Kosovar Albanians lose international support

KFOR's relations with Albanians has deteriorated

As NATO forces drove into Kosovo in June '99 they were hailed by Albanians as conquering hero's, liberators from the Serbian yoke.

It wasn't supposed to have happened that way. The West HAD cast itself as diplomatic intermediary - the threat of force was only made to get Milosovic back to the negotiating table at Rambouillet.

But the bombing started, and dragged on, and became a humanitarian conflict. By the time it ended the short and medium-term objectives of the International Community and Kosovar Albanians had become practically indistinguishable.

The last two years have been marked by continuing ethnic hatred and division, the explosion of serious crime, and the creation of new, armed rebel movements. Now it seems the honeymoon is over.

An example of this new tough-love approach came during a recent EU visit to Kosovo. The high-level delegation was looking to local politicians to unequivocally criticise the fighting in Macedonia. Sources claimed the stick they were threatening to use, was the suspension of further aid.

The international community is losing patience with Kosovar Albanians

Europe's External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten did his best to be diplomatic at a press conference after the meeting.

As reconstruction of the country continues, there's increasing pressure on the west to re-evaluate its objectives here. The election of a government in serbia that the West can do business with has only accelerated that process.

The central area of tension is between the UN's mandate - which allows for substantial autonomy - and the overwhelming desire amongst Kosovar Albanians for independence. Ylber Husa, the Director of an independent think-tank in Pristina says there must be greater clarity.

Yesterday's suggestion by the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Francis Maude that the status of Kosovo lies at the heart of regional troubles has been derided by Labour. Yet there are a number of highly respected voices saying very similar things.

The argument is that uncertainty breeds discontent, that the lack of clearly defined borders creates the illusion of flexibility and that the lack of clarity about political status encourages the radicals to push for inclusion in any final settlement. And all that only worsens relations between protector and protected.