In the coming months, a fundamental decision will be made that will challenge the capacity of the international community, particularly Europe, for conflict resolution. The issue is Kosovo's status -- the last unresolved piece of the bloodstained Balkans puzzle. For Serbs and Albanians alike, Kosovo is a place haunted by history. But the world must not allow their freighted narratives about the past to cloud our actions to build a better future.
In the 1990s, following its atrocities in Bosnia, Slobodan Milosevic's Serb regime abolished Kosovo's long-standing autonomy, suppressing the rights of the province's overwhelming Albanian majority. Instead of simply watching in horror, as it did at the start of the Bosnian war, NATO decided to intervene before Milosevic's forces could again devastate one of the constituent ethnic groups of the former Yugoslavia. Security of the EU and Europe's moral responsibility after the crimes of World War II were at stake.
Following NATO's intervention, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1244, placing Kosovo under UN administration. Since 1999, the international community's policies with regard to Kosovo have had wide international support, including from Russia.
Now the time has come to resolve Kosovo's status permanently. Otherwise, the stability that the UN has brought to Kosovo, and the region, will not last. Unemployment is now running at over 40 percent in Kosovo and breeds political volatility. Without access to sovereign lending from the World Bank or the IMF, Kosovo's economy will continue to stagnate.
Resolving Kosovo's status is also a necessity for the province's Serb minority, who continue to live in uncertainty, not knowing whether to look to Belgrade or Pristina for protection of their rights. It would free both Serbia and the EU to move forward on Serbia's domestic reforms and international integration.
The UN Special Envoy for the Kosovo Future Status Process, former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, has now, after 14 months of intensive negotiations with Belgrade and Pristina, presented his settlement proposal to the Security Council. Ahtisaari's bold proposal, which recommends Kosovo's independence with initial supervision by a strong international civilian and military presence, is the only viable option for the international community, and for Europe in particular.
Reintegrating Kosovo into Serbia is not tenable. Since the end of the conflict in June 1999, Serbia has not exercised any governing authority over Kosovo. Under UN administration, legitimate Kosovar institutions for managing domestic affairs have been created. With these institutions in place, Kosovo's people expect greater self-government.
Sadly, Belgrade's vision of Kosovo returning to Serbian rule -- albeit with autonomy -- ignores these realities. Indeed, Serbia has no viable strategy for integrating Kosovo's 2 million people into Serbian political institutions and public life.
The UN simply cannot solve Kosovo's structural problems, namely the need to develop a viable economy and to begin engagement with the EU -- the most powerful motor for reform and economic development in the region. But this does not mean that the international community and the EU should now leave Kosovo to its own devices.
Relations between Kosovo's Albanian majority and Serb minority remain uneasy. So it is imperative that strong safeguards are put in place to protect minorities, particularly the Serbs. International supervision of Kosovo's independence by a strong international civilian and military presence will be critical to ensure that it fulfills its obligations under the settlement proposal.
What is now required is the will to adopt and implement Ahtisaari's plan. In the coming weeks, the Security Council will decide Kosovo's status, but it is the EU that will have to coexist with both Kosovo and Serbia.
In fact, Kosovo's fate is intertwined with the EU's own. A strong and stable Kosovo will require a cohesive and united Europe. If the EU is divided on an issue lying at its geographic heart -- and at the heart of its interests -- its credibility as a foreign policy actor on matters beyond its borders will suffer dramatically. And only a united EU can bring Russia on board for a harmonized policy towards the Balkans.
This means that the EU cannot leave Serbia to its own devices, either. The EU must make it clear that it is ready to support Serbia -- and the region as a whole -- in realizing its European aspirations. European security is hinged on Serbian integration, just as Serbian aspirations hinge on the EU.
But the price of the EU's support cannot be changed; the major war criminals Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic must be delivered to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. Today, as yesterday, the first step towards Serbia's European integration is full cooperation with the tribunal.
Serbia has a bright future with the EU, but getting there requires that it break with its own past -- on both Kosovo and the atrocities of the Milosevic era.
Joschka Fischer was German foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005, and he is now a visiting professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute of Human Sciences
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS