ICJ ruling on Kosovo expected today. In the European Voice, Toby Vogel puts the case in context and discusses potential consequences (subscribers only):
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague will today (22 July) issue an advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s independence. The court’s ruling is likely to make uncomfortable reading for 22 of the European Union’s 27 states that have already recognised Kosovo following its declaration of independence on 17 February 2008: it could well advance a political settlement between Serbia and its former province that would severely test the EU’s tenets that borders are not to be changed and that ‘ethnic cleansing’ must not stand.
The opinion from the court was requested by the United Nations General Assembly. It is not legally binding on anyone except the UN’s own bodies, but James Ker-Lindsay, a researcher on south-east Europe at the London School of Economics, argues that “you cannot ask the world’s 15 pre-eminent jurists to rule on the legality of an issue and then ignore their opinion”.
He describes the case as “the most important case that has ever come before the ICJ”. Vuk Jeremic´, Serbia’s foreign minister, says that politically, this is a “moment of truth”.
The ICJ may well come out with an opinion that is either closer to Serbia’s position or somewhere halfway between Serbia’s stance and that of Kosovo’s government. Serbia believes that either result will, in due course, force the authorities in Kosovo to seek an accommodation with Belgrade. That accommodation, a senior Serbian government insider has told European Voice, will work only if it includes the partition of Kosovo. (…)
The Serbian source believes that the government of Kosovo will not trade territory as long as the US and a few European countries keep telling it that more countries will recognise its independence. That promise, he suggested, is about to be exposed as hollow: the ICJ’s opinion will not lead to a new wave of recognitions. The five EU member states that have hitherto withheld recognition – Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain – did so primarily for domestic reasons. That equation is not going to be changed by a court ruling. “Once the Albanians realise that nothing is going to change, they will come around,” the Serbian source said.
According to this insider, the Serbian government understands that it cannot control Kosovo effectively again. “You cannot rule 1.5 million people against their will,” he said, referring to Kosovo’s overwhelming ethnic Albanian majority. “We know, we tried it.”
What Belgrade wants instead, he said, is the region north of Mitrovica with its ethnic Serb majority, and some kind of international control of holy Serbian sites in the rest of the country, where Albanians are in the majority. “Read the Serbian constitution,” he said. “It does not define Kosovo’s borders, although it describes it as an integral part of Serbia. As long as we have something inside Serbia that is called ‘Kosovo’ we are fine.”
Ker-Lindsay supports the idea of partition. “We have already partitioned Serbia [when Kosovo declared independence], so saying that partition is out of the question is nonsense,” he says. He points out that the region north of Mitrovica was added to Kosovo by Tito, Yugoslavia’s strongman, only in 1959 in order to create a new demographic reality on the ground. Detaching it now should not be seen as a major breach of territorial integrity or other legal principles, but as a pragmatic solution to a festering problem. (…)
The Serbian insider said that in his government’s analysis, the US and the EU would accept partition if it were the outcome of direct negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade. Ker-Lindsay says that Kosovo’s putative partition would merely recognise a reality that already exists on the ground, with an almost entirely Serb region in the north that is under Belgrade’s de facto control. Partition would not require any population shifts in order to work, which would make it far more palatable to outsiders, he said, a view also advanced by the Serbian source. “The [ethnic Serbs] displaced from Kosovo know that they will not return,” he said. The bigger political and moral challenge, however, might be the ethnic Albanians who were expelled from the north during the 1998-99 war. (…)
See also a New York Times report on US and Kosovo’s views of the case. It says that Kosovo’s Prime Minister Thaci choose to be in Washington on the day of the ruling.
Richard Gowan (ECFR) comments on the EU position on Kosovo:
The EU has a 2,800-strong police and justice mission in Kosovo. But the Union is split between a majority of countries that recognise the state and a minority that does not (Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Spain and Slovakia). The EU police claims to be “status neutral”.
This is a clever but rather silly phrase, meant to imply that it’s possible for the EU to help police Kosovo without knowing if it’s a country or not. That’s rather like American teenagers claiming that they “just hang out” rather than date – comforting for those in the relationship, but really irritating for those (i.e. the Serbs) who can see what’s going on.
