On May 17, Students in Blockade organised a gathering in Kragujevac, Central Serbia. The meeting is seen as coordination for a protest announced in Belgrade for 23 May. However, somewhat surprisingly, students published a communique titled “Memorandum on Kosovo and Metohija”. Already from the title, it becomes evident that this move will become highly controversial for civic-liberal voters in Serbia, the international community, the EU and U.S. in the first place, and their peers and colleagues in Kosovo.
Although multiple individuals, including opposition leaders in Serbia, media outlets and political analysts, rushed to declare students nationalists, followers of Milosevic’s policy and equal to Vučić when it comes to Kosovo, this article provides deeper analysis of the Memorandum itself, and argues that these qualifications are not well placed.
What does Memorandum say?
To start with the structure, the document revolves around four main points. The first point states that ‘Kosovo and Metohija are an inseparable part of the Republic of Serbia’, basing its stance on the necessity for respecting the Constitution. This point is the line that can often be heard by the highest political representatives, including President Vučić. This is why many are (and will be) accusing students of taking over and carrying forward Vučić’s rhetoric. However, to be honest here, the majority of opposition politicians have also referred to Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia, including those pro-European such as Zdravko Ponoš and Dragan Đilas. Politicians often follow the line of the majority voters’ thinking, and public opinion polls show that almost two-thirds of Serbian citizens are against Kosovo’s independence. Since Students in Blockade are preparing for snap elections, they are following the median voter strategy, trying to appeal to the widest possible voter body. Whether this is conducive to the normalisation process can be debated, but from the standpoint of political communication, it most probably is a rational decision.
Second point of Memorandum explains that Kosovo “is not only a territory, but it is rather a component of Serbian national identity”. This is widely accepted in Serbia, and while no one denies the existence of Serbian cultural heritage in Kosovo, the problematic part is the ending sentence stating that “without Kosovo [and Metohija] our cultural and historical code lose their wellspring and meaning”. Therefore, a legitimate question one may pose is – how do students aim to fight for this indivisible component of Serbia’s identity?
The third point highlights the role of the international community in resolving the Kosovo issue, but this one will be separately analysed in the next section. Finally, the fourth point states that the issue of Kosovo concerns every citizen of this country. It serves more as a moral compass and reminder for Serbs than a concrete policy proposal from students. The aim of this point is similar to the first – to appeal to the conservative citizens in an attempt to garner wider support and potentially swing Vučić’s and SNS’ voters.
Are students ready to extend the hand?
Points 1,2, and 4 are highly controversial and unhelpful from the standpoint of any Kosovo citizen and politician. However, point 3 offers space for optimism. Point three of the Memorandum reads:
“As a mature and historical nation, we are aware that the issue of Kosovo and Metohija cannot be resolved in isolation, but exclusively within the complex flows of the international community”.
This is probably the most important point of the whole document, as unlike the others, it maps out the reality on the ground and sketches future lines of action when, not if, a transition of power happens in Serbia.
Moreover, it announces the aim for continuing the normalisation dialogue, stating:
“Serbia must work actively and constructively with all relevant international organisations, recognising them as indispensable partners in finding the most adequate and sustainable solution within the framework of its Constitution.”
This is an important signal coming from the students which should not be neglected, and which clearly refutes any claim that students promote annexation of Kosovo. More importantly, students set a clear goal with regards to the normalisation process, which they describe as:
“a model that, with consistent respect for international law, will ensure peace, security and full protection of rights for the people living in this territory”.
This is a clear sign of political maturity, good reading of political reality and geopolitical developments, but most importantly principled stance on defending human rights and commitment for peaceful resolution.
Conclusion
Students in Blockade have been often criticized for not officially disclosing their stance and policy on many questions of national importance, out of which Kosovo is one of the frequently cited. Thus, publication of the Memorandum can become a watershed moment for the movement. However, this article concludes that the Memorandum should be observed in the first place as a part of electoral strategy, communication towards voters and only then as a rough sketch of a future political program. However, when reading it, we need to be careful how much attention we pay to each point, each sentence or specific wording.
The final verdict is that this is a bold and very risky move. If successful, it will further strengthen the student movement. However, it has the potential to create divisions among students, opposition parties withdrawing their support, making enemies in Pristina and European capitals, and finally Vučić profiting. Judging from another mass protest organised in Belgrade following the publication of the Memorandum, it seems that the support for the students had not decreased.
