United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

“What makes this 

undesirable—from both 

Belgrade’s and Pristina’s 

perspectives—is the possibility that freezing the conflict 

where it is now will make it 

impossible for both Serbia 

and Kosovo to make progress 

in becoming members of 

the European Union. Both 

Pristina and Belgrade need 

a framework for a managed 

relationship—likely short of 

mutual recognition in the near 

term—that will enable them to 

maintain the peace, increase 

trade and transportation, 

protect public safety, settle 

claims and allow their citizens 

to circulate more freely.”

November 5, 2010 

Kosovo: The Next Steps

Summary

•	 Kosovo should not be allowed to stagnate as a “frozen conflict.”

•	 There are well-established principles that can provide a basis for moving forward.

•	 Talks between Belgrade and Pristina on a framework for managing their relationship on practical issues are both possible and necessary, even if they do not happen right away.

•	 The time available should be used for careful preparations, especially by Pristina.

•	 As Belgrade and Moscow present serious challenges, a joint EU/U.S. effort has the best prospects for success to prevent a “frozen conflict.” 

Introduction 

While the international community can take satisfaction from the peaceful process that has produced an independent Kosovo recognized by 70 sovereign states, there are important steps that 

must be taken before we can be comfortable that Kosovo will not again destabilize the Western 

Balkans, and that the region’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions can be completed. Kosovo 

lacks United Nations membership, yet the U.N. finds itself stuck with a mission there. Meanwhile, 

Serbia is dissatisfied and the Russians are displeased. It will not be easy to complete the process in 

a way that resolves these remaining issues, but it is time to make a start.

A small group of experienced American Balkans hands met in October at the United States 

Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. to discuss the situation and the way forward. This Peace Brief 

summarizes salient points from their discussion.

Existing Principles Should Undergird the Next Stage of the 

Process

Since 2007, the international community has agreed on a clear set of principles in dealing 

with the Kosovo status issue: no border changes to accommodate ethnic differences, no union 

of Kosovo with Albania, and no reversion of Kosovo (or part thereof) to the status quo ante (i.e. it 

could not be returned to Serbia). The Ahtisaari plan added to these agreed principles extensive 

and vigorous guarantees for the rights of minorities, which the Pristina authorities have been 

implementing. 

In addition, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in July has made it clear 

that there was nothing in international law to prohibit Kosovo’s declaration of independence, 

Daniel Serwer

E-mail: daniel@serwer.org

peaceBrieF67
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Kosovo: The Next Steps

page 2 • PB 67 • November 5, 2010

contrary to Belgrade’s claims. This opinion has not opened a floodgate of recognitions, as some 

in Kosovo hoped and many in Serbia feared, largely because of anxiety in many countries about 

stoking secessionist fires closer to home. The Kosovo issue is viewed around the world as a 

complicated and remote one, and many countries do not regard it as necessary to move quickly 

on recognition. Kosovo is nevertheless clearly a state with an international personality, one whose 

future lies within the European Union. 

The Objective Now Is “Good Neighborly Relations”

There is a possibility that Kosovo will remain a frozen conflict, more or less in its current configuration for some time to come. Belgrade has pledged itself to diplomatic means to achieve its aims in 

Kosovo, and the NATO forces are there to guarantee the peace. 

What makes this undesirable—from both Belgrade’s and Pristina’s perspectives—is the possibility that freezing the conflict where it is now will make it impossible for both Serbia and Kosovo to 

make progress in becoming members of the European Union. Both Pristina and Belgrade need a 

framework for a managed relationship—likely short of mutual recognition in the near term—that 

will enable them to maintain the peace, increase trade and transportation, protect public safety, 

settle claims and allow their citizens to circulate more freely. The European Union will not be satisfied with less: “good neighborly relations” are a standard requirement for EU membership.

The United States has a critical role to play in this next stage. Some in Pristina are understandably nervous about the talks with Belgrade on practical issues that the U.N. General Assembly 

in September asked the EU to convene. Washington needs to give Pristina confidence that its 

territory and status are not up for debate, while at the same time giving Belgrade confidence that 

its interest in protecting Serbs and Serb interests in Kosovo will be taken seriously. Washington 

should continue, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did on a recent visit to the Balkans, 

to reject proposals for adjusting borders to accommodate ethnic differences, which would put not 

only Macedonia but also Bosnia at serious risk of instability. This is a position that has been held 

consistently in both Democratic and Republican administrations. It should be maintained.

The Talks Should Start Soon, Even If Not Right Away

The political situation in Pristina will complicate the conduct of talks with Belgrade. The government has fallen and elections will be held on December 12. It would be unreasonable to expect 

Pristina to be ready to engage on the full range of issues with confidence before a new government is formed and a negotiating team assembled. But it is vital that the Kosovars begin their 

technical preparations for talks with Belgrade right away. As things stand now, Belgrade is far 

better prepared for serious negotiations, having prepared extensive dossiers on what it sees as 

the main issues. Nothing comparable exists in Kosovo. The time between now and the formation 

of a new government should be used to prepare at the technical level on the many issues that will 

have to be discussed: property, pensions, cadastral records, the Trepca complex, mutual recognition of documents, etc. 