Freed Cuban dissidents urge EU not to change position. The BBC reports:
Eleven freed Cuban dissidents have urged the European Union not to soften its long-standing demands for democratic change in Cuba. The group, who arrived last week in Spain, said their release was not a gesture of good faith but “a desperate action” by the Cuban government.
Cuba has agreed to free 52 political prisoners under a deal agreed with the Catholic Church and Spain. A further nine freed dissidents are expected to arrive in Spain this week.
The EU should not change its Common Position on Cuba, the dissidents said on Monday. This refers to the policy from 1996 that calls for advances in human rights and democracy, before relations with Cuba can be normalised. There had been no clear decision by the Cuban government to move towards democratisation, a statement from the group said. “For this reason we ask European Union member states to not soften their demands for democratic changes in Cuba, so that all Cubans can enjoy the same rights that European citizens have,” they said.
The dissidents’ position is at odds with remarks made by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, who took part in talks with the Cuban government. Speaking after the planned releases were announced on 7 July, Mr Moratinos said the EU should soften its stance on Cuba. Mr Moratinos said the largest release of Cuban dissidents since 1998 “opened a new era” in European ties with Cuba.
AP adds that the EU is unlikely to shift its position, despite Spanish pressure:
Spain’s foreign minister predicted Wednesday that Cuba’s release of dozens of political prisoners could eventually lead to a thaw in U.S. relations and the lifting of a decades-old embargo against the Communist-run island.
Speaking in Parliament, Miguel Angel Moratinos said the freeing of some 52 Cuban prisoners would prompt a shift in European Union policy toward Cuba “and it will have political consequences in U.S. relations with Cuba, (such as) the lifting of the embargo.”
A spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in Madrid said, while the U.S. welcomed the release of the Cuban political inmates, it was too early to say whether that would have any effect on the embargo. And officials from France and Germany didn’t share Moratinos’ optimism that the release of the 52 would trigger an EU policy shift. (…)
Moratinos has said his European Union counterparts had conditioned any change in EU policy toward Cuba on getting the political prisoners released and he now expects the 27-nation bloc to end its “common position” on Cuba. That policy, which dates from 1996, calls for advances in human rights and democracy before relations with the island can be normalized.
But Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, said it was too early to say if the bloc is ready to shift direction on Cuba. She said all countries needed to be back any move and it was not clear if they all share Spain’s enthusiasm. “We will have a better feeling on Monday” when foreign ministers may talk briefly about the prisoners’ release, she said. But no decision is likely until September.
An official with Germany’s Foreign Office said it “welcomes the current development” but added that “the EU countries have always stressed that the overall human rights situation in Cuba has to improve.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with policy.
A French diplomat said Wednesday that the releases are a positive first step, but that the EU wants Cuba to free all its political prisoners.
Parliament presses Commission on EU-Morocco deal, the European Voice reports (subscribers only):
A controversial fishing deal between the European Union and Morocco may lapse if the Moroccan government fails to produce evidence that the deal benefits people in the disputed Western Sahara region, Maria Damanaki, the European commissioner for fisheries, has warned.
Damanaki contacted the Moroccan government in February to ask for proof that the EU-Morocco fishing agreement benefits people who live in the disputed territory of the Western Sahara. “They have to prove that the agreement gives real benefits to local people… If they do not give us the data then we will not have a protocol,” the commissioner said in an interview with European Voice.
The EU-Morocco fisheries partnership – a fish-for-cash exchange – was signed by Damanaki’s predecessor, Joe Borg, in 2005. The EU will pay the Moroccan government €144 million over four years, until 2011, for the right to fish in Moroccan and Western Saharan waters.
But the inclusion of the territorial waters of Western Sahara has long concerned lawyers and human-rights campaigners. Morocco annexed the Western Saharan territory in 1978, a few years after the demise of Spain’s colonial administration. Estimates vary, but according to the European Commission, 90,000 Saharawi people live in refugee camps in harsh conditions without basic resources. The United Nations has repeatedly expressed concerns about human rights in Western Sahara.
A legal opinion from the European Parliament last year advised that the EU- Morocco deal did not conform with international law, because it ignored the rights of the Saharawi people to control their national resources. The Parliament’s lawyers also called on EU vessels to stop fishing in Western Saharan waters.
