To address the immediate challenges, it was critical to speed efforts in the areas of security, reconstruction and decentralisation so that Serbs and other minorities would have the confidence to return home. Insufficient progress would make it extremely difficult to repair the political damage caused by the March violence, for the international community to regain the credibility it had lost, for Albanian leaders to repair their image and for their Serb counterparts to return to the political process. Four months on, some progress has been made and the UN Secretary-General's new Special Representative (SRSG), Søren Jessen-Petersen, has launched a series of new initiatives. However, the pace of progress remains slow. (For more on Jessen-Petersen's plans for Kosovo, see an interview with him.)
In the interim, the international community has, on the one hand, increasingly to be seen to be transferring competencies and authority to Kosovo's own institutions - a key Albanian demand - and, on the other, it has to develop a more realistic and dynamic standards policy. An ambitious policy of transfer should, however, be accompanied by two further elements. First, the new SRSG should instigate a robust policy of sanctioning obstructionist behaviour, akin to that adopted by successive High Representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Second, he must develop and implement a more systematic approach to building local capacities. To date, with the exception of the Kosovo Police Service, capacity-building efforts have been sporadic and have failed to have much impact.
The "standards-before-status" approach that the international community adopted early in the peace process had come to lack credibility and needed to be replaced by a priority-based standards policy. Implementation of standards should in future be seen as part of a wider policy guiding efforts to bring Kosovo closer to European norms, even after the conclusion of future-status negotiations. Implementation of a highly ambitious and very detailed set of standards as a pre-requisite for status talks was rightly seen as unrealistic and unachievable. By treating the issue as part of the broader and longer-term agenda, it would be possible to focus efforts on a set of more immediate priorities, designed to assure minorities that they have a future in Kosovo. These priorities must be achievable and the results visible, leading to concrete progress on the ground and a better climate between the majority and minority populations. A priority-based standards policy would also help mobilise pressure on both Albanians and Serbs and send a more convincing message indicating what is expected of them. A series of standards reviews under the auspices of the SRSG and with Contact Group participation should take place before the scheduled mid-2005 review.
The timing of future-status discussions will never be ideal. However, given the reality that the international presence is likely to decline in the coming years and the fact that the economy is continuing to deteriorate - thereby adding to the level of frustration and dissatisfaction - raising the final-status question sooner rather than later seems to be the better option and is probably inevitable. The United Nations, together with key member states, should, therefore, initiate its own thinking as to how to take this process forward.
At the same time, the international community should intensify its dialogue with Belgrade. The Belgrade authorities feel that they have not been sufficiently included to date. That impression needs to be corrected as soon as possible, since Belgrade's support and participation will be a key to success at each and every stage of the process.
In the wake of the riots, UNMIK needed to be re-energised to bring its various components more closely together and help it focus on key priorities in a more organised way. However, a complete overhaul at that stage would have been counter-productive, probably leading to more internal discussion and confusion at a time when a concentrated effort on urgent priority issues of substance was required. A major restructuring of the international presence should, nevertheless, take place next year. With the future-status question looming, UNMIK should be looking to reduce its presence and to hand increasing responsibilities to the European Union.
The challenges that the international community faces in Kosovo, many of which have to be dealt with in parallel, will require an integrated, comprehensive strategic approach. This will have to be based on commitments from all major international organisations and countries involved. UNMIK will not be able to mobilise the strength and credibility required for carrying out its responsibilities without strong support from the international community at large.
A more concerted effort is, therefore, urgently required to ensure that the international community regains the initiative and maintains it throughout 2005. Such a coordinated strategy will have to include comprehensive and cohesive engagement from the European Union, politically as well as economically, including the formulation of a set of economic and political carrots and sticks. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe should play prominent roles in a more robust capacity-building effort. And NATO should ensure that it maintains a sufficiently robust presence to deal effectively with potential unrest in the run-up to, during and after future-status talks.
UNMIK will only be able to oversee this process in an efficient manner if it can count on constant and strong support from the Security Council and the Contact Group. The international community cannot afford to perform in a fragmented, uncoordinated and often competitive way. The stakes are too high and the challenges too demanding. We do not have much time, if we are to succeed in shaping and implementing such a comprehensive policy.