VZCZCXRO1718
RR RUEHAST
DE RUEHVI #2731/01 2561231
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 131231Z SEP 06
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4926
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 VIENNA 002731 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR EUR/SCE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM UNMIK SR YI AU
 
SUBJECT: KOSOVO STATUS NEGOTIATIONS: SEPTEMBER 8-9 TALKS MAKE LITTLE 
PROGRESS 
 
VIENNA 00002731  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
THIS CABLE IS SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED.  PLEASE HANDLE 
ACCORDINGLY. 
 
¶1. (U) THIS CABLE IS AN UPDATE FROM THE U.S. LIAISON OFFICER IN THE 
OFFICE OF THE UN SPECIAL ENVOY FOR KOSOVO STATUS (UNOSEK). 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) DESPITE A MORE POSITIVE SPIN IN THE MEDIA, TECHNICAL TALKS 
ON KOSOVO HELD IN VIENNA SEPTEMBER 8 AND 9 MADE LITTLE PROGRESS. 
THE MEETINGS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NOW VIRTUALLY NO MOVEMENT BY 
EITHER SIDE ON THE ISSUES OF DECENTRALIZATION, PROTECTION OF 
CULTURAL HERITAGE AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS.  THE MEETINGS WERE CHAIRED 
BY DEPUTY SPECIAL ENVOY ALBERT ROHAN WITH THE BELGRADE DELEGATION 
LED BY SLOBODAN SAMARDZIC AND ALEXANDAR SIMIC AND PRISTINA LED BY 
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER LUFTI AZIRI AND UNITY TEAM MEMBER VETTON 
SURROI. 
 
MEETINGS WITH SPECIAL ENVOY AHTISAARI 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) PRIOR TO THE TWO DAYS OF NEGOTIATIONS, EACH SIDE HELD A 
BRIEF PRE-MEETING WITH SPECIAL ENVOY MARTTI AHTISAARI.  THE BELGRADE 
DELEGATION STRESSED TO THE SPECIAL ENVOY THE NEED TO SLOW DOWN THE 
NEGOTIATING PROCESS IN ORDER TO FIND MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 
TWO PARTIES.  AHTISAARI TOLD THE BELGRADE DELEGATION THAT UNOSEK IS 
FOLLOWING THE TIMEFRAME AS OUTLINED BY THE CONTACT GROUP (CG), AND 
IT IS THE MEMBERS OF THE CG THAT BELGRADE SHOULD TALK TO IF THEY 
WISH TO CHANGE THE TIME FRAME.  IN ITS MEETING WITH SE AHTISAARI, 
THE PRISTINA DELEGATION EMPHASIZED THAT THE UNITY TEAM WAS UNDER 
INTENSE POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM THE ASSEMBLY AND POLITICAL PARTIES 
AND THAT THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO COMPROMISE MORE WITHOUT SINCERE 
POLITICAL COSTS BACK IN PRISTINA. 
 
DECENTRALIZATION 
---------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) TALKS ON DECENTRALIZATION CENTERED SPECIFICALLY ON THE 
MUNICIPAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW SERB-MAJORITY MUNICIPALITIES. 
NEITHER SIDE MOVED OFF ITS POSITIONS REGARDING ASYMMETRIC 
DECENTRALIZATION, WHICH WOULD GRANT ADDITIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR 
SERB-MAJORITY MUNICIPALITIES COMPARED TO ALBANIAN-MAJORITY 
MUNICIPALITIES.  BELGRADE CONTINUES TO INSIST ON ADDITIONAL 
COMPETENCIES FOR ALL SERB MUNICIPALITIES, PARTICULARLY IN THE REALM 
OF HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION.  PRISTINA CONTINUES TO WANT TO 
ENUMERATE WHICH MUNICIPALITIES CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL COMPETENCIES, AND 
ONLY IN SPECIAL CASES.  OUTSTANDING ISSUES INVOLVE THE UNIVERSITY OF 
MITROVICA, TEXTBOOK/CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, AND THE NUMBER OF 
HOSPITALS WITHIN SERB-MAJORITY MUNICIPALITIES.  WITH REGARDS TO 
CROSS-BOUNDARY COOPERATION, PRISTINA OBJECTED TO THE DIRECT LINKS OF 
MUNICIPALITIES COOPERATING WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN SERBIA. 
(NOTE: THIS IS A STEP BACKWARDS FOR PRISTINA, WHOM UNOSEK PREVIOUSLY 
BELIEVED HAD AGREED TO THIS CONCEPT. END NOTE.)  MINOR PROGRESS WAS 
ACHIEVED WITH BELGRADE AGREEING THAT FUNDING FOR PARTNERSHIPS COULD 
BE CHANNELED THROUGH MUNICIPAL BUDGETS.  PRISTINA AGREED THAT, FOR 
PRACTICAL MATTERS, THERE COULD BE DIRECT RELATIONS BETWEEN 
PARTNERSHIPS AND INSTITUTIONS OUTSIDE OF KOSOVO. 
 
CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS HERITAGE 
------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) DISCUSSIONS FOCUSED ON THE DELINEATION OF THE PROTECTIVE 
ZONES; THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF A MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION 
COMMITTEE REGARDING THE CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS SITES; AND THE RETURN 
OF ARTIFACTS. UNOSEK PROPOSED SOME REVISIONS TO FOUR PROTECTIVE 
ZONES DISCUSSED EARLIER AND THE ADDITION OF PROTECTIVE ZONES FOR 
NOVO BRDO, SOCANICA, ZVECAN FORTRESS AND GAZIMESTAN.  PRISTINA 
PROPOSED MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO MOST PROPOSALS, BUT AIRED MAJOR 
OBJECTIONS TO THE SUGGESTION TO HAVE A LARGE PROTECTIVE ZONE AROUND 
GAZIMESTAN. BELGRADE PRESENTED A MORE PRECISE PLAN (DEFINED TO THE 
LEVEL OF CADASTRAL ZONE) FOR ITS PROPOSAL OF 39 PROTECTIVE ZONES, 
TOTALING SOME 5200 HECTARES. BELGRADE CONTINUED TO EXPLICITLY LINK 
THE RETURN TO PRISTINA OF THE ARTIFACTS, TAKEN FROM THE MUSEUM OF 
KOSOVO IN 1999, WITH AN OVERALL AGREEMENT ON CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS 
HERITAGE. THE PRISTINA DELEGATION REPEATEDLY REFERRED TO THIS 
LINKAGE AS "BLACKMAIL."  WITH REGARD TO THE MONITORING AND 
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, BELGRADE WANTS TO ENLARGE THE 
PARTICIPATION TO INCLUDE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF RELIGION 
AND CULTURE AS WELL AS TWO BELGRADE INSTITUTIONS DEALING WITH THE 
PROTECTION OF CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS HERITAGE.   AS FAR AS SECURITY 
FOR THE SITES, BOTH SIDES WISH TO SEE KFOR PROTECTION FOR AS LONG AS 
NECESSARY.  ROHAN INFORMED THAT UNOSEK WAS IN TOUCH WITH NATO 
REGARDING THIS ISSUE, ADDING THAT IT WAS UNOSEK'S UNDERSTANDING THAT 
THE CURRENT LEVEL OF PROTECTION OF THE SITES WOULD MAINTAINED "AS 
 
VIENNA 00002731  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
LONG AS NECESSARY," BASED ON THE SECURITY ASSESSMENTS/CONSULTATIONS 
WITH THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL MONITORING COMMITTEE. 
 
