Why is there trouble in Kosovo again? (GS Paper 2, International Relation)
Why in news?
- In the aftermath of one of the worst escalation of tensions between Kosovo and Serbia in at least a decade, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) recently sent 700 more of its peacekeeping troops to Kosovo.
Details:
- Clashes broke out between Serbs protesting in North Kosovo and the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFor), leaving about 30 NATO soldiers and 50 Serbs injured.
- Since then, the Presidents of Serbia and Kosovo have met once under pressure from the European Union (EU) in the presence of French and German leaders. However, a resolution to the long-standing conflict remains uncertain.
What are the roots of the conflict?
- Both Kosovo and Serbia lie in the Balkans, a region of Europe made up of countries that were once a part of the erstwhile Republic of Yugoslavia. Kosovo, a former province of Serbia, unilaterally declared Independence in 2008 and is recognised as a country by about 100 nations including the U.S. and a number of EU-member countries.
- Serbia, however, does not recognise Kosovo’s sovereignty and continues to consider it as a part of itself despite having no administrative control over it.
Historical aspect:
- The Serbian Empire had gained control of Kosovo in the 12th century, and the latter went on to become the heart of the kingdom with several Serb Orthodox Christian churches and monasteries of significance being built in Kosovo.
- Serbia lost Kosovo for 500 years to the Ottoman Empire in the 1389 Battle of Kosovo. During the Ottoman Rule, the ethnic and religious balance shifted in Kosovo, leading it to become a majority ethnic Albanian region with Muslims.
- After five centuries of Ottoman rule, Kosovo became part of Serbia in the early 20th century and post the Second World War, it was eventually made a province (with autonomy) of Serbia, which was then one of the six republics of Yugoslavia.
- Serbia considered this the rightful return of Kosovo, but the ethnic Albanians, who currently make up 90% of Kosovo’s population considered it unfair. In the 1980s, Kosovo Albanians increasingly mobilised and sought separation from Serbia.
1990s afterwards:
- In the late 1990s, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), consisting mainly Kosovo Albanians, led an insurgency against the Serbian rule of Kosovo. Serbia responded by cracking down on the rebellion by deploying heavy forces in 1998 and 1999. Nearly 13,000 lives, mainly of ethnic Albanians, were lost during this period.
- However, in 1999, NATO intervened by carrying out air raids and bombardment of Serb targets, forcing Serbia to end hostilities and pull out of Kosovo. Subsequently, NATO deployed 50,000 peacekeepers and through the UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1244, a transitional UN-led administration began to head Kosovo.
- In 2008, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. While Serbia challenged Kosovo’s actions before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICJ was of the opinion that Kosovo’s declaration was not against international law.
What has happened since 2008?
- Currently, an ethnic Serb minority of more than 50,000 resides in multiple municipalities in the northern part of Kosovo bordering Serbia, making up about 5.3% of the country’s population. The Kosovo Serbs do not recognise Kosovo state institutions, receive pay and benefits from Serbia’s budget, and pay no taxes either to Pristina, the capital of Kosovo or Belgrade, the Serbian Capital.
- Since 2008, clashes have broken out on and off in Kosovo’s northern region, either when Serbs have clashed with Kosovo’s police or due to the larger issue of Serbia not recognising Kosovo’s independent status.
- Meanwhile, Kosovo cannot become a member country of the UN without Serbia’s approval as it has its diplomatic allies in Russia and China who would veto such a decision.
- In 2011, EU, backed by the U.S, initiated talks to resolve the conflict between the two countries, offering the prospect that the two could only become a part of the EU if they bilaterally normalised relations.
- In 2013, the two reached the Brussels Agreement brokered by the EU, which included measures to dismantle Serbia-backed parallel structures in Kosovo’s north and the creation of the Association of Serb Municipalities to administratively link Kosovo’s 10 Serb-majority municipalities. While the agreement was not fully implemented on the ground, the participation of Serbs in elections was facilitated.
What prompted the recent clashes?
- In April 2023, Kosovo held mayoral elections in municipalities. These elections were boycotted by ethnic Serbs in the northern municipalities and saw only about a 3% turnout, as a result of which ethnic Albanian mayors got elected in these municipalities.
