change font size

print version

copyright

Other languages:

Life in Kosovo reports on EULEX’s protocol on cooperation with Belgrade and returnees in Kilna

17 09 2009  Life in Kosovo showcased events from the week.

The show, hosted by Muhamet Hajrullahu, began with Jeta Xharra interviewing Pieter Feith, the head of the International Civilian Office (ICO), about the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo’s (EULEX) new protocol with Serbia, which covers a variety of policing issues and mandates cooperation in the fight against organised crime and the trafficking of people, drugs and weapons.

Feith claimed that EULEX had known about the protocol since July, although he could not comment on whether the government of Kosovo had known, since the protocol “is only a technical agreement and [Feith] provides only political advice.”

In addition, Feith claimed that EULEX has informed him that they consulted the government of Kosovo as well as its Serbian counterpart during discussions.

Asked about what the main concerns about the protocol had been, Feith claimed that “the main concern that the President and the Prime Minister had was for it not to be seen as harming the sovereignty of Kosovo.”

He told Xharra that a thorough legal assessment had been conducted, with EULEX’s legal advisors concluding that the agreement was not harmful to Kosovo’s sovereignty.

Feith replied that, like Kosovo’s constitution, the agreement refers to UN Security Resolution 1244, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Asked if there was a strategy behind the Serbian government’s actions, or whether it seems to be out of its depth, Feith replied that such an assessment depends on individualjudgement, but that the ICO had had constructive consultations with them.

Xharra mentioned that public comments by Kosovo’s politicians reveal that the protocol is unacceptable for them, even though the Head of the Assembly claims it to be a good thing.

Asked what the public should think given such mixed signals, Feith replied that it is not his responsibility to explain the government’s position, but rather to provide political advice and supervise the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan.

He went on to say that his belief is that the government is the “boss”, holding all the responsibility and accountability. However, as the protocol is a technical instrument signed by EULEX, the government has not actually been involved in its creation.

Xharra asked about the protocol’s likely effect on Kosovo’s police, since they would be required to share information under the agreement. Feith responded that the police will be fully involved in the process and its implementation.

As a result, the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ (MoIA) cooperation with the protocol’s implementation will be necessary and beneficial, and this will further safeguard Kosovo’s sovereignty, according to Feith.

Furthermore, as a part of the European Union, EULEX works to bring the region closer, believing that cooperation is absolutely essential.

Thus, as Kosovo and Serbia do not have diplomatic relations, “EULEX must find other means and arrangements for overcoming such obstacles,” Feith said.

When asked whether Kosovo’s police and institutions are capable of cooperating with its other neighbours – Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro – Feith replied “absolutely yes”.

He added that, as EULEX has already drawn up cooperation agreements with those countries, it was thought necessary to have one with Serbia.

Following this, he spoke about the relevance of the protocol for Kosovo’s visa liberalisation process. He also pointed out that this would take a long time regardless, as biometric passports are a requirement, yet Kosovo only began issuing any passports last year.

In response to Feith’s comment that UNMIK’s legal regime had come to an end, Xharra asked why no corruption cases had been solved in EULEX’s first 18 months.

Feith blamed the “political situation” for delaying the establishment of a functioning process, and stated that the mission would probably be extended beyond its current June 2010 by Brussels.

Hajrullahu noted that Pieter Feith had often referred to EULEX in his interview, and that more information could therefore be uncovered through an interview with a representative of the organisation. Roy Reeve, the Deputy Chief of EULEX, was then introduced.

Jeta Xharra first asked Reeve when EULEX had started negotiating the protocol. He replied that the agreement had been developed in the context of meetings by the head of the mission, Yves De Kermabon, with the chiefs of customs, police and justice in Skopje, Podgorica, Tirana and Belgrade, beginning in March.

Reeve claimed that the most important fact arising from these discussions was that, outside of Serbia, noobstacles to deepening cooperation were faced. Further, the MoIA and Kosovo’s police are cooperating successfully with their counterparts in the three other neighbouring countries.

Reeve also claimed that EULEX has an executive mandate and is tasked with opening new channels for cooperation. Thus, whether Kosovo’s government or population approve or not, EULEX was required to make steps towards cooperation with Serbia.

Asked whether EULEX had consulted with Kosovo’s government whilst in talks with the Serbian government, Reeve stated that they had kept Kosovo’s government informed at all times, but had only talked in general terms until the final words were put on paper.

He went on to say that EULEX has officials working in Kosovo’s ministries for internal affairs, customs, police and justice, and colleagues in their Serbian equivalents.

Asked whether EULEX will offer an apology to the people of Kosovo and be more transparent in future discussions, Reeve admitted that they “could have done things better, not saying ‘differently’, because [they] were building on something which has been present for nine years.

Also, when UNMIK had responsibility for the rule of law, they also had different types of agreements with Belgrade, and when [they] handed them to EULEX, [EULEX] had to fill the gap”.