The EU-Morocco deal is up for renewal in February 2011, putting pressure on the Commission to change the terms of the deal.
Isabella Lövin, a Swedish Green MEP, said that a new agreement was urgently needed. “The present agreement is in violation of international law because it allows Morocco to sell resources that belong to the Western Saharawi people.” She said that the “logical” solution would be for the agreement to be suspended or re-negotiated to exclude the waters of Western Sahara. “The EU is one of the most important political forces in the world and it should not strike agreements with countries that violate human rights,” she said.
Damanaki said she was concerned about the human-rights situation in the region. The commissioner has promised to make human rights part of all future fishing agreements. “I think that we can improve the framework for the agreements [with] a new type of agreement that takes care of the human-rights situation.” She maintains that the current EU-Morocco deal “provides real benefits to people, whatever their name”.
Sara Eyckmans, co-ordinator of Western Sahara Resource Watch, a private group, said she had not seen any evidence that the Saharawi people benefit from the agreement. She said: “The Commission always tends to focus on benefits, but they never go into the question of the wishes [of the Saharawi people], which is central to international law.”
Hautala urges Ashton to speak up on human rights. The chairwoman of the European Parliament’s sub-committee on human rights, Heidi Hautala, has called on Catherine Ashton to be more outspoken about countries that violate human rights, the European Voice reports (subscribers ony):
Heidi Hautala said Ashton’s use of “quiet diplomacy” was insufficient for the EU to be treated as a serious player on the world stage. She said the EU and Ashton should be speaking out more aggressively on rights violations in China, Russia, Israel and the Palestinian territories. “We have to be very vocal on these things at the moment,” Hautala said, adding: “I have to some extent disputed her first statements that she believes in quiet diplomacy.”
At the outset of her term as foreign policy chief, Ashton told MEPs that she would pursue a discreet style. “Sometimes talking to people without full publicity can be more effective,” Ashton told the Parliament at her confirmation hearing.
Hautala said that while low-key, behind-the-scenes negotiations could be effective in certain delicate cases involving imprisoned human-rights activists, many of the cases in China or Russia were “the type where vocal public statements can mean more”.
The Finnish Green MEP said that the EU’s current human-rights “dialogues” on fundamental rights, which it conducts with some 40 countries, including China, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and Cuba, were in “close to a crisis situation” because they were not producing any changes in behaviour. “They risk becoming empty rituals that the other party does not take very seriously. This is an issue we need to look at,” Hautala said.
Hautala said Ashton had to ensure that the national governments and the European External Action Service (EEAS), which is being set up this year, pursued a more effective human rights policy. (…)
Ashton’s spokeswoman rejected Hautala’s criticism, arguing that the foreign policy chief had been “quite vocal” in the media on human rights while at the same time working behind the scenes to push EU interests.
Hautala said that the EU had to come up with a more transparent human-rights policy, so that MEPs could name and shame those member states that do not toe the line on certain policies and positions. Hautala said the Parliament should have more access to confidential documents from foreign services and the EEAS on member state positions. “The game is quite dirty sometimes and we need to know which countries are playing for human rights and which are playing against,” said Hautala.
Cameron wants to reorient British foreign policy towards economic interests, the BBC reports:
Speaking in New York on the last day of his trip to the US, the prime minister said he wanted diplomats to use every opportunity to win orders for UK firms.
He announced that he was appointing a civil servant with expertise in business to head the Foreign Office. The department would also recruit a commercial director, Mr Cameron said. (…)
The prime minister told reporters: “I want to refashion British foreign policy, the Foreign Office, to make us much more focused on the commercial aspects… making sure we are demonstrating Britain is open for business.” “I think it is a big opportunity. As we come out of recession and into recovery we have got to pay our way in the world and I want to reorientate the Foreign Office to be much more commercially minded.”
He added: “I want us to be much more focused on winning orders for British business overseas, attracting inward investment back into Britain.” “I want to make sure that whenever any British minister, however junior, is meeting any counterpart, however junior or senior and for however short a time, they have always got a very clear list of the commercial priorities we are trying to achieve, whether that is pushing forward British orders, attracting inward investment or promoting bilateral or unilateral trade talks.”
To sign up for the Global Europe Morning Brief, please send an email to globeurope@gmail