Ruairi O'Connell

Deputy Head of British Embassy in Pristina

FCO Logo
Wednesday 23 January, 2008

My Irish grandmother used to tell me a story.

A man found himself in the back of beyond, totally lost. Finally, after driving round in the dark for hours, he comes across an old farmer on a horse and cart. Winding down the window, he leans across and asks "Excuse me - I'm not from round here; could you help me get back to Dublin?"

The old farmer thinks for a while, then says: "Oh, I can get you back to Dublin all right - but I wouldn't start from here".

The point is, we can only deal with the situation we find ourselves in. Despite our efforts during the 1990s, the policies of Slobodan Milosevic and his government created the situation in Kosovo in early 1999 where NATO had no option but to intervene in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe (for background, look at the FCO Kosovo profile, or at the International Crisis Group website -  for another perspective). Yes, Kosovo has a history of ethnic conflict that reaches back into history. Yes, Albanians weren't the only victims. But one cannot get away from the central issue; what the Milosevic regime did in Kosovo changed everything - and limited the possible solutions.

I often quote the example of Veton Surroi to my Kosovo Serb friends. Here is the son of a Yugoslav diplomat, who was closely involved in the Yugoslavia-wide drive for democracy at the start of the 1990s. A decade later, he is part of the 'Unity Team', leading Kosovo's efforts for independence. The events of the 1990s led him on this journey.

So, we are where we are. We have to deal with the situation as best we can. And we do have to deal with it, right now; this is vital for European Security, but, most importantly of all, to give all the people of Kosovo a hope for a better life. With all of this in mind, that's why the British government supports President Ahtisaari's proposal for the final status of Kosovo as the best way forward. This settlement gives us all a way of dealing with the past, and, importantly, a range of protections for those who feel most vulnerable and isolated in Kosovo, especailly the Kosovo Serb community.

We are right at the end of the political process now - the crucial time. The EU is ready to assume its responsibilities in dealing with Kosovo [PDF] (paras 65-71). The process is ready to move forward. That's why communication and dialogue are so important.

And so to the blog. I hope that this blog can provide a place to discuss the process that Kosovo is about to go through, and the work of what we in the British Office do to support this process. It's clear that Kosovo incites considerable passions (just look at comments on any Kosovo video on youtube). But equally, we have a responsibility to explain our views, to engage with people with different perspectives, and to keep communicating. That's diplomacy - and a large part of my job in the British Office (which will feature in a future entry in this blog). So I hope that people will add comments - and I will make every effort to reply to your comments, questions and ideas.

  • Share this with:
Comments:

There were high level discussions and agreements made in Moscow on Friday when Serbian President <strong>Boris Tadic</strong> and Prime Minister <strong>Vojislav Kostunica</strong> met President Putin and Russian Minister for Fuel and Energy <strong>Viktor Khristenko</strong> as well as Directors of Gazprom.brbrThe agreements involved cooperation in the oil and gas sector, as well as a protocol specifying the main terms for Russian company Gazprom Neft would obtain 51 of Serbia's state oil company NIS. <a href="a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503012.html">WaPo</a>"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503012.html">WaPo</a>/a says Serbian Energy Minister Aleksandar Popovic confirmed reports that Russia had offered US$600 million -- about one-fifth of the company's estimated market value plus an additional US$730 million to modernize the run-down company.brbrUnder a package deal, apart from the Gazprom / NIS deal a segment of the South Stream gas pipeline just agreed with Bulgaria will transit Serbia and on to to the Bosnian Serb Republic, Croatia and Italy ; construction of the Banatski Dvor underground gas storage with the capacity of about 800 million cubic meters will be completed costing some Euros 128 Mn. <a href="a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.unece.org/ie/se/pdfs/wpgas/session/16_session/Srbijagas20CAPITAL20PROJECTS200620krstic.pdf">See"http://www.unece.org/ie/se/pdfs/wpgas/session/16_session/Srbijagas20CAPITAL20PROJECTS200620krstic.pdf">See/a plans for NSI here by Dr. Svetislav Krstic pdf alert</a>brbrbr<p><a href="a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_PB5-El7se4s/R5slhgNQYWI/AAAAAAAAFJU/6KsClsYS1fM/s1600-h/serbian+gas+demand.jpg"><img"http://bp3.blogger.com/_PB5-El7se4s/R5slhgNQYWI/AAAAAAAAFJU/6KsClsYS1fM/s1600-h/serbian+gas+demand.jpg"><img/a id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5159759055594479970" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_PB5-El7se4s/R5slhgNQYWI/AAAAAAAAFJU/6KsClsYS1fM/s400/serbian+gas+demand.jpg""http://bp3.blogger.com/_PB5-El7se4s/R5slhgNQYWI/AAAAAAAAFJU/6KsClsYS1fM/s400/serbian+gas+demand.jpg"/a border="0" /></a>brbrThis whole shindig was a pivotal exercise in Putin's Russia leveraging power through it's energy policy. The pro western Democratic Party faction in nationalist Kostunica's Cabinet, dropped opposition to the deal, needing the Prime Ministers support for incumbent President <strong>Boris Tadic</strong>, to defeat an ultranationalist challenger in the country's runoff presidential vote on Feb. 3.brbrThe agreements also reflect the joint Russian / Serb opposition to a western supported independence for Kosovo.brbr"Serbia very deeply respects the position of Russia on Kosovo," Tadic publicly told Putin. "We will defend our interests in Kosovo, operating on the basis of international law, and we will never do otherwise."brbrPutin was, as usual boastfully pushing Russian interests, and to please the public, resolute ; "Russia is categorically against a unilateral declaration of independence for Kosovo," he said, adding that it could "seriously damage the system of international law and have negative consequences for the Balkans and affect stability in other regions." Sub text "Watch it you unruly Ossetians"brbrRussia has historical, cultural, religious and linguistic ties with Serbia , they threatened a veto last year in the U.N. Security Council to block a Western-backed plan for internationally supervised statehood for Kosovo. </p><p><a id="_ctl0__ctl0__ctl0__ctl0_RecentPosts__ctl0_postlist__ctl0_EntryItems__ctl0_AuthorLink" href="a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/ruairi_oconnell/about_author.aspx">Ruairi"http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/ruairi_oconnell/about_author.aspx">Ruairi/a OConnell</a> our man in Pristina's blog has been broguht to readers attention before ... his naive ramblings make one wonder how he will deal with these pesky Russki's..</p><p>.."We have to deal with the situation as best we can. And we do have to deal with it, right now; this is vital for European Security, but, most importantly of all, to give all the people of Kosovo a hope for a better life." ... and presumably a supply of natural gas.