COMMUNITY RIGHTS 
---------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) COMMUNITY RIGHTS TALKS FOCUSED ON THE REPRESENTATION OF 
THE COMMUNITIES IN THE KEY INSTITUTIONS (ASSEMBLY, GOVERNMENT AND 
JUDICIARY), AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF 
THE COMMUNITIES (VITAL INTEREST MECHANISM, OMBUDSPERSON AND THE 
COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL). THE PRISTINA DELEGATION REITERATED 
ITS POSITIONS ON THESE ISSUES, AS OUTLINED IN PRISTINA'S REVISED 
DOCUMENT, ENTITLED THE "FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF 
COMMUNITIES IN KOSOVO," WHICH WAS RELEASED AT THE END OF AUGUST AND 
WHICH UNOSEK HAD PREVIOUSLY DELIVERED TO BELGRADE. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) THE BELGRADE DELEGATION NOTED THAT MANY OF THE ISSUES 
RELATING TO COMMUNITY RIGHTS WERE NOT STATUS-NEUTRAL AND COULD NOT 
BE DISCUSSED IN THIS FORMAT OF "TECHNICAL TALKS." IT THEN PRESENTED 
A NUMBER OF PRINCIPLED OBJECTIONS TO THE TEXT OF PRISTINA: I)  THE 
FRAMEWORK PROPOSED BY PRISTINA ASSUMED IN MANY INSTANCES THAT KOSOVO 
WOULD BE INDEPENDENT IN FUTURE; II) PRISTINA'S PROPOSALS WERE SEEN 
TO BE TOO MUCH FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS; 
III)  THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITIES REFERRED TO "MINORITIES," WHILE 
BELGRADE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT SERBS WERE CONSIDERED A MINORITY 
WITHIN SERBIA; IV)  THE COMMUNITY RIGHTS LISTED IN THE PRISTINA 
DOCUMENT SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT MERELY BY 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS; V) A NUMBER OF RIGHTS FOR THE COMMUNITIES WERE 
OF A TEMPORARY NATURE; AND, VI ) IN SOME RESPECTS, THE RIGHTS AS 
OUTLINED BY PRISTINA FELL SHORT OF THE CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL 
FRAMEWORK.  BELGRADE ALSO FOCUSED ON THE NEED FOR BETTER ENFORCEMENT 
OF PROTECTIONS CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS AND STRESSED THE NEED FOR 
ADEQUATE FISCAL RESOURCES TO APPROPRIATELY FUND SOME OF PRISTINA'S 
PROPOSALS, SUCH AS THE PUBLISHING OF ALL PUBLIC DOCUMENTS IN BOTH 
ALBANIAN AND SERBIAN LANGUAGES. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) BELGRADE OFFERED FEW PRAGMATIC PROPOSALS. INSTEAD, 
BELGRADE REITERATED ITS INTEREST IN SEEING AN AD HOC "TWO CHAMBER" 
SYSTEM, UNDER WHICH KOSOVO SERBS IN KOSOVO'S ASSEMBLY WOULD 
REPRESENT THE KOSOVO SERB COMMUNITY IN A SEPARATE CHAMBER. UNDER 
THIS SYSTEM, ALL MATTERS OF VITAL INTEREST WOULD GO TO THIS SECOND 
CHAMBER IN WHICH A MAJORITY OF ITS MEMBERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PASS 
SUCH LEGISLATION. IF THIS WERE NOT POSSIBLE, THE LEGISLATION WOULD 
GO TO A "SPECIAL PANEL" AND, AS A LAST RESORT, TO THE INTERNATIONAL 
REPRESENTATIVE, WHO WOULD HAVE THE FINAL WORD. UNDER THIS SETUP, THE 
KOSOVO SERB COMMUNITY WOULD BE TREATED ON A PAR WITH THE MAJORITY 
KOSOVO ALBANIANS. BOTH THE UNOSEK TEAM AND PRISTINA DELEGATION 
QUESTIONED THE PRACTICALITY OF SUCH A COMPLICATED MECHANISM, AND 
NOTED THAT A DOUBLE MAJORITY MECHANISM (REQUIRING A MAJORITY VOTE 
WITHIN THE MINORITY) FOR ALL LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE VITAL 
INTERESTS OF KOSOVO SERBS COULD BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN A 
SINGLE-CHAMBER KOSOVO ASSEMBLY. BELGRADE ALSO CONTINUED TO OBJECT TO 
ANY PRISTINA PROPOSAL THAT WOULD REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERB AUTONOMY 
IN THE JUSTICE AREA. AT THE END OF THE TALKS BELGRADE INDICATED THAT 
IT WOULD PREPARE ITS OWN PAPER AND SHARE IT WITH ALL PARTIES IN THE 
FORESEEABLE FUTURE. 
 
NEXT STEPS 
---------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) THERE WILL BE A MEETING IN VIENNA ON SEPTEMBER 15 WITH 
BOTH PARTIES TO DISCUSS THE DELINEATION OF NEW MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. 
 NO OTHER MEETINGS ARE CURRENTLY PLANNED AT THIS STAGE. 
MCCAW