By Andrej Nikolaidis, CdM columnist
Why are Brussels and Washington exerting unusually strong pressure on the Government led by Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti? And what lessons can we in Montenegro learn from that?
After two decades during which there seemed to be no noise in the communication between Washington and Pristina, the American and Brussels administration practically isolated Kurti and his government. The American ambassador in Belgrade (not Pristina, it is important to note) went so far as to say that he was not sure that Kurti was a partner of the USA. The statement was later toned down, but the message was sent.
Kurti rejects the demands of Washington and Brussels. He does so with a determination that visibly frustrates Western diplomats. Their impotence to impose the will of their governments on Pristina is clear: the messages that came from Western addresses, about how they will consider an agreement that has not been signed (the one between Kurti and Vucic) as valid, and even more that of Escobar about how the US will implement the unsigned agreement excluding the government in Pristina, along with other partners there, there are bizarre demonstrations of powerless anger, a kind of diplomatic children’s tantrums.
The trouble with such a plan is that according to the laws of Kosovo, the internal and foreign policy of that country is led by the government, not by NGOs and other desirable American partners.
This brings us to the question of the rule of law on which both Washington and Brussels insist rhetorically, repeating that it is a central issue for all states and governments of the region. And yet – how to interpret as a contribution to the rule of law the idea of implementing international agreements outside the government, which, as we said, according to the supreme legal act of Kosovo, is the only one authorized to do so?
Kurti, therefore, and this is the center of the problem, refuses to implement the agreement on the Union of Serbian Municipalities, which was signed by his predecessor Hashim Thaci. Kurti claims that according to the constitution of Kosovo, territorial organization based on ethnic principles is inadmissible and impossible. Our interlocutors from Kosovo and Macedonia claim that Kurti’s interpretation is correct: yes, such a thing is unconstitutional.
If this is the case, the million dollar question is: how and why, then, did the West get involved in reaching and implementing an agreement that, according to the constitution of one of the signatories, is outside its legal framework? And what kind of message does violating the constitution send about the rule of law in the region?
Further… Isn’t it interesting that the Western favorites in the region, Rama and Vucic, are inclined to creative rather than dogmatic interpretation of the law?
The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the one with the signing of the Fundamental Agreement between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the state of Montenegro. And in the case of that agreement, which is an open secret, American diplomacy provided so-called “good services”. The Montenegrin opposition evaluated the agreement as unconstitutional, just as Kurti evaluated the Vucic-Thaci agreement. And what will happen when the Montenegrin opposition becomes the government again? What if it initiates the procedure for checking the constitutionality of the Fundamental Agreement? What if the Constitutional Court declares that agreement unconstitutional? Will the government, obliged to implement the rule of law, still respect it? And what will happen if the government decides that for it the legal system of Montenegro is more important than the recommendations of “our western friends”? Will such commitment to the rule of law lead, as in the case of Kurti, to the retaliation of American diplomacy, some kind of sanctions?
Albin Kurti claims that the north of Kosovo is a hub for all kinds of organized crime. His claims are confirmed by numerous independent sources. Kurti also claims that the state of Kosovo is obliged to fight crime and enforce laws in every part of its territory. Washington and Brussels practically demand that it not do so.
Kurti’s intransigence is wrapped in a concern for the rule of law. The same, rhetorically, is what Washington and Brussels are looking for: but not in the north of Kosovo and not now. It seems that Western diplomacy in the case of our region is of the opinion that the rule of law justifies any sacrifice – even the suspension of the rule of law.
In the case of the request that the elected mayors of the municipalities in the north of Kosovo rule online, and not from the municipal buildings; in the case with the constitution of Kosovo contrary to the Community of Serbian Municipalities; in the case of the request that the Kosovo police in the Serbian-Community-of-Municipalities part of Kosovo do not do their job – it seems that the West is in the position that Comrade Tito so succinctly stated. “We don’t have to cling desperately to the law”.
Or as the old Cincar Baja Pasic explained: laws are not passed for those whom you will, but for those whom you do not want to do a favour.
(The opinions and views of the authors of the columns are not necessarily those of the CdM editorial staff)