Only after they have done this technical homework should the Kosovars try to reassemble after 

the elections a political-level “unity team,” like the one that negotiated with former U.N. mediator, 

Martti Ahtisaari. Such a team should include as many of the political parties as possible, including 

some from the opposition. In the meanwhile, the government in Pristina also needs to focus on 

governing well: developing a real spirit of democracy, clamping down on crime and corruption, 

making the economy and government more transparent, and giving all citizens the sense that 

they will get a fair shake from a competent government. The conduct of the upcoming elections 
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Kosovo: The Next Steps

page 3 • PB 67 • November 5, 2010

is particularly important: if they are seen as free, fair and peaceful, Kosovo will take a giant step 

forward in gaining international legitimacy. 

Serbia and Russia Will Not Be Easy to Deal With

By the time the Kosovars commit themselves to detailed talks, there is some risk that Serbia will be 

preparing for its own 2012 presidential elections. This is perilous, since a relatively small number 

of people in Serbia who care deeply about Kosovo have repeatedly proven able to control the 

political discourse. Under less charged circumstances, Kosovo is not a high priority issue in Serbia, 

and the majority there indicates in polls that they accept the fact of Kosovo’s independence and 

do not expect it to be returned to Serbia. 

While he clearly has some room to maneuver on the Kosovo issues, Serbian President Boris 

Tadic has so far lacked the courage to align himself with this pragmatic view, preferring instead 

to outflank his nationalist opposition by remaining stalwart on refusing to recognize Kosovo’s 

independence. Though the Russians had participated fully in the preparation of the Ahtisaari plan, 

helping to ensure that it provided extensive guarantees for the Serbs in Kosovo, Russian Prime 

Minister Vladimir Putin disowned it at the end of the process. The Russians have remained on 

Serbia’s side, despite their own recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which demonstrated 

that they were more concerned with retaliating for what they perceived as American overreach 

than with principled opposition to Kosovo independence. There is no real cost to either Belgrade 

or Moscow for remaining intransigent, but Moscow might well trade its position on Kosovo for 

tangible progress on issues it is more concerned about. 

Belgrade has been telling everyone who will listen that it needs a “face-saving” solution. This appears to mean Serbian control of the three and a half Kosovo municipalities north of the Ibar River. 

There is no way to open a door to this partition of Kosovo without the Albanians wanting to open 

up the question of the Presevo Valley areas in southern Serbia that have an Albanian majority. And 

opening both these issues would encourage secessionist impulses in Bosnia and in Macedonia. 

Keeping Pandora’s box closed is absolutely necessary.

But there is reason to contemplate eventual discussion of governance in the north, since that 

area is politically radicalized and rapidly becoming a center of trafficking and other illegal activities 

that could infect much of the Balkans. The Ahtisaari plan provides for a large measure of autonomy 

that could go a long way to meeting Serb concerns in the north, including guarantees that any 

subsidies paid by Belgrade into the governing structures of northern Kosovo be uninterruptible. 

A first, confidence-building step of major importance would be Belgrade’s publication of the data 

on what it is spending in Kosovo and for what purposes. That would enable a serious discussion 

of what is legitimate and what is not, leading eventually to more formal arrangements that could 

satisfy both Belgrade’s and Pristina’s needs. It is also worth reviewing arrangements which protect 

Serbian religious institutions in Kosovo to make sure they are satisfactory.

The EU and the U.S. Have to Maintain a Joint Effort

Secretary Clinton’s trip to the Balkans in October demonstrated her commitment to continuing 

American engagement there. Her renewed commitment to Kosovo’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and economic development, and her assertion of America’s intention to expand diplomatic 

recognition of Kosovo are welcome signals. The EU’s successful formation of a united front against 

the proposed Serbian General Assembly resolution forced Belgrade’s acceptance of an unobjectionable text that has the virtue of launching talks on practical issues that can begin to construct 

the framework for a managed relationship that both Belgrade and Pristina need. 
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

About This Brief

Daniel Serwer, former vice president for the Centers of Innovation 

at the United States Institute 

of Peace, is now a professorial 

lecturer and visiting scholar at the 

School for Advanced International 

Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He can be reached at daniel@

serwer.org. 

The U.S. and the EU need to continue to work jointly to provide a safe space for productive 

talks. The level of coordination required goes significantly beyond normal diplomatic practice and 

should include one or more Americans on the EU team that convenes the Pristina/Belgrade talks, 

following the precedent of the Ahtisaari effort and many other recent EU-led activities. The door to 

entry of Serbia and Kosovo should not be opened until they work out the rules for good neighboring relations and prove they will live by them.

Kosovo: The Next Steps

page 4 • PB 67 • November 5, 2010