Former US President Bill Clinton’s Recent Visit to Albania: A Gesture of Friendship or a Sign of a Deeply Divided Nation?

 

By Cafo Boga

 

I decided to write this article after watching how various media pundits in Albania portrayed the recent visit of former US President Clinton to Albania on July 3, 2023. I am not a journalist or political analyst; rather, I am simply an intellectual who had the good fortune of being born in the former Yugoslavia and then, at a young age, coming to the United States (US), the greatest country in the world. I am grateful to the US for affording me the opportunity to obtain a good education and have a successful career. I am also grateful that the US allows its newly arrived migrants to retain and promote their national identity. As a proud Albanian American, this has meant staying in tune with the development of my kin living in their homelands and working to build bridges between Albanians and the people of the US In this pursuit, I have been privy to many events that have affected Albanians and their plight for freedom and justice. This is why I could not resist presenting my views after listening to the mumbo-jumbo of political pundits in Albania, some of whom exhibited their ignorance about facts, some who perhaps had a sinister agenda, and some who made sense but were overshadowed by the other two kinds.

From the outset, I wish to state that I greatly admire former President Clinton for his intelligence and because of what he did for the United States while he was the President, and I am grateful for how he saved the people of Kosovo[i] from atrocities and ethnic cleansing committed by Serbia under the Slobodan Milošević regime. Furthermore, I am proud that I was the only Albanian nominated by Clinton to serve on the Board of Directors of the Albanian American Enterprise Fund (AAEF) [ii]. However, in expressing my views on any subject matter, I am guided by my integrity and by the facts, not by my personal feelings or interests, regardless of the circumstances. The following are my own personal views regarding the recent visit of former President Clinton to Albania. Perhaps some people will not agree with my views, but that is neither expected nor important. The aim of this essay is simply adding an unbiased perspective on President Clintons visit to Albania as well as to provide an overview of issues affecting Albanian nation as seen from an Albanian American from Montenegro living in United States. The essay is divided in 10 sections according to topic, as follows:

1. The Enigma of Clinton’s Recent Visit to Albania
2. The Albanian Nation Divided
3. Internal and External Factors That Have Fractured the Albanian Nation
4. What Is Wrong With the Albanian Leadership?
5. Why Serbia and Kosovo Are at Odds
6. Prime Minister Rama’s Interference – Friend or Foe of Kosovo?
7. The EU and the US Must Develop a New Approach
8. The Albanian Nation: Quo Vadis?
9. Successes and Failures of EU Mediation
10. Recent Developments

Some Details About Former President Clinton

Let me start this section by providing some relevant details and historical perspective about the President Clinton and how he ended up making an unprecedented decision to take military action against Serbia in order to stop atrocities and liberate Kosovo.

William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd President of the US from 1993 to 2001. Although his tenure was not without scandals, he remains a highly popular president thanks to his intellectual capacity, eloquence, and economic accomplishments while in office. However, he remains most popular among Albanians, specifically the Albanians of Kosovo, because he is credited with saving them from genocide by the Serbian forces of Slobodan Milošević. This is essentially true, because it was the US President who authorized NATO air strikes against Serbia’s forces in 1999. Those strikes halted the carnage and ethnic cleansing that were occurring in Kosovo and allowed nearly 1 million Albanian refugees to return to their homes. Without the US standing up to against Milošević, neither Western European nations nor NATO would have been able to prevent another Srebrenica[iii] from being repeated in Kosovo.

