Message from the UN Security Council: “No political tensions, genuine dialogue, temperature reduction…!”
Summarizing the last session of the UN Security Council, there are some important moments to highlight:
The US representative asked both sides to return to dialogue, which ensures a sustainable path towards normalization, instead of theater. So, this time, recognition between the parties (Kosovo-Serbia) is not emphasized, as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 of the US Congress emphasizes.
A permanent US request for years is the cessation of UNMIK’s existence, since Kosovo is no longer in 1999. UNMIK, according to her, has no meaningful role and has no role in advancing normalization and security, which was repeated by the representative of Great Britain, but which was not heard by the representative of France, and was even encouraged by Russia and China to continue functioning.
France, as a recognizing state, unlike the US and Britain, attached importance to the presence of UNMIK until the final resolution of the negotiation process.
It is interesting to note that the ICJ verdict on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence is being brought to the Security Council table as an important UN agency.
Interesting nuances are observed in the presentations of Latvia and Greece. While the representative of Latvia, like many other speakers who called for measures to be taken against paramilitary intervention from the territory of Serbia and the management of the implementation of the Law on Foreigners, took the opportunity to mention allowing freedom of expression and freedom of the media.
Greece, as one of the five countries that does not recognize Kosovo, on several occasions in the context of encouraging negotiations mentions the bilateral and trilateral level, which in the context of the platform on which the state representations were declaring, takes on the connotation of negotiation between equal parties, or between states.
This is in contrast to Serbia’s foreign minister, Djuric, who stayed on Serbia’s well-known trajectory by issuing reports aimed at smearing Kosovo’s institutions and authorities with half-baked arguments or deliberate projections.
Minister Konjufca’s presentation can be summarized in a few essential points: criticism of the “insufficient” reporting of the new UNMIK chief, especially when it comes to the Banjska case (2023); administrative purge in the three municipalities of the Presevo Valley; the last four recognitions by Sudan, Kenya, the Bahamas and Syria, using this international platform to seek new recognitions from UN, EU and NATO member states.
An important topic highlighted for this session of the Security Council is the argumentation on the legal connection of the Special Chambers of the Court with the Assembly of Kosovo, as well as the presence of EULEX with the exchange of letters between Kosovo and the EU. I think this presentation was necessary for the audience around the Security Council table.
The exit request for UNMIK, which should be accompanied by the permanent request for a new resolution, which would replace Resolution 1244, is a coordination already agreed for many years in a row, even by the previous governments of Kosovo.
What I think is missing from Kosovo’s presentation in the sessions is a complete reporting from the state prism, an institutional summary of the undertakings against the shortcomings or omissions when it comes to the rights of non-majority communities. In order not to leave room for incoherent interpretations, by external factors.
I believe that Kosovo should seriously begin compiling periodic reports that address the topics of human rights and the rights of ethnic and other communities, the functioning of democratic institutions, the judiciary, freedom of expression and freedom of the media, and law and order.
Such reports should be subject to submission to members of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly in New York and Geneva, the OSCE, and other multilateral, international, and interstate platforms.
