by David J. Jones on March 03, 2008 at 01:10 PM GMT #
Posted by Marco on March 03, 2008 at 03:03 PM GMT #
Posted by Mrs G. Price on March 06, 2008 at 05:08 PM GMT #
Posted by Marco on March 07, 2008 at 05:43 PM GMT #
Posted by Mrs Price on March 10, 2008 at 11:12 PM GMT #
Posted by Marko on March 13, 2008 at 01:20 PM GMT #
Posted by Adrian on March 26, 2008 at 03:53 PM GMT #