By Pavel Kollar
But why there are minority groups inside of majority groups and why there are separatists? Because the word "state" is interpreted as piece of territory(equally with which ethnical groups is inhabited) instead of being understood as an organized human group on the basis of nationality relations (equally on which piece of territory are living some members of nation and territory understood as geographical unit).
Minorities are usually step-childs of what is called "national state" today. The exceptions from this "rule" are rather rare. Being some kind of people out of law they are used by powerful groups for various purposes.
So, the cause of the problem is known and its effects also. And the remedy is also known: new rules. So, the new rules(or at least principles) in this case should be that the problem is the issue between Belgrade(as capitol of Serbia, not YU) and Tirana, that the territory of Kosovo shoud be considered as common territory of Serbia and Albania, that Albanians in Kosovo should be citizens of Albania and the Serbs in Kosovo should be citizens of Serbia, that the questions on micro level should be regulated by contracts on micro level, etc. Serbs and Albanians(and not only they) were good neighbours until they were not forced by some authority(that came in conflict with the authority of another nation) to be hostil to each other. But this is the question of uncivilized behaviour between authorities, not question between neighbours(in one village) of different nationality.
This is one alternative how to solve this problem. The other is according existing rules but with sharply divided territories and ethnically pure territories. This should also be the issue between Tirana and Belgrade and should be lead down in contract about territory division and relocation of people. So this is also a question between authorities, with or without intermediation of international community.
The third alternative is just what happens now. An anarchy, a Babylon, a seemingly communication between people who do not understand each other or do not want to undestand the situation, following their narrow ego.
So, the really choice is between the first two alternatives and both contain something new. But what is not known is how to replace the old rules with new ones, how to introduce something new. All leaders are backing themselves with old rules and are arguing every of them being right. There is no institution for creating and enforcing new rules. In the past this has be done by wars and revolutions. But today many people argue these are not civilized ways for making changes.
Then what remains is only to look how the changes were accomplished in other fields and apply the experience in field that calls policy. Ideas cannot be realized from one day to another but this should not be excuse for not to try with them. The end of Cold War in EU was a good time to start with simething new, to push the traditional authoritarian institutions(military, police and possible churches also) on the side -track and bring the ecomic and humanitarian issues in the foreground. But the occasion was missed. Some politicians are still deeply persuaded that the authoritarian power executed by arms is the only way of problem solution.
This is not so that politicians do not know about new ideas. Their secret services control the idea producers rather strictly. Then what is the problem? They are waiting for precedent. The excuse for Milosevic is that such a "state" does not exist anywhere. But the truth is that other have no similar problems. The fact that Serbia has problems with its national minorities today is due to some decisions of Serbs by themselves, that they in the past required (and got) much more than they were able to govern.