The Balkan in 2020: region of crisis or peace

We all here are devoted to peace, stability and progress for all countries in the Balkan. In trying to project the future, however, we should consider, as objectively as possible, inheritance of the past, to assess realistically existing problems, to identify trends and key political players. 
My starting remark and primary cause of concern for the future of the Balkan stems from the fact that the present set up of relations and solutions, current trends are not based on the compromise of genuine, legitimate interest of the countries and societies of the region but predominantly on the pressures, will and interest of out-of -Balkan centers of political, economic and military might. 
Inheritance of the past, especially of the civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of separatism and terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija and of NATO aggression on Serbia (FRY) 1999 remain causes of great concern and, naturally, do occupy our attention and energy. 
Economic, cultural, informative, social and other links among the former Yugoslav republic cut during the crisis function on a rather modest level today. In any case, far below potentials and needs of the region. Cooperation and free flow of goods, people, ideas, culture, capital should definitely be encouraged, obstacles removed, reciprocity of interest duly respected. Unilateral concessions, especially expected from Serbia, are not justified.
New international borders while not general problem, in a number of instances are still to be defined, including parts of Serbia-Croatian border on Danube. International standards should be respected in accepting border line.
With the distraction of Yugoslavia, in addition to old ones, new national minorities have been created. Standards of their human, political and national rights in a number of instances are disregarded. Serbs in Slovenia, Croatia and Montenegro continue to be discriminated. Appropriate reactions and guidelines from OSCE, CE or EU institutions would be quite appropriate and necessary.
Serbia is still hosting over 200.000 displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija, mainly Serbs, and close to 300.000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This accounts to about 7-8 percent of the total population of Serbia provoking not only socio-economic but political problems, too. Members of neither of the two groups are permitted to exercise their basic right to free and safe return to places of their origin. Serbs in Croatia although promised territorial autonomy, are deprived of same basic individual right such as right to private ownership of their houses and apartments. There is need for greater involvement of appropriate international institutions, including donors in securing conditions for free, safe and return in dignity.
It has been noted today that tension prevails in Northern Kosovo and Kosovska Mitrovica. While this is true, it should not be ommited that there is tension also all over the Province provoked by continuous daily attacks on Serbs, telephone and electricity services cuts and various other forms of intimidation. 
Furthermore, it should be noted that there is resentment all over Serbia because of illegal unilateral proclamation of separation of Kosovo and Metohija and particularly because of the recognition of that illegal act by major western countries (USA, Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada).
Serbia does not and cannot recognize illegal secession of the part of its sovereign territory and considers the status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija a serious open issue yet to be resolved respecting basic principles of the international law, UN decisions and Constitution of Serbia as a sovereign state. Such a position is supported by major part of International community, including some members of EU (Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovak Republic and Cyprus). New negotiations on the status seem to be unavoidable. Any calculation on softening the official Serbia Government position could turn to be counterproductive. Perhaps not so much because of the Government’s firmness, but first of all because compromise is better investment in Serbia’s internal stability, thus in the lasting peace and stability of the Balkan, than any imposed solution.  
Constitutional set up of Bosnia and Herzegovina is part and parcel of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. Attempts to change this system unilaterally, or by blackmailing the leadership of Republica Srpska, are jeopardizing stability and development. 
Applying outside pressures to impose centralization of power in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in one hand, and to oblige more countries of the world to recognize illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija, in the other, is another example of double standards policy. 
I am convinced that there is no substitute to either Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement nor to UN SC resolution 1244. These should be considered as chief prerequisites of the Balkan as a zone of peace and prosperity 2020, and beyond. 
Flattering Serbia as a regional leader and “Serbian Government the most democratic and the most proeuropean”, on one side, and at the same time imposing endless concessions on account of the legitimate national interest of Serbia (Kosovo and Metohija, Republica Srpska) could hardly be a way to lasting peace and stability.      
Peace and stability in Europe are indivisible. Developments in Europe and developments in the Balkan have been and remain inter-conected.
It has been noted that the future of the Balkan lies in the hands of the Balkan countries. But one of the basic problems in the region remains to be excessive involvement of out-of-the-region centers. Considering that Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Province of Kosovo and Metohija continue to be international (UN) protectorates, that the governments in the most of the countries in the region owe their loyalty to the West which helped them various means to come to power, it is rather questionable what the regional factors can do themselves, what are real margins for them to find compromises of the genuine regional interests.
Putting an end to the protectorate status of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be important step in good direction. After 15 years of peace and international governance, local institutions and politicians must be capable of working, compromising and running the country themselves.   
EU appears to be key partner of the Balkan states. How long will last the current financial, economic and institutional crisis in EU? What conclusions Brussels may  draw from up to now enlargements of the EU membership? Answering these questions is a precondition to asses realistically prospects for EU membership of a number of Balkan countries.
Some current trends in the Balkan, especially in its western part, should be noted as relevant to the subject.
Democratization and transition has left, among others, profound social divisions and tensions, extremely high rate of unemployment, corruption, and organized crime. These tendencies are not assets for peace and stability. To alleviate the roots of these tendencies require political will, relevant strategies, recourses, including financial, and – time.  
Rise of separatism and territorial fragmentation, especially affecting Serbia and Serbian nation, in one hand, and centralization, unitarization of certain other countries, notably Bosnia and Herzegovina, are examples of double standards policy. Putting aside such a policy would definitely enhance prospects of peace and stability.
Proliferation of puppet sates with unsustainable economies, national minorities with uneven level of their rights, political parties based on ethnic and religious criteria and refugees and displaced persons with the lack of political will to provide conditions for free and safe return to their homes;
Expansion of Islamism not as a religion or culture, but as overall social and governmental system. Some Islamite leaders do consider Balkan as a spring board for further expansion. (Vehabist groups, Islamic extremist organizations have been uncovered recently in a number of Balkan countries);
It should be noted that in the period of the last twenty years the Balkan has been experimental ground for new doctrines and precedents in international relations:
- NATO aggression of Yugoslavia in 1999, contrary to basic principles of International Law, without approval of UN SC;
- Unilateral proclamation of Independence of Kosovo and Methija in 2008, while the Provence was under UN mandate, without UN permission or approval, and contrary to the Constitution and will of Serbia; 
These precedents have left negative consequences not only in the Balkan but in Europe and worldwide.
In my opinion, Serbia with its geostrategic position and resources is capacitated and willing to play its role in achieving sustainable stability, peace and development in the Balkans. But Serbia is faced with serious problems. First of all, stagnation of the socio-economic development, about one million of unemployed, 700.000 people billow the bottom line of poverty, disregard of her legitimate national interest. 
Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is not jeopardized by illegal unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija, only, but such tendencies are noticeable in some other parts (Vojvodina, Raska, Southern districts). 
Recently The Group of Friends of Sandzak (Raska) was established in Belgrade composed of the ambassadors of USA, Germany, Britain and Italy! What would be real political objective of such a move? These ambassadors surely have been welcomed to Belgrade as friends of Serbia and they are expected to behave as such. Preferring, or undermining any part of Serbia is not undiplomatic only, but disregarding friendship and hospitality.
Of course, I am aware that aforesaid is more a list of open problems as I see them, than a list of prescriptions how to resolve them. But any serious job starts from inventory. Thank you.

Zivadin Jovanovic
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals