GRACANICA, Kosovo: A possible land swap between Serbia and Kosovo, suggested by their leaders to end one of Europe’s most volatile territorial disputes, has sparked concerns that the border could be redrawn along ethnic lines and reignite festering communal ethnic animosities.
With few details yet made public, media reports say that the Serb majority northern border region around the city of Mitrovica would be incorporated into Serbia under the plan, which would also see Belgrade hand over a mainly ethnic Albanian region in Serbia.
The trade-off would also see Belgrade finally recognize its former province as an independent state, 20 years after a bitter war between Serbia’s forces and pro-independence ethnic Albanian guerrillas that led to Kosovo breaking away from Serbia in 2008.
Kosovo’s President Hashim Thaci, who along with Serbian counterpart Aleksandar Vucic last year raised the possibility of redrawing the border, has insisted a revised version would not be drawn along ethnic lines.
But the plan has sent ripples of alarm through minorities in these regions, notably among ethnic Serbs living in enclaves dispersed in Kosovo who would be unaffected by such a deal.
A territory swap would mean “clear ethnic division so that within decades there will be no Serbs left in Kosovo,” said Stefan Filipovic, a 24-year-old Kosovan Serb activist in Gracanica, one of those enclaves and a short drive south of the capital, Pristina.
There are an estimated 120,000 Serbs living in Kosovo in total. Of those some 40,000 are thought to live around Mitrovica — and are likely set to be part of the land swap — while a further 80,000 live deeper in Kosovo and would remain under Pristina.
Gracanica, home to one of Kosovo’s main Orthodox monasteries, is one of six mainly Serbian municipalities that are like islands surrounded by Kosovo Albanian neighborhoods.
For Rada Trajkovic, an ethnic Serb politician in her 60s living in Gracanica, the border change would amount to creating “two mono-ethnic spaces” and lead to Serbs leaving Kosovan enclaves.
Trajkovic is one of few Kosovar Serbs willing publicly to criticize Srpska Lista, or Serbian List, the minority’s main political outlet. Most of Trajkovic’s fellow Serb colleagues back the Belgrade line of President Vucic.
Hard-line nationalism
Long a taboo subject, a territorial exchange has the backing of the United States as well as several EU officials.
Germany, however, is opposed, warning of the potential for a renewed flare-up of the hard-line nationalism which has marked the still fragile Balkans in the past.
A NATO-led peacekeeping force has guarded Kosovo since it broke away from Serbia in a bloody war in 1998-99 that left more than 13,000 dead.
Border revision “is a very dangerous, particularly dramatic idea,” says Filipovic, who feels “abandoned by Belgrade.”
For Trajkovic, “if they cede the north of Kosovo to Serbia, I don’t see why the (Kosovar) Albanians would show empathy with those (Serbs) living” in the enclaves.
In the nearby village of Laplje Selo, a mainly Serb area home to around 1,000 people encroached upon by the glass and steel residences of Pristina, few people will speak openly of the border topic, still less openly criticize Vucic.
But in the local pub four Serbs sip “rakija” brandy as they debate whether Vucic is abandoning them to “an Albanian prison.”
With barely a hint of irony one explains that “if someone can save us it’s (Ramush) Haradinaj,” the former Kosovo Liberation Army fighter-turned prime minister who Belgrade and the Serbs consider a war criminal.
Haradinaj opposes border revision, warning that it will only lead to “new wars.”
Irrational attack
“I imagine president Vucic won’t leave us to fend for ourselves,” says Jagoda Trajkovic, a 69-year-old pensioner dropping off a grandson at Laplje Selo’s tiny school.
Others are not so confident.
They include Father Sava Jancic, abbot at Visoki Decani, a Serb Orthodox medieval monastery and a UNESCO world heritage site.
Recent years have passed in the vicinity in tranquil enough fashion, save for occasional demonstrations by Kosovar Albanians demanding the monks give up some of their land.
But in 2008, the year Kosovo declared independence, an Albanian fired a missile at the churchyard wall.
“I am personally in possession of very credible information... according to which they are already working on the details of an exchange of land along ethnic lines,” says Father Sava, who during the conflict protected Kosovar Albanians from Serbian forces.
In his view, border alterations “would amount to abandoning 80,000 Serbs, leaving them with a very low and dubious level of security and protection.”
One of the very few to oppose President Vucic in public, Father Sava was last year the target of a Belgrade tabloid press campaign that described him as a “great Albanian patriot” — or, essentially, a traitor.
Border plan sparks fear in Kosovo’s Serb enclaves
Border plan sparks fear in Kosovo’s Serb enclaves
- A possible land swap between Serbia and Kosovo has sparked concerns that the border could be redrawn along ethnic lines
- Critics warn that such a move could reignite festering communal ethnic animosities
Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal’s custody extended until April 1 in graft case
- Delhi CM Kejriwal was arrested in connection with corruption allegations related to city’s liquor policy
- Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party says case is fabricated, politically motivated against him by Indian government
NEW DELHI: An Indian court extended the custody of opposition leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal until April 1 on Thursday in a graft case related to the national capital territory’s liquor policy, local media said.
India’s financial crime-fighting agency arrested Kejriwal last week in connection with corruption allegations related to the city’s liquor policy and he was remanded to its custody until Thursday, weeks before India begins voting in general elections on April 19.
Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) says the case is fabricated and politically motivated. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and his Bharatiya Janata Party deny political interference and say law enforcement agencies are doing their job.
All the main leaders of AAP were already imprisoned in the case before Kejriwal was arrested.
Terming his arrest a “political conspiracy,” Kejriwal, 55, told reporters outside court on Thursday that “the public will respond to this.”
Speaking in court later, he said the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has arrested him, aims to crush AAP.
ED lawyers told the court that they needed Kejriwal in custody for another seven days as he was “deliberately not cooperating” and needed to be interrogated further.
Kejriwal’s arrest has sparked protests in the national capital and the nearby northern state of Punjab, which is also governed by AAP, over the last few days.
Dozens of AAP supporters were detained on Tuesday as they attempted to march to Modi’s residence to demand his release.
Some AAP workers protesting and distributing leaflets to commuters outside a busy metro station in central Delhi were also detained on Thursday.
“This is the time when we campaign (for elections), our leaders are being put in prison, arrested ... they (federal government) are stopping us from campaigning, (but) nobody can stop us from winning,” a protester told news agency ANI.
A joint rally of the ‘INDIA’ alliance, consisting of more than two dozen political parties including AAP, is planned in the capital on Sunday to protest against the arrest.
The issue has also drawn international attention with the US and Germany calling for a “fair” and “impartial” trial in the case, causing New Delhi to tell Washington and Berlin that India’s legal processes are based on an independent judiciary and that they should stay away from its internal affairs.
China says Philippine ‘provocations’ cause of South China Sea tensions
- ‘China will not allow the Philippines to do whatever it wants, and has responded in a reasonable and forceful manner’
- Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.: ‘We will not be cowed into silence, submission, or subservience
BEIJING/MANILA: China on Thursday blamed Philippine actions for recent rising tension between the two sides in the hotly contested South China Sea.
“The provocations by the Philippine side are the direct cause of the recent heating up of the South China Sea issue,” a statement from the defense ministry read, adding: “China will not allow the Philippines to do whatever it wants, and has responded in a reasonable and forceful manner.”
The Philippines will implement countermeasures proportionate and reasonable against “illegal, coercive, aggressive, and dangerous attacks” by China’s coast guard and maritime militia in the South China Sea, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said on Thursday.
“We seek no conflict with any nation, more so nations that purport and claim to be our friends but we will not be cowed into silence, submission, or subservience,” Marcos said on Facebook.
He did not specify what the countermeasures would include.
The Philippines has been furious in the past year over what it calls repeated aggression by China’s coast guard and allied fishing vessels around disputed features located inside Manila’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
The latest flare-up occurred last week, when China used water cannon to disrupt another Philippine resupply mission to the Second Thomas Shoal for soldiers posted to guard a warship intentionally grounded on a reef 25 years ago.
China, which claims almost the entire South China Sea as its own, has accused the Philippines of encroaching on its territory and says it took necessary measures against the vessels.
China warned the Philippines on Monday to behave cautiously and seek dialogue, saying their relations were at a “crossroads” as confrontations between their coast guards over maritime claims worsened tensions.
Marcos said he met his defense and security officials and has been in communication with “friends in the international community.”
“They have offered to help us on what the Philippines requires to protect and secure our sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction while ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” Marcos said.
The deterioration in relations with China come at a time when Marcos seeks to deepen defense ties with the United States. He has increased US access to Philippine military bases and joint exercises have been expanded to include sea and air patrols over the South China Sea, vexing Beijing.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Wednesday reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to a 1951 mutual defense treaty with the Philippines and criticized as “dangerous” China’s actions at the Second Thomas Shoal.
In a phone call on Wednesday with his Philippine counterpart Gilberto Teodoro, Austin “reaffirmed the ironclad US commitment to the Philippines” which it said was undertaking a lawful resupply mission.
