"FRIENDS OF KOSOVO" MEET IN BRUSSELS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000254 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/18/2018 TAGS: PREL MARR MOPS NATO UN EU OSCE SUBJECT: "FRIENDS OF KOSOVO" MEET IN BRUSSELS REF: A. STATE 76654 ¶B. USNATO 0253 Classified By: CDA RICHARD G. OLSON, JR. FOR REASONS 1.4(B) AND (D). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. Belgium hosted on July 18 a meeting of the "Friends Of Kosovo" bringing together key stakeholders, including NATO, EU, OSCE, UN and contributing nations. The meeting had no formal agenda but was designed to initiate a process of cooperation among the players. Speakers urged greater cooperation among key organizations --with many urging "practical and flexible" solutions to institutional obstacles, and they generally praised UNSG Ban's UNMIK reconfiguration plan and welcomed greater dialogue with Serbia. The meeting did not yield concrete results, and even an apparent breakthrough on EULEX privileges and immunities proved to be illusory, but it was a useful event if it was the first step towards greater policy coherence among the organizations and nations involved in Kosovo. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) The Belgian MFA hosted on July 18 a meeting of the "Friends Of Kosovo" bringing together key stakeholders, including NATO, EU, OSCE, UN and contributing nations. The format was a tour de table led off by EU HiRep for CFSP Javier Solana, who praised UNSG Ban's reconfiguration plan and commented that the EULEX mission in Kosovo would operate under UNSCR 1244 authority and would be "fully operational in the autumn" after a summer deployment push. Solana pledged that there would be "no gaps" in security during the transition, and he noted EULEX's four key tasks: borders, civil disturbances, police, and information exchange. ¶3. (C) NATO SYG Jaap de Hoop Scheffer assured the group that NATO would continue its security mission under UNSCR 1244, and he flagged deployment of international police across all of Kosovo (i.e. including north of the Ibar) as important to accomplish. He urged the group to share details, dates, and modalities of their operations in order to ensure smooth cooperation, and he noted the need for a strategy for UN/EU cooperation through the autumn when EULEX becomes fully operational. De Hoop Scheffer said that KFOR will maintain its good relations with the Serb military. ¶4. (C) OSCE SYG Marc Perrin de Brichambaut said the OSCE also operates under 1244 authority, and he outlined its areas of work, including in democratization, rule of law and human rights, noting that its 800 staffers do significant reporting from the local level. He said that because OSCE was status neutral, any arrangements with ICO would have to be informal in nature. ¶5. (C) UNSRSG for Kosovo Lamberto Zannier pointed out that Ban Ki-Moon had not received new guidance from the Security Council, so he announced reconfiguration plans to create space for the EULEX role. The June 14 Security Council meeting, Zannier said, did not provide new guidance though most participants supported Ban. Zannier noted the need to engage with Belgrade, and he reviewed the UN's four key requests: UN/EU MOU (under discussion); resolution of personnel issues (UN is awaiting EU personnel lists); resolution on medical support (under discussion),and agreement on privileges and immunities. On the latter, Zannier indicated he would issue an executive decision by which the UN would extend privileges and immunities to EULEX personnel in Kosovo, but EU officials told us privately the terms of the proposal are not acceptable to them; discussions continue. ¶6. (C) Zannier's comment that he would be "experimenting" with the UN umbrella for EULEX raised some eyebrows, and he clarified that he would be exploring creative ways to make the transition smoother, including by phasing it in. For example, Pristina insists that the Mitrovica courts be placed formally within Kosovo's judicial system, something Kosovo Serbs oppose. Zannier is considering putting international judges in Mitrovica under UNMIK authority and later transitioning them to EULEX hats. This would make everyone unhappy, he mused, but would prevent Kosovo Serb "parallel structures" from taking root. USNATO 00000254 002 OF 002 ¶7. (C) National interventions welcomed the spirit of the meeting, urged greater cooperation and transparency, and generally supported UNSG Ban's reconfiguration plan. Many urged greater dialogue with Belgrade, and several pressed for greater "pragmatism and flexibility" in overcoming institutional obstacles. USNATO Charge Olson drew from Washington guidance to note USG interest in pragmatic solutions, flexibility on formats, and interest in increased cooperation. He noted that the situation in Kosovo requires creative solutions (including US participation in EULEX),but that these will not be viewed as precedents for future cases, particularly as regards the US preference for working through NATO. ¶8. (C) France (supported by Netherlands, Switzerland and others) responded to comments by Solana and Zannier about a 120-day transition timetable by urging EULEX to accelerate its deployment, and Zannier responded that the timetable was based on "what the traffic would bear." France also supported greater dialogue with Belgrade (as did Italy, Norway, and others),and Zannier said he hopes to have his oft-postponed meetings with Bogdanovic and Jeremic in the coming days. ¶9. (C) The UK noted that US and Turkish participation in EULEX, and Finnish and Swedish participation in KFOR, demonstrate that cooperation is moving beyond bureaucratic limitations. The German representative pronounced himself "content with developments since February 17, despite a few incidents." Sweden (supported by Ireland, Slovenia, Hungary, and others) noted the importance for EULEX to deploy in the north and provide assistance to Kosovo Serb communities to avoid de facto partition. ¶10. (C) Norway referred to the recent French proposal to set up a high-level EU/NATO commission to improve cooperation between those institutions (ref B),saying it would be useful to strengthen HQ-level cooperation on Kosovo. The Netherlands agreed, noting that today's meeting was "not about Kosovo but about us," and emphasizing the need to provide greater policy clarity to the people on the ground. ¶11. (C) On institutional irritants between NATO and the EU, Lithuania noted that relations between the organizations have "many layers" that must be addressed, but urged "pragmatism on the ground." Greece agreed, noting that "success in Kosovo should be the focus" rather than other issues. The Turkish representative said he had much to report to Ankara and, noting the many vague calls to improve cooperation between NATO and the EU, commented "we hope they have something more up their sleeves." ¶12. (C) The European Commission representative noted that the July 11 Donors Conference had pledged 1.24 billion euros to Kosovo, of which two-thirds was EU money. He thanked the US, Norway, Turkey and Switzerland for their contributions. The conference pledges, he said, will cover the funding gap in Kosovo social development projects through 2011 and will also cover 100 million euro in stabilization activities. OLSON