Posted by Edward Teague on January 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM GMT #

Ruari, I am sorry but this is just historical revisionism. NATO actually went to war in 1999 because the Yugoslvian government refused to sign an enforced peace treaty which would have compromised and would, in any case, have been unenforceable in law since it violated numerous international treaties for example, the Vienna Treaty of 1980 to which the UK among others is a signatory. It is interesting to note that you cite the ICG as an 'alternative' viewpoint. In which sense the ICG could be described as 'alternative' is hard to understand. Notwithstanding the fact that its board of directors is comprised of former politicians and high-ranking former government officials and military leaders - many of them on the neo-conservative right - its 'alternative' stance amounted to nothing more than an even more bellicose stance on the former Yugoslavia than NATO. Far from being a humanitarian intervention, as one recent insider account by a former high-ranking member of the German secret service BND makes clear, this was about regime change and 'the war that NATO wanted'. That there was a peaceful alternative is proven by the proposals put forward by the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Maybe you would like to place a link to their findings too. Or is the Foreign Office only interested in 'alternative' views which complement its own? brbrAlso, if you really think that the current Kosovo Albanian leadership are interested in protecting the rights of minorities, then you are sadly mistaken, especially in the light of their appalling human rights record. brbrIncidentally, if NATO was so interested in human rights, why did they not intervene when Croatia expelled hundreds of thousands of Serbs in 1995 twice? In fact, Madeline Albright even tried to block investigations of war crimes there. So much for humanitarian intervention!

Posted by Rory on January 31, 2008 at 10:10 AM GMT #

Just to add to what I have written. Two months ago now, I spoke to a former CIA analyst who had worked extensively on the Yugoslav desk in the 1990s spoke. While he said that he had no moral issues with the independence of Kosovo, he also said that governments were also in denial about the devastating knock-on effects in the region including the doubtful future of Macedonia. My question is: what are western governments doing to prepare for this, especially in Macedonia where the border with Kosovo is completely porous? Does the FCO really believe that the independence of Kosovo, despite their insistence on the sui generis nature of the process, will not inspire other separatist groups - not least in the successor states of Yugoslavia? brbrI guess it would also be good to know why there is suddenly such haste to facilitate an independent Kosovo - especially in light of the fact that it was always supposed to be standards e.g. human rights before status.I just hope that practices in the FCO has evolved since the 1990s. When a lecturer from SSEES where I did my PhD was called into to give her advice to the FCO prior to the bombing campaign - her advice was don't - she said that her knowledge of the history and politics of the region was arbitrarily dismissed and she could just see their eyes glazing over. I guess this was because she was not giving them the news they wanted to hear.

Posted by Rory on January 31, 2008 at 10:23 AM GMT #

Ruairi - good to see your blog. brI don't think the FCO has much reason to be proud of its response to the nonviolent movement of Kosovo Albanians in the 1990s. I'm not criticising the people in the embassy in Belgrade, but the whole western policy orientation. brbrWhat is clear, however, is that through its treatment of Kosovo Albanians from 1989 onwards, Serbia lost any right to rule Kosovo. brI accept that independence might well have knock-on effects in Macedonia, but I don't see any advantages in delaying Kosovo's independence.

