KOSOVO: DPKO BRIEFING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF UNSCR

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000330 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/29/2017 TAGS: PGOV PREL UNSC UNMIK YI SUBJECT: KOSOVO: DPKO BRIEFING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF UNSCR 1244 Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Alejandro Wolff, Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary. In a briefing to the Security Council on the eve of its trip to Kosovo, U/SYG Guehenno delivered a briefing on implementation of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244. Guehenno cited progress across the board and stated that by any objective evaluation Kosovo was now a much better place than it had been in 1999. Russia's Ambassador Churkin responded with a strong prepared rebuttal. Churkin's comments revealed again how Russia intends to argue that Kosovo is not ready for independence and why the UN's mandate should continue. End summary. Guehenno: Kosovo Status Needed For Continued Progress -------------- -------------- ¶2. (SBU) In Security Council consultations on April 24, the eve of a Security Council trip to Kosovo, U/SYG Guehenno read a briefing note (faxed to Department) on implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Guehenno focused on paragraph 11 of UNSCR 1244. He said UNMIK's initial goal had been to provide humanitarian relief to refugees. UNMIK had then succeeded in creating basic administrative structures, including a judicial system, police force and a network of administration. Guehenno said that an accountable and largely responsible system of public administration had also been successfully created. Four elections have been held since 1999 and all had been determined to be free and fair. Kosovo's provisional institutions were well in place, but had been boycotted by Serbs who did not fully trust them, said Guehenno. Participation by Serbs was also discouraged by Belgrade and that had complicated UNSCR 1244's implementation. The security situation in Kosovo had greatly improved since 1999, with the murder rate having dropped dramatically. Guehenno said some economic progress had been made but certainty on status and its prospects for integration into European institutions would help promote further improvements. He stated that the situation for minorities had improved since 1999 and overall was satisfactory but was not fully normalized, especially in urban centers. Guehenno said be suggesting that we were "now in the next to last phase envisioned in paragraph 11 of 1244." He said that progress in Kosovo under UNMIK had by any objective standard been considerable and that Kosovo was 
a vastly different place than in June of 1999. Guehenno warned, however, that clarity of status was needed to prevent unraveling and sustaining and consolidating progress would require timely completion of the status process. Russia's Churkin: Strong Rebuttal From Moscow -------------- ¶3. (C) Reading (in Russian) from a prepared statement, Russia's Permrep Churkin began by thanking Guehenno but said he had not agreed with "his bravado tone at the end." Without saying Russia opposes independence, the main Russian themes were that Kosovo was not at the point where we should consider that an option. According to Churkin, key provisions of 1244 remained unimplemented in Kosovo and Kosovars needed to do much more to fulfill their obligations under 1244 related to safety and security for the Serb minority. Churkin alleged, inter alia, that demilitarization had not been carried out and "weapons caches were everywhere", borders weren't properly controlled, the rights of non-Albanians were not protected, returns had actually slowed down in recent years, and living conditions in enclaves were poor. Furthermore, he averred that the Provisional Institutions of Self Government (PISG) could not be allowed to decide the future of Kosovo. Making a point on the importance of returns, Churkin stated that "being of a Slavic background" himself, he understood how important it is to be able to live in one's homeland. Churkin added that he did not see why clarity of status had to mean independence. Other National Comments -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Ambassador Wolff strongly refuted Churkin's points and countered specifically that a good part of the blame for the plight of the Kosovo Serb community and the low number of returnees lies with Belgrade and the Kosovar Serbs themselves, who boycott the very institutions designed to help them. South African Ambassador Kumalo argued that it seemed UNMIK was supposed to have accomplished more than it did and asserted that Guehuenno had said Ahtisaari held two negotiations of the sides but there had only been one. Kumalo asked rhetorically whether there were any guarantee that freedom of movement and returns would improve after status. Later, Kumalo spoke again and said the argument that Kosovo needed independence to pave the way for investment did not hold water and UNMIK's goal had not been to pave the way "for Coca Cola to come," he asserted. France and the UK both spoke and said UNMIK had succeeded greatly but more could not be done without clarity of status. Comment -------------- ¶5. (C) Comment: On a more abstract level, Russia's arguments, as made by Churkin, centered around the assertion that Kosovo will not be successful if given independence, and might even become a serious danger in Europe. Churkin's prepared comments were riddled with allusions to Kosovar violence, criminal activity, and even more ominous suggestions. It will be important for UNMIK and the Kosovars to show that the 1244 process has run its course with good success, even if there are areas where more progress would have been desirable. Guehenno did not handle the question session as well as could have been hoped for, dropping a number of opportunities to say clearly that further progress is dependent on status clarity, not on an extended UNMIK presence. UNMIK will need to be clear on this in the future. WOLFF