For these actions, Albanians are forever grateful, and they display their gratitude in many ways. However, Albanians must also be mindful of why Clinton did what he did and who else deserves credit for persuading him to take action. Note that Clinton was in office when the Srebrenica massacre occurred in Bosnia as well as when the Račak[iv] massacre in Kosovo was perpetrated. Furthermore, the Kosovo Liberation Army (Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves; UCK) was on the US blacklist. Moreover, the policy of the US State Department toward Former Yugoslavia and the region was still the one developed by Lawrence Eagleburger and the Henry Kissinger Group, which clearly favored Yugoslavia. The key figures who worked hard to persuade Clinton to change his mind and the US to change course were former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrook, who became known to the wider public after brokering a deal among the warring factions in Bosnia. This deal led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord[v]. A meaningful contribution in defending the Kosovar Albanians should also be attributed to William Walker, the head of the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), who described the Račak massacre as “an unspeakable atrocity” and “a crime very much against humanity.” For his declarations, Walker was thrown out of the country by Milošević; however, this incident and his report on Račak elicited the interest of journalists from around the world, and the Kosovo conflict started getting the needed attention.

The Albanian American Diaspora in the US also played an important role in supporting Kosovo both financially and politically. The National Albanian American Council (NAAC) and the Albanian American Civic League (AACL) played critical roles in Washington by meeting with congressmen and senators to brief them on the situation on the ground. As a founding member of the NAAC as well as a board member, I remember meetings that we had both in Washington and in New York quite well. However, to avoid dwelling on history, I wish to mention only one such meeting with Richard Holbrook in New York, in which we discussed the post-Račak situation and the frictions between various groups claiming to represent Kosovo’s government. After listening to an eyewitness report about those attempting to defend Kosovo, Holbrook raised his voice to make the following remark: “Gentlemen, what should we do? Continue to support Rugova, who has locked himself in Prishtina and did not even go to Račak to console the survivors, or should we support UCK, which is fractioned as well?” All those present unanimously suggested starting to support the UCK by first removing it from the US blacklist.

After Holbrook’s visit to Kosovo and his meeting with the UCK’s leaders, the UCK became the official Kosovo Liberation Army, and the “Atlantic” division from the US diaspora joined the UCK in defending their homeland. The point here is that a multipronged approach and efforts by many actors caused the US to change course and then-President Clinton to authorize an air strike against Milošević’s forces in Kosovo and eventually in Serbia. This was despite objections by many in the US as well as strong objections by the United Nations (UN) that NATO attacking the Serbian nation without Security Council approval would be in violation of the UN Charter. However, with Russia and China on the Security Council, approval would never have been granted.

As far as convincing the other NATO members, this honor goes to Tony Blair, the then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Despite Blair being strong advocates in favor of action, most other Western European nations were not quite in agreement; thus, the only two nations that conducted military actions within the territory of Serbia and Kosovo were the US and the UK, while the other nations only provided support. It is a rare fortune in history when the geopolitical interests of the greatest country in the world, supported by a trusted European ally, align with the interests of a small nation that is striving for survival. The US and NATO’s liberation of Kosovo from Serbian suzerainty, which had for more than a century resulted in bloodshed, is the greatest gift that Albanians have ever received from any foreign nation.

Notwithstanding, the US made a mistake by more or less leaving the Member States of the European Union (EU) to navigate Kosovo in building a state and resolving standing issues with Serbia. These nations are not particularly effective at reaching a consensus on anything, just  how long they have been attempting to build the EU, and it still remains questionable whether this concept will materialize. However, as the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, while the conflict in Kosovo ended in 1999 following the signing of a peace accord and the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces, tensions between Albanians and Serbs continue. What Serbia lost during the war, it is now attempting to recover during peacetime through manipulating facts and playing the Russian card with its traditional European friends. The wartime UCK leadership is in jail in The Hague, while the right hand of the Milošević regime President Vučić of Serbia, and his Deputy Ivica Dačić are treated with respect by Western European nations. Now let’s get back to Clinton’s visit to Albania and what was his purpose.

The Enigma of Clinton’s Recent Visit to Albania

While many questions regarding Clinton’s visit to Albania remain unanswered or are ambiguous, we can still venture to examine some facts and circumstances and try to reach some intelligent concussions without resorting to conspiracy theories.