Asked by Xharra whether EULEX is behaving as UNMIK had, since they are signing agreements without consulting Kosovo’s institutions, Reeve replied that EULEX “have heard the voice of the government and, at the end of the day, [the protocol] is an agreement which has to deal with difficult issues, such as cross-border organised crime”.

Based on statements by Kosovo’s President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Hashim Thaci that the protocol is not acceptable for Kosovo, Reeve claimed that it does not technically apply to Kosovo, since it was drawn up between EULEX and the Serbian MoIA, and has no impact on Kosovo’s international position or policies.

Asked what the protocol’s real world results will be, Reeve replied that whilst much is yet unknown, if there is a case related to Serbian criminal gangs, EULEX will be allowed access to relevant facts and information, provided they can justify the request to the Serbian authorities.

The reverse applies for Serbia’s police collecting information about citizens of Kosovo if they have a legal basis for doing so, assessed by EULEX.

Furthermore, asked if there are institutions in place to deal with money laundering operations, Reeve claimed that EULEX has been drafting an agreement with Minister of Economy and Finance Ahmet Shala.

Reeve hopes the Assembly will ratify this agreement, since money laundering is currently not designated a crime under Kosovo’s laws.

Hajrullahu stated that BIRN has asked for opinions on the protocol from Kosovo’s Interior Minister, Zenun Pajaziti.

However, he had refused to respond to e-mailed questions or to be interviewed on Life in Kosovo. Similarly, government spokesperson Memli Krasniqi had stated that it is not the state’s responsibility to answer such questions as it is not party to the protocol.

Following this, Hajrullahu introduced a story from journalist Isa Gacaferi showing how local officials responsible for the return of displaced residents are misusing their position for personal benefit.

In this, Milka Simic from the village of Videj, in Klina municipality was profiled, showing her living conditions since she returned to her birthplace four years ago, having left her children in Serbia by their own decision.

Milka lives in a relative’s house since her neighbours do not allow the authorities to reconstruct her house.

They claim that, because Milka’s sons did not contribute to the defence of Kosovo, the family has no right to have their house rebuilt. She said: “I returned to Kosovo in 2005, and since then have addressed the institutions that protect us, but I have difficulties communicating with Mr. Sarkovic.”

Milorad Sarkovic, the head of the Office of Returns for Klina municipality, claims that the returns process is going well but still has room for improvement. For example, he said that since 2004, 53 families (totalling 121 people) have returned home

to Videj village, although there are another 64 families yet to return.

Milka claimed that, even though she does not have a refugee card,

she fulfils the requirements for house reconstruction. Between 1999

and 2005, she lived in Switzerland at her sister’s house, but had

previously been a resident of Videj for more than 20 years.

However, Milka alleged that it is possible for people to have a

house built even if they had not been a resident there, since it

is “enough just to know Mr. Milorad”, because he builds houses for

those who are close to him.

A UNDP representative claimed there is no possibility for houses

to be built for multiple members of one family. The rules of the

programme require that the size of each reconstructed house

reflect the number of family members who had their houses

destroyed duringthe war.

Those who fulfil all the conditions have their house rebuilt,

with no chance for one family to receive funds to build more than

one house, according to the interviewed UNDP representative.

Deputy Minister for Returns Ismet Hashani added that the conditions

for return are very clear, and do not prioritise individual cases or

provide additional benefits to some, because the ministry implements

concrete projects.

Each returning family is required to provide documentation proving

residency, the size of the family affected and the size of the house

owned before the war. This evidence must be checked and accredited

by municipal cadastral offices, Hashani said.

Selvije Ismaili, from the Office of Returns for Klina municipality,

stated that her office monitors returns and “stay[s] in contact with

displaced people, who like to come back to their municipality, and

are very satisfied with the process”.

Following this story, Fatos Halili, a journalist from BIRN, broadcast a

report about the Ombudsperson in Kosovo. Halili first described the

creation of the Ombudsperson institution as something to listen to

citizens’ concerns and appeals, and publish reports on them.

However, these documents, sent to the highest legal institutions of

Kosovo, only end up in a drawer.

The Ombudsperson, Sami Kurteshi, told Halili that this issue will be

raised in the Assembly, and he will make sure that the Assembly will

have a session dedicated to the Ombudsperson, at least once a year.

However, Ibrahim Makolli from the Committee for Human Rights argued

that it is more than just a legal obligation for Kosovo’s institutions to

take the Ombudsperson’s reports seriously, as they cover citizens’ problems.

Driton Selmanaj, from Kosovo Democratic Institute, stated that the

Ombudsperson’s reports reach the Assembly when they are completed,

rather than at a time convenient for the recipients. As a result, the

Assembly is often unable to pay much attention to them, he concluded.

To close the show, Hajrullahu introduced a report by journalist

Arif Muharremi, who had compared the best pitalka from Prizren,

Pristina and Mitrovica, to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan

for Muslims.

Life in Kosovo is a co-production between Kosovo Public Television, RTK and the

Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN. It is broadcast every Thursday,

starting at 20:20.