The Philippine-US treaty binds both countries to defend each other if under attack and includes coast guard, civilian and military vessels in the South China Sea.
Russia strikes Ukraine’s Kharkiv with aerial bombs for the first time since 2022
The airstrikes caused widespread damage, hitting several residential buildings and damaging the city’s institute for emergency surgery.
Russia has escalated its attacks on Ukraine in recent days, launching several missile barrages on the capital Kyiv and hitting energy infrastructure across the country in apparent retaliation for recent Ukrainian aerial attacks on the Russian border region of Belgorod. Such sporadic attacks, however, have been common throughout the war.
The Kharkiv region cuts across the front line where Ukrainian and Russian forces have been locked in battles for over two years since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The region is frequently attacked with missiles and drones.
Sergey Bolvinov, head of the investigative police department in Kharkiv, said in a Telegram post that Wednesday’s attack marked the first time aerial bombs were used since 2022. Regional governor Oleh Syniehubov also reported the use of aerial bombs.
The recent escalation comes as exhausted Ukrainian troops struggle with a shortage of personnel and ammunition and face growing Russian pressure along the front line that stretches over 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).
On Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sacked one of his top security officials, replacing him with the head of Ukraine’s foreign spy agency in a new reshuffle.
Zelensky dismissed Oleksii Danilov, who served as secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, thanking him for his service in a video address late Tuesday. The president gave no reason and said, without providing details, that Danilov will be “reassigned to another area.”
Zelensky replaced him with Oleksandr Lytvynenko, who served as head of Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service.
The National Security Council is a policy coordination body that is chaired by Zelensky. Danilov had held his position since October 2019, a few months after Zelensky took office.
The dismissal follows Zelensky’s decision in February to fire Ukraine’s chief military officer, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and replace him with Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi. Tensions between Zaluzhnyi and the president grew after Ukraine’s much-touted 2023 summer counteroffensive failed to reach its goals. This month, Zaluzhnyi was named Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.
US-Israel rift heads for moment of truth over Rafah
- As Netanhayu refused to heed warnings against attacking Rafah, the US for the first time allowed a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution to pass
- But critics say Biden's not using his key point of leverage — cutting US military assistance to Israel — shows his action is more of a PR stunt
WASHINGTON: The United States has taken a public distance from Israel as never before over the Gaza war but the decisive test will be Rafah and whether Israel heeds US warnings against an offensive in the packed city.
The United States on Monday abstained at the Security Council, allowing a resolution to pass for the first time that called for an immediate ceasefire, infuriating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who delayed a delegation to Washington to discuss US concerns on Rafah.
But in a stance surely noted by Netanyahu, President Joe Biden has made clear he will not use his key point of leverage — cutting US military assistance to Israel.
Annelle Sheline, who recently resigned in protest from the State Department, where she had been on a fellowship working on human rights, said the Biden administration may be shifting but that its actions so far — including the resolution and plans for an emergency pier to bring in aid — amounted to “PR stunts.”
“I can only hope that things are starting to change. Unfortunately, I don’t yet see the US actually using its leverage as far as ending or withdrawing support for Israeli military operations, turning off the tap of weapons,” she told AFP.
Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute who was a top White House aide on the Middle East under former president George W. Bush, said Biden was responding at the United Nations not just to domestic politics but to calls from US allies to compromise and not keep vetoing resolutions.
A resolution “is a signal, but it doesn’t in any tangible way impact Israel’s ability to prosecute the conflict,” Singh said, while arms restrictions would “come at a much higher cost” strategically and politically.
Israel has been waging a relentless military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas’s surprise attack on October 7 that was the deadliest in Israel in its history.
The United States has repeatedly warned Israel not to attack Rafah, the southern city where more than 1.4 million Palestinians have taken shelter, but Netanyahu last week vowed to press ahead after a direct appeal from visiting Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
US officials say they will present alternatives to the Israeli delegation on Rafah that will focus on striking Hamas targets while limiting civilian casualties.
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that US officials’ presentation of alternatives “indicates to me that they believe some sort of military operations will occur and they’re trying to limit the damage of that operation.”
Singh said the holding pattern on Rafah hurt the United States and Israel as international pressure builds.
“I would say that probably there’s a desire in Washington for them to get on with whatever they’re going to do one way or the other — absolutely protect civilians from harm, but this kind of perpetual indecision, I think, is itself harmful,” Singh said.
James Ryan, executive director of the Middle East Research and Information Project, said: “You do own it a bit more if you give them plans and they don’t go well.”