Former President Clinton’s unofficial visit to Albania on July 3, 2023, raised many eyebrows. It is reasonable to ask why Prime Minister Rama invited Clinton at this time or why Clinton did not visit Albania while he was president to receive the honors bestowed on him. He would have been received as a hero, as his successor George W. Bush was. In 2007, Former President Bush visited Albania and was received by thousands of cheering Albanians. Bush did not disappoint them, as he voiced the desire of Albanians for their nation to join NATO. Furthermore, regarding Kosovo, he said that UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari’s plan for the independence of Kosovo is the right solution, and that he would work to convince the Security Council to do what is necessary. These were highly comforting words for Albanians in both Albania and Kosovo.

This time, Clinton came as a private citizen without any government responsibilities. While he is still an important figure, he arrived under rather ambiguous circumstances. Traveling abroad is not unusual for Clinton because he receives invitations to speak at engagements and to offer political advice from many organizations worldwide. For these activities, he is paid hundreds of thousands of US dollars or raises funds for his foundation. Thus, the following questions arise: Why did Clinton choose to come to Albania? Who invited him and why? Moreover, who sponsored his trip? One thing is for sure – this trip was not on his standing itinerary, and it was certainly arranged and paid for by someone else. While it is clear that he came at the invitation of Rama, one can only speculate who arranged and covered the expenses; yet it is best to let the truth surface in due course. Clinton was joined on this trip by George Soros’s son Alexander Soros, who is also the Chairman of the Open Society Foundation established by his father. The Open Society Foundation Albania (OSFA) started operations in 1992 with a similar mission as its sister foundations across former communist countries – namely to facilitate open and democratic societies. For over 3 decades, the OSFA has operated freely and largely unchecked, allowing Soros to establish a network of what is considered “civil society” in Albania, with an alarming platform of power and influence in favor of the left-wing government run by Rama.

The OSFA is run by a former fiancé of the Prime Minister and the wife of a minister in the current government. Linda Rama, Rama’s current wife, worked for the OSFA, as have dozens of high-ranking officials in the current government. They range from ministers and mayors to media moguls and other influential figures. Many Albanians consider the Soros network of organizations, politicians, media personalities, and local donor agencies in Albania to command the power – along with international leverage – that supports the Rama government. They believe this to occur through the US Embassy in Tirana and its contacts and influence in the State Department. This notion has greatly contributed to the growing alienation of Albanians from US foreign policy and its goals. Moreover, Rama has been implicated in a recent scandal involving Charles McGonigal, a former high-ranking FBI counterintelligence official. McGonigal is accused of violating US sanctions against Russia by agreeing to provide services to Oleg Deripaska, a sanctioned Russian oligarch, hiding his trips to Albania and accepting – but not reporting – at least US$225,000 that he is suspected to have received in Albania from politicians and businessmen. While Rama has admitted meeting with McGonigal on a few occasions, he has stated that their meetings were above board. However, those familiar with the case have stated that documents filed at the US District Court for the District of Columbia say otherwise. Feasibly, Rama may have been in trouble and called upon Soros, his dear friend and mentor, for help; then, Soros could have arranged for Clinton to come to Albania to add some credibility to the Prime Minister and alleviate lingering suspicions, at least in the public opinion. Rama has also found himself in a quagmire with the Prime Minister of Kosovo Albin Kurti over negotiations with Serbian President Aleksander Vučić, with whom Rama has aligned himself. Thus, who could be more effective – someone considered the greatest hero in Kosovo – at warning Kurti to tone down his rhetoric than Clinton?

Nevertheless, Albanians were certainly glad to see Clinton visit Tirana because they love him and the US, and for this reason alone, they would not dare to question his visit. Notwithstanding the cheers, his visit has not helped to heal a nation divided; on the contrary, because his visit has been seen as helping one party, as has been the case even with recent US ambassadors, the wounds of division will become even greater. Moreover, it will create confusion, speculation, and a sense of empowerment for some and disenchantment for others. It will suffice to listen to or watch the media kazan (“kettle”), as the Prime Minister of Albania calls it, to see how polarized the media has become, with each channel and platform pushing its own interpretation and agenda, resulting in a final outcome of total confusion. The next section of this article tries to ascertain to what extent is media to be blamed for divided nation.

