Integration Stalled
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
12 March 2013 SERBIA Integration stalled In 1999, over 245,000 members of local minority communities fled from or within Kosovo in fear of reprisals from the ma- jority Albanian population after NATO air strikes had forced the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops and ended years of op- pression of ethnic Albanians. As of December 2012, there were an esti- mated 225,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) from Kosovo within Serbia, including an estimated 15,000 displaced Roma who have never been registered as displaced. In addition, around 17,000 remain displaced An internally displaced family in Kraljevo built this home with materials it received within Kosovo. in kind from UNHCR. This new housing helps them integrate in the area they were displaced to. (Photo: UNHCR, 2011) One in five IDPs are from minority commu- nities. Roma are the most vulnerable IDPs. They tend to lack documentation which then limits their access to basic services such as educa- tion, health and social security. They frequently endure extreme poverty in squalid informal set- tlements and have been subject to evictions. Thirteen years after the conflict the prospects for return in Kosovo remain limited due to security concerns, discrimination and difficulties in repossessing property and obtaining legal documen- tation. The rate of return continued to remain very low in 2012. According to estimates by Serb IDP associations, as few as three per cent of those displaced may have actually achieved sustain- able return in the decade since 1999. The Serbian authorities have consistently emphasised return rather than explicitly seeking to provide IDPs with other durable solutions. In recent years, however, the Serbian government’s position on local integration has improved. It has increased the number of projects supporting permanent housing solutions for IDPs, notably for displaced people still living in collective cen- tres, and has further developed its national policy on displacement. Limited resources, reduced donor interest and the intractable nature of the Serbia-Kosovo dis- pute continue to present obstacles to durable solutions for many IDPs. www.internal-displacement.org HUNGARY Szeged a ) n e Subotica Pécs u b SERBIA u D n T a Kanjiza i D s Mohács ( a Bajmok Senta National capital Backa Republic capital C Kikinda Topola i Sombor k Autonomous province capital Ada Timisoara D Sivac Town, village ra K v V a VOJVODINAi e k Apatin l Major airport Crvenka ik i i K Becej n l . d a Kula an s K International boundary k Osijek i i Titov Vrbas K jsk M Srbobran . e Elemir eg Republic boundary a B l i Temerin CROATIA K Autonomous province boundary a n a Backa l Zrenjanin Highway Vinkovci Palanka Novi Sad is Vr Road m as a ac F ki Railroad ru ra T K Vrsac ska Go an Sid Alibunar al Canal Ruma Indija Sremska Stara Pazova Banatsko 0 20 40 60 km a S Mitrovica Nova Pazova Novo Selo sn av J o Brcko a a Bela Crkva B r Pancevo 0 20 40 mi c i n Beograd Sabac a Bijeljina Sa K (Belgrade) R va . Zeleznik D Kovin O a u a in n av e r r M a D v Obrenovac Smederevo Pozarevac n a Golubac u n Kladovo A Loznica D u V a D amnava N la T r s a Mladenovac H ic omo b ljs Majdanpek I SERBIA P u ke lan l V i o P A na K Petrovac l e a Smed. Palanka n l i M . Velika-Plana k l Negotin a a ( va Zagubica Da Ljubovija Valjevo M n ub o e) r k S E R B a IB A Bor imo v e T Rogacica Kragujevac a lj a nic a Dr Gornji Vidin ina Milanovac Jagodina Cuprija Zajecar Cacak B Sarajevo Uzice Paracin r A Z -D Pozega o M l e h a tin u j a o J L t r Kraljevo i Z BULGARIA BOSNIA AND L b a a Sokobanja im o v pa a r ic dn v K a I a M ra b o HERZEGOVINA a a Aleksinac Ivanjica r Trstenik n A Priboj Krusevac i Knjazevac Nova s a N Foca Varos R Jastr Prijepolje liki eba Nis Pljevlja U Ve c v M a K D c Raska J u a T T o Prokuplje u r a k z m s n Bela r Sjenica a p Pirot S K a Toplica a . it S R M Palanka o o a m r o S a o r a Novi Pazar a i n r n n v d a n Bijelo Polje z i i ja a k k Leskovac ca j Vlasotince (Pi e va) v I lasin in bar Kosovska a V a a ic Mitrovica n r e t KrupacMONTENEGRO Ivangrad Vucitrn e S V Slano L it Niksic i n Surdulica i m c B a vi e Pristina Vlasinsko o l -N Pec i Priboj D Jezero eg c r CROATIA r Kotorski i e m Vranje H Zaljev Bosilegrad lps KOSOVO Gnjilane Podgorica n A ania -Dakovica Orahovac Bujanovac ka Kotor Cetinje Alb rs North Urosevac Presevo oto Boka K Sk D ada rin (L rs Prizren . S ko a THE FORMER cu J in ta e n r ze a i r l YUGOSLAV REP. OF Adriatic Bar ) o Shkodër P r a Tetovo Skopje Sea ALBANIA S MACEDONIA Ulcinj The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IDMC. Source: UN Cartographic Section (modified by IDMC) More maps are available at www.internal-displacement.org/maps Serbia: Integration stalled Background Settlement (CSP), also known as the “Ahtisaari plan”, proposed Kosovo’s independence under In 1999, over 245,000 people fled from or within international supervision and addressed a broad Kosovo in fear of reprisals from the majority range of issues including the decentralisation of Albanian population, after NATO air strikes had local government and the safeguarding of minori- forced the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops and ties’ rights (UNSC, March 2007; UNSC, 26 March ended years of oppression of ethnic Albanians. 