US criticism has been mounting against Netanyahu with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a staunch backer of Israel and the highest-level elected American Jew, in a bombshell speech criticizing the conduct of the war and urging new elections.
A Gallup poll released Wednesday said only 36 percent of Americans approved of Israel’s actions, down from 50 percent in November.
Biden is a lifelong supporter of Israel who, facing a tough reelection fight in November, is feeling the wrath of the left in his Democratic Party on Gaza, where the United Nations is predicting famine.
Netanyahu, also battling for his political life at the helm of a far-right coalition, is a veteran fighter in Washington who has aligned himself with much of the Republican Party and clashed with three Democratic presidents.
“Both Biden and Netanyahu benefit from having some degree of friction between them,” Wertheim said.
“Possibly the one thing that could save Netanyahu's government once a new election occurs is for Netanyahu to be able to say to the public, I’m the one figure who was able to stand up to the Americans and also preserve America’s support for us,” he said.
Biden, in turn, is eager to show he is pushing back against Israeli “brutality” without imposing costs by restricting weapons.
“What we’re seeing is a lot of theater that serves the political interests of the leaders,” Wertheim said.
Indonesia’s top court hears appeals from losing presidential candidates who want a revote
- Dozens of protesters held a peaceful but noisy rally near the court building, declaring that they would oversee the trial
JAKARTA, Indonesia: Indonesia’s top court heard appeals lodged by two losing presidential candidates who are demanding a revote, alleging widespread irregularities and fraud at the polls in appearances before the judges Wednesday.
Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto won the election with an overwhelming margin: 58.6 percent, or more than 96 million votes, according to the General Election Commission — more than twice the runner-up’s share in the three-way race.
But the losing candidates — Former Jakarta Gov. Anies Baswedan and former Central Java Gov. Ganjar Pranowo — argue that the election was marred by irregularities throughout the campaign. They’re asking the Constitutional Court to annul the election results and order a revote, in separate lawsuits.
Both candidates presented parts of their cases in person, focusing on allegations that the court itself, as well as outgoing President Joko Widodo, bent laws and norms to support Subianto.
“We witness with deep concern a series of irregularities that have tarnished the integrity of our democracy,” Baswedan told the court.
Dozens of protesters held a peaceful but noisy rally near the court building, declaring that they would oversee the trial. Authorities blocked streets leading to the court where about 400 police were deployed in and around the building.
Indonesian presidents are expected to stay neutral in races to succeed them, but Subianto, a longtime former rival of Widodo who twice lost elections to him before joining his government, ran as his successor. He even chose Widodo’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, as running mate, even though Raka did not meet a constitutional requirement that candidates be at least 40 years old.
Baswedan and Pranowo argue that Raka should have been disqualified, and are asking the court to bar him from a revote. Before the election, the Constitutional Court made a controversial exception to the minimum age that allowed him to run, under the leadership of then-chief justice Anwar Usman, who is Widodo’s brother in law. Usman was later forced to resign as chief justice for failing to recuse himself.
“The Constitutional Court was designed to guard the constitution and stem arbitrariness, not to legitimize fraud and crime,” said Todung Mulya Lubis, a prominent lawyer who led Pranowo’s legal team, “This election is an opportunity for the Constitutional Court to reclaim its authority and dignity.”
Baswedan also said that regional officials were pressured or given rewards to influence political choices, and that state social assistance was used as “a transactional tool to help one of the candidates.”
Hefty social aid from the government was disbursed in the middle of the campaign — far more than the amounts spent during the COVID-19 pandemic — and Widodo distributed funds in person in a number of provinces.
“If we do not make corrections, the practices that occurred recently will be considered normal and become habits, then become culture, and ultimately become national character,” Baswedan said before the eight-judge panel.
Subianto himself twice went to the top court to challenge the results of elections he lost to Widodo, but the court rejected his claims as groundless both times. Subianto refused to accept the results of the 2019 presidential election, leading to violence that left seven dead in Jakarta.
Baswedan had the first turn before the court in the morning, while Pranowo spoke in the afternoon.
“What shocked us all, what really destroyed morale, was the abuse of power,” Pranowo told the court, “When the government uses all state resources to support certain candidates, when the security forces are used to defend personal political interests, then it is time for us to take a firm stand to reject all forms of intimidation and oppression.”
Chief Justice Suhartoyo, who like many Indonesians uses a single name, adjourned the hearing until Thursday, when Subianto and the General Election Commission will respond. The verdict, expected on April 22, cannot be appealed.
The case will be decided by eight justices instead of the full nine-member court because Usman, who is still on the court as an associate justice, is required to recuse himself.