The Albanian Nation Divided

To have good understanding of present realities about the Albanian nation it is important to first examine certain empirical evidence regarding contributing factors that have adversely affected Albanians for centuries.

A crucial question that arises is as follows: Why is the Albanian nation fragmented like never before in recent history? To answer this, let us step back in history to where and when the problems started. Following the dwindling of the Ottoman Empire, Albanians living in their ancestral land came together to liberate themselves from the Ottomans and create their own country, something they had dreamed of for 500 years. However, their dream did not materialize because the European Powers charged with the responsibility of dealing with the lands occupied by the Ottomans – namely Great Britain, France, Austro-Hungary, Italy, Germany, and Russia – met in Berlin in July 1878 at what became known as the Congress of Berlin. The main purpose of this meeting was twofold: to recognize the Balkan states (except Albania, which was still under occupation) after Russia won a decisive war against the Ottomans, and to replace the Treaty of San Stefano that had been signed 3 months earlier.

Following the end of the First Balkan War in December 1912, the six Great Powers organized an international summit in London, which became known as the London Peace Conference of 1912–1913. Its main purpose was to assess the success of the Balkan League (Serbia, Bulgaria, later joined by Greece and Montenegro) armies against Ottoman Empire, and particularly to arbitrate the warring powers regarding territorial acquisitions. The summit also aimed to determine the future of Albania, which had declared its independence in November 1912. Pressured by Russia, which wanted to enrich the Balkan Slavs, the European Powers arbitrarily decided to give away more than half of the Albanian lands to Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, and Montenegro. This decision created tremendous hardship for Albanians left outside the country, resulting in violence, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and arranged emigration to Turkey and elsewhere. The timeframe between then and the Second World War was turbulent, as Albanians continued to resist this injustice or attempted to cope with the new reality.

The Second World War resulted in Albania becoming a communist country. Except for a brief period during and after the war, Albania was at conflict with Yugoslavia, which caused a separation of Albanian kin between the two countries as well as total isolation. Notwithstanding, the Albanian nation did not fall apart. Albanians living in Yugoslavia managed to retain their national identity and language and the hope that someday they could be together again, living as one nation under God. That window of opportunity came with the disintegration of Yugoslavia, but Serbia – as it always had done in the past – create more chaos in the Balkans. That is, Milošević decided to remove the autonomy of Kosovo and absorb it completely as part of Serbia. What transpired next is history, which I touched on earlier when I discussed former US President Clinton. At the time of the crisis, when Albanians in Kosovo were being massacred, Albanians everywhere came together again to support their kin in every aspect, opening their homes and hearts to Kosovar refugees. However, the real problems started after Kosovo gained its independence and started to build its own state institutions.

Henry Ford once said the following: “Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.” Albanians have repeatedly proven that, during crises, they come together and support each other, but staying together has historically been a problem. As for working together, they have – as yet – not reached that stage. In next section let’s examined some factors that hampered or even prevented Albanians from staying together and working together.

Internal and External Factors That Have Fractured the Albanian Nation

The factors that caused this social phenomenon can be traced back to both external and internal culprits. The objective of this section is to firstly highlight Serbia’s provocative role in Balkan and especially against Albanians, which goes back to Car Dušan[vi] and his expansionist regime. However, lets start with what happen after disintegration of former Yugoslavia.

It is now a known fact – one even discussed at the Serbian Parliament – that Serbia invested hundreds of millions of dollars into creating animosities between Albanians in Kosovo and those in Albania following Kosovo’s independence. This was not the first time that Serbia had devised plans to eliminate Albanians from the Balkans – using forced exile, assimilation, violence, and even genocide – and gone unpunished. In Serbia, the idea of territorial expansion was formulated way back in 1844 in Nacertanije (“Draft”), a secret political draft of the Principality of Serbia prepared by Ilija Garašanin. Garašanin was a Serbian nationalist with an irredentist ideology of creating a Serb State by consolidating all Serb-populated regions and assimilating or eliminating minorities, a plan that also included Kosovo and northern Albania. Serbia’s inspiration came from the medieval Serbian Empire, which existed briefly in Southeast Europe (1346–1371) prior to the Ottoman invasion. Serbia under Slobodan Milošević had the same aspirations, as does today’s apprentice Alexander. It is worth mentioning another Serb scholar, political figure, and member of the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, namely Vasa Čubrilović (1897–1990), and his famous memorandum “The Expulsion of the Albanians” written in 1937. As a student in 1914, Čubrilović participated in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo, which triggered the First World War.