- Notably, protesting the July 2022 move by Kosovo asking for a change of number plates, ethnic Serb mayors in northern municipalities, along with local judges and 600 police officers had resigned in November and opposed fresh elections to their posts.
- With the support of the Kosovo police, ethnic Albanian mayors took office in northern Kosovo’s Serb-majority area and faced protests by Serbs. The move by Kosovo to install Albanian members led the U.S. and its allies to rebuke Pristina, as it triggered clashes.
Where do the resolution talks stand?
- In March 2023, both Serbia and Kosovo tentatively agreed to EU’s plan which proposed that Belgrade should stop lobbying against Kosovo’s candidature in international organisations including the United Nations. In turn, Kosovo was to form an association of Serb-majority municipalities.
- Additionally, both sides were to also open representative offices in each other’s capital to help resolve outstanding disputes.
- However, the two parties eventually walked out of singing the deal as Kosovo’s Prime Minister Albin Kurti faced nationalist opposition for not being assertive enough while Serbia’s populist leader Mr.Vučić was criticised back home for engaging in a compromise.
- Talks have also stalled because both sides now doubt the EU’s seriousness about granting them membership as many of the EU countries, including France, are against the bloc’s further expansion.
What about Serbia’s ties with Russia?
- Kosovo’s current leader and the West are also concerned about Serbia’s strong historic and military ties with Russia and its political closeness with President Vladimir Putin who has maintained support for the Serbian claim. The concerns have intensified after the start of the Ukraine conflict and Mr. Kurti has warned of a spillover in the Balkans backed by Russia.
- Besides, Serbia’s dependence on Russia for diplomatic support to counter Kosovo’s bids at the UN puts Russia in a position of influence.
What next?
- Since the Presidents of both sides met on June 1, Kosovo has indicated that a solution for de-escalation is close and it is open to holding fresh elections in Serb dominant municipalities, provided they are held in a free and fair manner, without Belgrade pressuring ethnic Serbs to boycott the vote.
SDG 7, World still off-track from achieving universal energy access to all, says UN report
(GS Paper 3, Environment)
Why in news?
- Recently, the report titled, ‘Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report 2023’ was released.
- The five SDG 7 custodian agencies, International Energy Agency (IEA), International Renewable Energy Agency, United Nations Statistics Division, World Bank and the WHO, collaborated to release the document.
Details:
- SDG 7 is to “ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.”
- Several major economic factors are impeding the realisation of SDG 7 globally, like uncertain macroeconomic outlook, high levels of inflation, currency fluctuations, debt distress in many countries, lack of financing, supply chain bottlenecks, tighter fiscal circumstances and soaring prices for materials.
- Certain policy responses to the global energy crisis appear likely to improve the outlook for renewables and energy efficiency. However, other necessary policy actions, as well as financial flows, continue to lag.
- This particularly concerns lacking universal access to electricity and clean cooking in developing economies, with projections indicating that SDG 7 will not be reached by 2030.
Key Highlights:
- The uptake of renewable energy (target 7.2) has grown since 2010, but efforts must be scaled up substantially.
- The rate of improvement in energy efficiency (target 7.3) is not on track to double by 2030, with the current trend of 1.8 per cent falling short of the targeted increase of 2.6 per cent each year between 2010-2030.
- Progress on target 7.a, to increase international public financial flows supporting clean energy in developing countries began to decline even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the paper pointed out. Financial resources were more than a third lower since 2020 than the average of the previous decade (2010–19).
- As financial flows have contracted for the third year in a row, they have become increasingly concentrated in a small number of countries.
- The decreasing trend in international public financial flows may delay the achievement of SDG 7, especially for the least-developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries, and small island developing states.
Global status:
- Globally, access to electricity grew by an annual average of 0.7 percentage points between 2010 and 2021, rising from 84 per cent of the world’s population to 91 per cent.
- The number of people without electricity almost halved during the period, from 1.1 billion in 2010 to 675 million in 2021. The pace of annual growth slowed during 2019–21 to 0.6 percentage points.