Posted by Howard Clark on February 11, 2008 at 08:55 PM GMT #

Ruairi, thanks for the blog, interesting read and even more interesting to see the diverse comments. brbrI would add that I agree with comments made by Howard Clark, both on the entitlement of Serbia to still rule Kosovo and the possible implications of its independence for other countries in the region, specifically BiH and FYROM. Not that I think the situations are identical or even remotely similar. brbrI do however hope to see, in the next few days leading up to the declaration of independence if this indeed takes place, the Kosovo Government making efforts to reach out to non-Albanian communities living in Kosovo. I hope that these outreach efforts serve to build the confidence of non-Albanian communities that their safety and security is and will be the top priority for the Government, irrelevant of any developments in the next few weeks. brbrLastly, in response to Rory’s comment on NATO and its human rights concerns, I do not recall Croatia expelling, on two occasions, hundreds of thousands of Serbs. The events during spring and summer-time of 1995 are being closely examined before the ICTY and hopefully the final verdicts pronounced there will provide more ‘legal’ clarity about what took place in 1995. Or do you Rory, doubt that as well?

Posted by Tih on February 12, 2008 at 02:38 PM GMT #

Dear Ruairi OConnell. – It seems to me, that better policies can be made available: via foundations on the EU’s enunciation of its principles, especially in solidarity with member-state minorities at all levels of a generously cooperative subsidiarity. There is little to recommend any limited democracy based on majorities of nationalist self-fulfilment only. For Kosovo’s stability, it then remains to UN Secretary General and Security Council to have careful input still for what cannot over-hurriedly be claimed as ‘End Game in Kosovo’. Whatever one Irish Grandmother has been speaking, she is right to point out that one must proceed from where one has arrived in the present situation. Nevertheless, there is no binding diplomacy law for continuation in hope alone, sans any rechecking out of better available mappings that can achieve more valid win-win solutions. Such as might still be co-needed where iteration has been nearly lost. I don’t know either of their languages, hence must await future ongoing interpretations. In the EU, nation-state sovereignty can claim no absolute totality-concepts.br

Posted by Stefan Peter. on February 15, 2008 at 01:59 PM GMT #

Yes, we are where we are. Very interesting debate on this blog, well done Ruairi!brbrHere is an interesting comment piece on such phrases as "we are where we are"brbra rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2184503/?from=rss"http://www.slate.com/id/2184503/?from=rss/abrbrCiao dude!brbrNiK

Posted by Nicholas J. Kiersey on February 17, 2008 at 06:04 PM GMT #

Hello Ruairi OConnell - thank you for your reporting to end-February 2008. Did wonder if you are fluent in the two local languages? At conversational-only, or at academic level? Or at least only one of the two that all can understand? Or do you get by with translators from/to English. In any case, before you are relocated – wishing you much less arduous postings after your present service for peace-making. Your reports in situ were consistently interesting and fair under difficult conditions to enable humanitarian aid via that model military international presence for peace. In an end-scenario: not a static ‘que serai, sera’, but working towards features of generosity for all concerned to live in peace and in fuller re-search for the more common good to be shared out with equitable concern under international law it eventually has to lead to more tolerant understandings.brSome insights, while we and your Irish Grandmother continue to onwards tack, proceeding from where we are: ‘Sailing between Scylla and Charybdis’. In those situations, to recommend with valid ratio [tr.: reason] that begets of achievable ‘win-win’ endings for both sides of argumentation. For all concerned with peace maximisation, and for maintenance on assurance of each minority’s co-citizen’s security. How then to move in better outcome directions? For me, ‘win-win’ doesn’t match “winning the war” alone. Let everyone together benefit from best-future outcomes!brNiK’s link led me also to question: what began Yugoslavia’s secession process? More correctly, its ‘wars of succession’, because of member-states with leaving rights. Those developments of an eventual break-up in history proved tragic enough in sequence: it "wouldn’t have happened if Yugoslavia had been in the EU already”. That was an initial preference. Of course, history is an ongoing sequence. But in 1999, Nato warfare and propaganda-machineries ended without need for invasion by ground forces – crux of the UN Resolution: how was it interpreted at that time to all its peace-restorers and beneficiaries?brSad-enough the lingua anglicana remains to be an inexact diplomatic tool. Yes indeed, but surely an exacter lingua diplomatique partnered initiative-ongoing. To be sure, my EU concept could have done reasonably better - globally it is enough for the EU to synchronise its ‘soft power’ with reborn Nato’s military reach. An EU Identity as in ESDI suffices for its assignments – as well as generously offered ‘soft power’ – to achieve co-autonomous, Petersberg Tasks! Under such regimen, might somebody delineate the EU’s macro-region.br

Posted by Stefan Peter. on March 04, 2008 at 03:45 PM GMT #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.

Calendar

Search

Feeds

Tag cloud

FCO bloggers

FCO partners overseas

FCO websites

UK government websites

Your feedback