Throughout history, Serbia has been directly and indirectly assisted by Russia in designing and implementing its ill-intended plans to achieve its malicious objectives. Notwithstanding, Serbian measures taken against the Albanian population in Kosovo and elsewhere over the past 100 years have not produced the desired results of ethnically cleansing Kosovo. Having realized this, Serbia is now using another alternative, which was suggested by Aristotle to Alexander the Great. It is said that Alexander the Great once wrote a letter to Aristotle asking for his opinion on an important matter. He asked the following:

What shall I do to keep the people of the lands I have conquered in subjugation

– exile the countries leader?

imprison the country’s leader?

or execute the country’s leader?

Aristotle answered as follows:

If you exile them, they will join in exile and rise up.

If you imprison them, even prisons will turn into shelters for insurgents and the situation will get out of control.

If you execute them, their descendants will grow up with the spirit of revenge and shake the throne.

Then, as a solution, Aristotle offered the following suggestion: “You will sow the seed of discord among them and, when they fight against each other, you will make them choose you as judge. Thus, you will block all their ways out.”

This is precisely the course that Serbia has taken over the years against the Albanian population in Kosovo and Serbia: ethnic cleansing, forced exile, mass imprisonment, and execution to prepare for a genocide. However, thanks to the US and NATO, this genocide was prevented. Having failed thus far to subjugate the spirit of the Albanian people in Kosovo and elsewhere, Serbia now seems to be following Aristotle’s advice and has already planted the seeds of discord among Albanians. The goal appears to be to make them fight each other and make some of them choose Serbia as their preferred partner in the Balkans.

If asked whether Serbia has succeeded in achieving its objectives, the answer is partially yes. First, some media pundits in Kosovo and Albania have become so ambiguous in their views that it is difficult to determine who they work for. Rumors are that they are paid by Serbia to question and smear Kosovar Albanians’ quest for their unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – words forever enshrined in the founding document of the United States, namely the Declaration of Independence. Why someone would see, the right hand of Milošević and now the President of Serbia, as a man of peace is enough to make anyone wonder. Serbian influence has penetrated the highest levels of Albanian politics, as the Prime Minister of Albania, Edi Rama, considers Aleksander Vučić his closest confidant and partner in resolving geopolitical issues in the Balkans, and also in building better relations with Western nations as a pathway to becoming EU members.

Together, Rama and Vučić devised several foolish proposals, contrary to the wishes of Kosovars and most Albanians; however, luckily none of them have materialized. For example, they proposed the ill-conceived and now failed “Open Balkan” initiative, despite strong objections by the Prime Minister of Kosovo and the fact that such an initiative, in a larger context, was already in the works, initiated by Germany and supported by the EU, known as the “Berlin Process.” The Berlin Process was established in 2014 as a platform for all Western Balkan states (Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia) to accelerate their closer alignment with the EU and deepen regional integration and cooperation, ultimately leading to economic growth, peace, and stability in the Balkans. The Open Balkan initiative, on the other hand, belonged to three states (Serbia, Albania, and North Macedonia) that have similar aspirations but in a smaller context. It would have put Serbia in the dominant position because of the country’s economic and political strength. Realizing that Serbia cannot go back in time when, as part of Yugoslavia, it dominated the region, – with the help of his good friend Rama – created a replacement with the Open Balkan initiative. The three other Balkan states refused to join, although Montenegro’s Prime Minister approved it as a concept.