- The global population lacking access to clean cooking fell from 2.9 billion in 2010 to 2.3 billion in 2021, but the goal of universal access by 2030 remains elusive.
- Some 1.9 billion people would still be without access to clean cooking in 2030, the report said. If current trends continue, almost six out of ten people without access to clean cooking in 2030 would reside in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Energy intensity:
- SDG target 7.3 calls for doubling the global rate of improvement in energy intensity over the average rate during 1990–2010 — which means improving energy intensity by 2.6 per cent per year between 2010 and 2030.
- However, progress between 2010 and 2020 averaged only 1.8 per cent. To make up for lost ground, improvement in energy intensity must now exceed 3.4 per cent globally from 2020 to 2030—twice the rate achieved in the past decade.
SDGs:
- The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, also called the 2030 Agenda, was launched by a UN Summit in 2015 and is aimed at ending poverty in all its forms.
- There are 17 SDGs, which are an urgent call for action by all countries in a global partnership. 2023 marks the halfway point for achieving SDGs by 2030.
- SDG 7 includes reaching universal access to electricity and clean cooking, doubling historic levels of efficiency improvements, and substantially increasing the share of renewables in the global energy mix.
Why is CRS, the body investigating the Odisha rail accident, under the Aviation Ministry
(GS Paper 3, Infrastructure)
Why in news?
- Investigation into the recent tragic train accident in Odisha is being conducted by the Commissioner of Railway Safety for the south-eastern circle.
- Rail safety commissioners are part of the Commission of Railway Safety (CRS), a government body that acts as the railway safety authority in the country.
Role of CRS:
- CRS deals with matters related to safety of rail travel and operations, among some other statutory functions; inspectorial, investigatory, and advisory as laid down in the Railways Act, 1989.
- Investigating serious train accidents is one of the key responsibilities of the CRS, which is headquartered in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
- The CRS does not report to the Ministry of Railways of the Railway Board. It is, in fact, under the administrative control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA).
- The reason or principle behind this is to keep the CRS insulated from the influence of the country’s railway establishment and prevent conflicts of interest. One needs to go back in time to understand the evolution of the CRS and its unique relationship with MoCA.
Evolution of safety oversight in railways in India:
- The first railways in India came into being in the 1800s and were constructed and operated by private companies. At the time, the British Indian government appointed ‘consulting engineers’ for effective control and oversight of the developing railway network and operations.
- Later, when the British Indian government undertook construction of railways in the country, the consulting engineers were re-designated as ‘government inspectors’, and in 1883, their position was recognised statutorily. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the Railway Inspectorate was placed under the Railway Board, which was established in 1905.
- As per the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905, and a notification by the then Department of Commerce and Industry, the Railway Board was entrusted with powers and functions of the government under various sections of the Railway Act and was also authorised to make rules for railway operations in India. This effectively made the Railway Board the safety controlling authority for railways in India.
Separation of safety supervision function and Railway Board:
- The Government of India Act, 1935 said that functions for securing the safety of railway operations, both for the travelling public and personnel operating the railways, should be performed by an authority independent of the federal railway authority or the Railway Board.
- These functions included conducting railway accident probes. But due to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the idea did not take off and the Railway Inspectorate continued to function under the control of the Railway Board.
- In 1939, a panel headed by the then chief inspecting officer of the British Railways, A.H.L. Mount, said that the separation of the Railway Inspectorate from the Railway Board was “very desirable” as it will do away with the anomaly of the Railway Board being the “inspecting as well as the executive authority” for railway operations in India.
Transfer of Railway Inspectorate from Railway Board’s control:
- In 1940, the Central Legislature endorsed the idea and principle of separation of the Railway Inspectorate from the Railway Board, and recommended that the senior government inspectors of the railways should be placed under the administrative control of a different authority under the government.
- Consequently, in May 1941, the Railway Inspectorate was separated from the Railway Board and put under the administrative control of the then Department of Posts and Air.
- Since then, the Inspectorate, which was re-designated as the CRS in 1961, has been under the control of the central ministry exercising control over civil aviation in India.