2007; SofiaEcho, 7 November 2008). The Serbian UN Security Council Resolution 1244 estab- government rejected the plan and the UN Security lished the United Nations Interim Administration Council (UNSC) did not adopt it. Nevertheless, in Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), but deferred judge- February 2008 the Kosovo parliament made a uni- ment on the issue of the final status of the Serbian lateral declaration of independence and adopted province (UNSC, June 1999). UNMIK’s mandate its provisions in its new constitution. was to provide a transitional administration pending a final settlement, support the develop- In accordance with the Ahtisaari plan, an ment of provisional democratic self-government International Civilian Office (ICO) and the institutions (known as Provisional Institutions of European Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) were Self-Government or PISG) and create an environ- established. UNMIK’s role was gradually reduced ment in which refugees and IDPs could return as the new Kosovo authorities began to assume home. Kosovo’s current status remains ambigu- control of structures and functions. The NATO-led ous despite the increasing number of states that stabilisation force (KFOR), which had been de- have recognised it. The border between Kosovo ployed after the 1999 airstrikes, was charged with and Serbia is therefore not considered an inter- providing a safe and secure environment. nationally recognised state border. As a result, persons who fled Kosovo to Serbia continue to In July 2010, the International Court of Justice be considered IDPs, a point highlighted by the (ICJ) published an advisory opinion on the legality Representative of the UN Secretary General in of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, stating 2009 (UN HRC, 11 December 2009). that it was in keeping with the general principles of international law and UNSC resolution 1244, The main wave of displacement took place in given the territory’s unique history and circum- 1999, with the overwhelming majority of those stances (ICJ, July 2010; UNGA, 9 September 2010).1 internally displaced fleeing Kosovo to central and northern Serbia (UNHCR, 2011; DRC June 2009). As of January 2013 98 countries have recognised Two subsequent events have significantly affected Kosovo’s independence. The UNSC is yet to take rates of return. In 2004, ethnic violence in Kosovo a position and resolution 1244 is still officially in against non-Albanians (mainly Kosovo Serbs force (BalkanInsight, September 2012).2 Backed by and Roma) displaced another 4,200 people, who Russia, Serbia rejects Kosovo’s independence and mostly sought refuge in mono-ethnic areas within continues to regard the area as the Autonomous Kosovo. The subsequent declaration of independ- Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Republic of ence of Kosovo in 2008 has also contributed to a Serbia, November 2012). Serbia refuses to rec- reduction in rates of return. 1 The ICJ ruled only over the unilateral declaration of in- In October 2005, the UN special envoy, Martti dependence and made clear that issues about secession Ahtisaari, opened negotiations between Pristina were beyond the scope of its decision. 2 Five EU countries (Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece and Belgrade over Kosovo’s final status. The 2007 and Cyprus) have refused to recognise Kosovo, as have Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Serbia’s two big-power allies, China and Russia. 12 March 2013 www.internal-displacement.org 3 Serbia: Integration stalled ognise the institutions established under the relevant to IDPs in Serbia and Kosovo, such as Ahtisaari plan and continues to provide services freedom of movement, land and civil registries in majority-Serb areas (Office of Kosovo and (Office of Kosovo and Metohija, 2012).4 Towards Metohija, 11 May, 2011).3 Serbia also remains in the end of 2012, the two sides also began imple- control of parts of northern Kosovo, including the menting an agreement on border control opening city of Mitrovica where nationalist Serbian parties two jointly-managed border posts, and, despite have created and reinforced parallel municipal numerous remaining differing positions including institutions directly competing with those of the on Kosovo’s status, compromise appeared a real Republic of Kosovo (ICG, 10 September 2012; possibility (ICG, 19 February 2013).