Not too long ago, it would have been unimaginable that the Prime Ministers of Albania and Kosovo would one day not see eye to eye, and that the two would even become adversaries rather than friends. Most Albanians expected that following Kosovo’s independence, the leadership of Albania would advocate for Kosovo’s rights in all aspects, leading to the full recognition of Kosovo’s independence and to Kosovo becoming a Member State of the UN. Albania’s constitution obligates the state to protect the rights of its kin living outside of its borders. Being fully aware of the atrocities that Serbia inflicted upon Albanians in Kosovo, Albania was duty-bound to help Kosovo bring action against Serbia at the International Criminal Court (ICC).[vii]

Moreover, to help Kosovo embark on a path toward a more just, equitable, and peaceful future as well as to take collective action to address the legacies of massive human rights violations and restore civic trust in international and state institutions, a case against Serbia should have been brought to the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). Such a case would have sought to provide truth, accountability, and redress for the severe human rights violations and ensure that a reparations program was designed and implemented for the victims. To have peace in the Balkans, the aggressor – in this case Serbia – must remain committed to sustainable peace, and that commitment must be guaranteed. Thus far, the EU and the US have been unable to make Serbia commit to an enduring peace, which clearly indicates that Serbia is not about to do so of its own free will unless forced.

I am certain that the Albanian government has cooperated with Kosovo and helped in certain ways, but to what extent I cannot attest as I am not privy to such information. One thing I can say for sure is that Albania’s help in this context was much less than what was expected. Another reason why most Albanians are disappointed with their elected officials is that the unification of Kosovo and Albania has not yet been realized, nor are there any plans in place for such an event. The reality is that 15 years later, the two appear more distant now than at the very start. The good news is that people do not feel the same way, with their sense of national unity still appearing to be quite strong; however, they are frustrated with their political establishment, especially in Albania, which seems to have patronized the system and turned democracy into despotism. Albanians are also frustrated with the EU for being soft on Serbia and harsh on Kosovo, which has led to the inability to bring about a peace treaty between the two.

What Is Wrong With the Albanian Leadership?

The purpose of this section is to analyze what’s wrong with Albanian leadership, why is behaving that way and what can be done to change.

To find reasonable explanations for why the Albanian leadership behaves in the way that it does and why Albanians are where they find themselves today – disenchanted with their government, disenfranchised, and not speaking with one voice when it comes to the national interest – we must examine the root cause. In my opinion, the failure to manage the transformation of former communist governments into democratic systems in Albania and other Balkan countries has allowed corruption and illicit business to take root and for the political elite to remain in power; thus, free elections have been significantly undermined. Rather, the same political elite who were in power 30 years ago remain in power today, regardless of which political party they belong to. This has significantly eroded voter confidence in the system and, to some extent, in Western democracy.

Following the collapse of the communist system in Eastern Europe, the US and the EU decided not to establish another Marshal Plan [viii] to transform those countries into democracies, as they did after the WWII to rebuild Western Europe. Rather, this task of transformation was left to the respective countries themselves, while managing the process was left mostly to the EU. In my opinion, this was a colossal mistake; a country like Albania, after 50 years under the communist system, did not have the technical expertise nor the mindset to build a democratic system. The people did not even know the true meaning of democracy. Some saw democracy as a free-for-all system and the freedom to get rich quick; however, this quickly became an opportunity only for the political elite (mostly with former communist ties), most of whom became millionaires overnight, and a small group of privileged businessmen who became oligarchs. The existing economy and industry, which granted were weak and insufficient, were completely destroyed and factories were sold for scrap. Elected officials saw themselves not as trustees responsible for building the country but more like despots whose main purpose was to hold on to power. Moreover, the building of state institutions and implementation of the rule of law – the main pillars of any democracy – were purposely left behind.

