Kosovo: The need for a neutral peace envoy
11 October 2005

At long last, it appears as if the process to determine the final status of Kosovo is about to begin. After several months spent on the ground reviewing the situation, Kai Eide, the Norwegian diplomat appointed to prepare a study of conditions in Kosovo, has returned his report to the UN Secretary-General. It makes for troubling reading. Although improvements are noted in various areas, it is clear from the text that there are a wide range of concerns about the pace of reform and development in the province.

For example, the report notes that while structures of governance have been established, there is no Serbian representation due to a Serb boycott. Moreover, the Serbian community has retained its own health and education structures. As a result the interethnic situation in the province is 'grim', with little respect for property rights. As for the economy, again improvements have been made. However, unemployment remains high and the situation is still 'bleak'. On the topic of law and order, the report notes that the police appear unable to handle the widespread corruption, organised crime and interethnic problems that exist. Indeed, the report refers to the police and judiciary as 'fragile institutions'.

And yet, despite the concerns expressed about developments in the province, Kofi Annan appears to have agreed with the assessment made by Eide that the start of final status talks must begin in the near future. Speaking to the press in Switzerland, Annan made it clear that he would like to see formal negotiations begin soon. Indeed, the report has been sent over to the Security Council, which will take responsibility for deciding the next steps. This is almost certain to mean a seal of approval for the start of formal negotiations.

Once he has secured permission from the Security Council to begin negotiations, the first task facing the Secretary-General will be the appointment of a special envoy to lead the talks. The choice is critical. Whoever is appointed will be at the forefront of efforts to broker a deal between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians. This will be far from easy. There is currently no common ground between the two sides and little appears likely to develop. While the Serbs have said that they are prepared to consider anything but independence, Albanian leaders in Kosovo have stated that they will accept nothing short of full statehood for the province.

Already, potential candidates to handle this tricky process are emerging. The most prominent name so far suggested is Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland. On the face of it, this would seem to be a good choice. Over the past decade, Mr Ahtisaari has carved out a reputation as a strong advocate for international peace and has taken a lead role in trying to bring stability to the Balkans. He is also familiar with the Kosovo situation, having led efforts to broker an end to the 1999 Kosovo Crisis.

However, despite his credentials, Mr Ahtisaari is seen by many as a tainted candidate. Specifically, concern has been expressed about the fact that he was, until 2004, Chairman of the International Crisis Group (ICG), a leading think tank that has been at the forefront of efforts to promote an independent Kosovo. Since then, he has retained a position as chairman emeritus of the organisation, which, through reports and editorial pieces, has strongly advocated statehood for the province. Critics have also pointed out that another of the leading lights of the ICG is Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who led the bombing of Kosovo, who has also written several pieces supporting independence and was endorsed by the US Albanian community in his run for the US presidency in 2004.

In view of this, it is little wonder that Belgrade has raised serious questions about Mr Ahtisaari. For example, Sanda Raskovic Ivic, the President of the Co-ordination Centre for Kosovo, the main body of the Serbian Government handling Kosovo, has openly raised concerns about his impartiality. It is likely that more questions will follow from across the Serbian political spectrum.

Of course, none of this is to say that Mr Ahtisaari is not an accomplished diplomat. His experience in this regard is beyond question. Nor is his standing being challenged. Instead, the appointment of someone who is so closely linked with an organisation that has so openly and strongly called for an independent Kosovo naturally taints his candidacy. Under other circumstances, Mr Ahtisaari may have been an ideal choice. However, in this case the Secretary-General needs to find someone whose impartiality, either real or perceived, cannot be challenged so easily.