May 09, 2007 2:54 AM

from THE JAKARTA POST -- WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007 -- PAGE 6 As special envoy of the UN secretary general, Martti Ahtisaari gave a recommendation for Kosovo independence to be "supervised by the international community". The recommendation is supported by Kosovar Albanians, the UN secretary general, the European Union (EU) and the U.S., and will be debated in the Security Council. Independence will be supervised by an EU mission, which is to replace the UN administration in Kosovo, and supported by NATO peacekeepers whose main task is to ensure the safety of the remaining Serbian minority of approximately 150,000 in a majority population of almost two million Albanians.

Olli Rehn, the EU commissioner for enlargement, delivered a harsh warning to Moscow on March 21, 2007; "If the Security Council fails to agree, there will be instability and chaos in the region," he said. "Europe will have to pay the price, not Russia, and not the United States." (Guardian, March 22, 2007) The European Commission agreed with Ahtisaari's recommendation as a valid solution to the Kosovo issue, until 2014, when Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia will join the European Union as full members.

The first step in this transition period will begin with full independence "without a sovereignty phase", whereby the international community will take charge of the protection of minorities and human rights in Kosovo. The next phase is full independence with "guided sovereignty", when the European Union will begin membership negotiations with Kosovo. The final stage will be the "common sovereignty phase", when Kosovo will become a member of the European Union

The state-building process taking place in Kosovo is actually a "member-state building process". Is Martti Ahtisaari's recommendation to the UN the first phase proposal of the European Union in solving the Kosovo problem? And what does he mean by "supervision by the international community"? Is it equivalent to independence "without the sovereignty phase"? Since 1999, Kosovo has been divided into American, British, German, Italian and French zones. UN Resolution 1244, which in 1999 authorized NATO to enforce the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo and established the legal framework for UN administration by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), resulted in Serbia losing sovereign rights

Does Ahtisaari mean that the UN will have to replace the current zones with other UN forces, or will the UN have to legalize the presence of the existing European Union powers and the U.S.? The Kosovar-Albanians seem to have accepted the shift from being a UN protectorate under NATO leadership to a European Union protectorate, or as they say: "From UNMIKistan to an EUMIKistan", (Ralph Harmann) from an UN Mission in Kosovo to a EU Mission in Kosovo and from a UN supervised independence to a EU supervised independence

The U.S. will not leave the territory, as their "Bondsteel Base", close to Urosevac in Southeast Kosovo, is allegedly the biggest military base outside the U.S. and is used to defend U.S. strategic interests in the Balkans and Central Asia.

Germany prefers the creation of EUMIKistan as the solution for Kosovo. Many Kosovar-Albanian politicians in Pristina even declared it as the "brainchild" of the German foreign ministry.

Since May 2003, Germany, with its Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA), has been responsible for the privatization of 540 Serbian state enterprises. Belgrade protested against the state enterprises, claiming they were the sole "property of the Serbian people".

Prices of Kosovo natural resources including lead, zinc, chrome, nickel, silver, gold and the second biggest brown coal reserves in Europe are much higher. Foreign investors have been invited to make their bids, which should net more than 10 billion euros, in comparison to the 100 million euros netted thus far.

The KTA is under the 4th Bureau of the UN Administration in Pristina and is headed by Joachim Ruecker, a representative of the German division.

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica summed up his country's stance toward the solution when he said; "Ahtisaari is proposing to rob Serbia of 15 percent of its territory and wants to change internationally recognized borders against the will of the Serbian state", and added that it would be "a gross violation of the integrity of the democratic European state". However, his criticism was simply pushed aside.

If this is the situation in Kosovo, what is the use of giving permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council the choice of agreeing to, abstaining from or disagreeing with a fait accompli? Indonesia is thus faced with these three options: Vote in favor of a proposed Security Council resolution which fully support Ahtisaari's proposal, abstain or vote against the planned resolution.

Indonesia should strongly object Ahtisaari's argument over Kosovo's status because it will jeopardize peace and stability in Kosovo and the Balkans. Independence is the "only guarantee" against this threat. For Indonesia, as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, territorial integrity and territorial sovereignty are fundamental principles and therefore, non-negotiable.

However, Indonesia's disagreement with the planned resolution should not be based primarily on territorial integrity and sovereignty, but rather on Indonesia being expected simply to yield to the European Union and the U.S. solution on the Kosovo issue. As an independent and sovereign country Indonesia should lobby other members of the Security Council, such as Russia and China, which also have strong reservations, to vote against the imposition of the planned UNSC resolution on Kosovo.

C.P.F. Luhulima, Jakarta The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the Center for East Asian Cooperation Studies (CEACS)

Jakarta Post