Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Kosovo and Serbia- A never ending saga of conflict

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Kosovo and Serbia- A never ending saga of conflict

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 4, 2020

URL

US President George Bush with Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu and Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in White House

US President George Bush with Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu and Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in White House | Source: Wikimedia

Kosovo is a small landlocked country in the Western Balkans with a majority of ethnic Albanians and Muslims. The country formerly was a part of Serbia but declared independence in 2008. While Kosovo’s independence has been recognized by nearly a hundred nations including the US, countries like Russia and China along with a few European Union nations have sided with Serbia against Kosovo.

Kosovo and Serbia have been at crossroads for a long time. Kosovo used to be a Serbian province under the communist-run Yugoslavia. However, the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the move by Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević to bring Kosovo directly under Belgrade’s administration fuelled war between the two regions.

The situation worsened with the violence in the Bosnian War ensuing from 1992-95 which was termed as “ethnic cleansing” of Muslims. By 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary group had been formed in response to the campaign of Milošević. The situation remained tense with Serbian Police killing nearly 50 people of a KLA member’s family in 1998.

Violence continued to escalate from both sides as international calls for putting an end to the violence grew. "We are not going to stand by and watch the Serbian authorities do in Kosovo what they can no longer get away with doing in Bosnia," US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reportedly said. The UN banned the sale of arms and ammunition to Serbia as NATO began to plan an intervention in 1998.

However, the situation escalated to a worse in the "Račak Massacre" of 1999, wherein Serbian special police killed 45 ethnic Albanians. The NATO then initiated a 77-day air campaign which ended with the withdrawal of the Serbian army and the paramilitary force of Kosovo. Kosovo became a self-governed territory post the NATO campaign under the United Nations.

Despite several efforts from the European Union and the UN, the two countries have failed to arrive at a common ground till date. Kosovo declared independence in 2008 but Serbia does not acknowledge it despite having no formal control in the region.

In 2016, the countries yet again saw each other at crossroads when Kosovo sought to attain 80% shares of the Trepca mining and metallurgical complex in the northern region which is dominated by Serbs. The dispute became so pressing that it became one of the agendas for the UN Security Council.

In early 2017, Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, issued an international arrest warrant for former Kosover guerrillas including Ramush Haradinaj who served as a commander in the 1998-99 war against Serbian rule. He also briefly served as Prime Minister of Kosovo in 2004 and 2005.

As Kosovo asked the EU to press Serbia for dropping the charges, government and opposition leaders called for an end to the EU-mediated talks between Serbia and Kosovo. Serbia’s move to give the nod for Haradinaj’s extradition from France where he was being detained was met by Kosovo’s move to cancel Serbian President’s visit to a mainly ethnic Serb town in Kosovo on the eve of Christmas Day.

The gunning down of Oliver Ivanović, an ethnic-Serb politician in northern Kosovo in 2018 was yet another setback for the worsening ties between the two countries. Then Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic termed it an “act of terrorism”.

Late in 2018, Serbia blocked Kosovo’s bid to join Interpol, a move that saw Kosovo raise customs duties on Serbian imports by 100%.

In May 2019, Kosovo carried out a large anti-corruption and anti-smuggling drill wherein it detained nearly 23 people including two UN personnel and fired tear gas as well as live ammunition as per a few reports. The entire drill was concentrated in a Serb-dominated region in the North.

Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic reacted by saying that he wants to "preserve peace and stability", but that Serbia "will be fully ready to protect its people at the shortest notice". The European Union, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and KFOR (the NATO-led international military presence) all called for the two countries to maintain peace. However, the situation remains critical.

With Serbia being under pressure from international peacekeepers, it’s highly unlikely that it will intervene through its military forces. However, its influence in the Northern region of Kosovo means that both the countries will have to work towards maintaining amicable ties with each other as Kosovo hopes to become a UN member and a fully functional state.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More