I do agree that a unitateral independence for Kosovo would be a bad thing. The remainder of the Serbs would be driven out and Albanian seperatists in South Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia would feel encouraged to demand secession too.

However, I do believe that the movement to nation-states is something that we can't ignore or stop. In my opinion an independence for Kosovo should be preceded by an exchange of territory, whereby Serbia gets the Serb north of Kosovo and Kosovo get the Presevo Valley. Ethnic borders have as the extra advantage that they take away a major motive for ethnic cleansing: fear of being dominated by "the others".

In general: a solution to an ethnic problem should be so that both sides think it is fair.

As for the ethnic history of Kosovo I think the author is wrong. Kosovo may have had a Serb majority centuries ago, but for lack of documents we cannot be sure about that. But around 1900 the Albanians had a solid majority. At the first population count after the territory came under Serb control in 1918 the Serbs constituted only 23% of the population. A Serb nationalistic policy resulted then in massive Serb immigration and emigration of an estimated 200.000 Albanians (mainly to Turkey). This had the effect that in 1939 the Serbs came to 49%. But during the Italian occupation the Albanians controlled the local affairs and they used that to drive out the new immigrants and to receive immigration from Northern Albania. As a consequence after the war the Serbs were back to a little above 20%.

On what grounds is the expectation that Haradinaj will declare unilateral independence grounded? Have you asked him?! This article is an example of needless fear-mongering and I sincerely hope readers realise that it is not based on fact. The long-term goal of the AAK (Haradinaj's party) is to obtain an independent state of Kosovo by working with the international community, Belgrade - and all sections of Kosovar society. Does the author of this article actually believe that the alternative - for Kosovo to remain part of Serbia - would lead to less bloodshed? This possibility poses a much greater and more immediate threat to the peace largely enjoyed in the region at present. Why has the author neglected to deal with this important point?