In this atmosphere and with this mentality, competitive elections were undermined, citizens lost their rights and hope, and the government became less accountable. The consequences have been predictable – namely corruption and economic inefficiency, growing social and economic inequalities, mass migration, and the country drifting toward a dictatorship. Notwithstanding all the negatives, Albanian people have made tremendous progress in improving their standard of living, helped in part by remittances from migrants living abroad and the development of the tourist industry and related services. Yes, the government has built roads and infrastructure, which – together with other private developments – have transformed Albania from a backward country into a modern, developing country. Albanians are capable and resourceful people, but they require a selfless leadership that can orchestrate national unity, restore the people’s self-confidence and dignity, and set a clear vision for the future. However, in terms of building a true democratic system, Albania has stagnated, if not already gone rogue.

The Socialist Party, headed by Prime Minister Rama, has managed to stay in power for the past three terms and, in the process, destroyed its opposition, namely the Democratic Party, to such an extent that it will take some time to rehabilitate itself or be replaced by a new party. Rama is an imposing figure – intelligent, self-confident, and capable of conducting both domestic and international politics, yet his actions are often irrational and do not serve the country. Most Albanians see him as a self-serving individualist who only cares about himself and his image abroad. I believe this to be the root cause of why Rama does not get along with Albin Kurti, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, who stands opposed to him on some ideas, especially regarding negotiations with Serbia.

Kosovo, for the first time since its independence, has a prime minister who is educated smart, and selfless and who is attempting to eradicate corruption and illicit business in the country, which his predecessors and former UCK leaders created while in power. Kurti is also attempting to fix past mistakes, both in building a true democratic system in Kosovo and in negotiating a peace plan with Serbia toward mutual recognition and economic cooperation. Rama, instead of working with Kurti to achieve these objectives, has decided to treat him not as kin but rather as the stepfather of an orphan teenage child, such that he alone can decide what is best for him. His close relationship with Alexander and his intermingling in negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia under the efforts of two EU envoys, namely EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and Czech Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajčák, are not helping the process; rather, they have become obstacles to Kurti’s efforts. In the next section, I will try to provide some historical perspective because Serbia and Kosovo are at odds.

Why Serbia and Kosovo Are at Odds

Serbia and Kosovo have been at odds for centuries. Serbia falsely considers the region the heart of its statehood and religion, highlighting  number of medieval Orthodox Christian monasteries that are in Kosovo. Serbs settled on the Balkan Peninsula during the 6th and 7th centuries and adopted Christianity, the faith of the local population, in the 9th century. In 1166, Stefan Nemanja, an Illyrian war lord, founded the first Serbian state, then known as Raska, a historical region in today’s Serbia. Nemanja was born near the Illyrian town of Dukla, which later became known as Zeta, near today’s Podgorica in Montenegro. The local population in Kosovo and most of Serbia up to the Danube was Illyrian, namely Dardanians, by which the region was also known. At that time, the region was part of the Byzantine Empire, established by the Illyrian-born Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, who split the Roman Empire into its western and eastern halves. Constantine was born in Dardania (Kosovo) in the Illyrian city of Naissus (Nis in today’s Serbia). Under the Byzantine Empire, Kosovo’s population comprised mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians, and most of the Christian Monasteries that Serbians claim as theirs were built by Albanian Christians. Serb nationalists also view the 1389 battle against Ottoman Turks as a symbol of their national struggle, which is another historical fallacy. In fact, it is more fitting to call it a symbol of the Balkan people’s resistance against Ottoman occupation and to state that the battle itself was a combined effort of a number of principalities of different nations. These included some leading Albanians, such as Gjergj Balsha, Theodor Muzaka, Gjon Kastrioti, Dhimiter Jonima, and Andrej Gropa.

Serbs even claim that Millosh Nikolla Kopili, who managed to kill Sultan Murad I, was the Serbian Miloš Obilić. Thus, there is no stopping what they claim to be theirs because, in fact, they have remarkably little to show in terms of a historical past. Therefore, the following question could be posed: What happened to those Albanian Christians who lived in Kosovo at that time? Their descendants are the people who live in Kosovo and Serbia today. Most of those who lived in Kosovo were forced to accept Islam as their religion as a means of survival; the others who remained Orthodox Christians under the Serbian Church’s rules had to assimilate as Serbs because they were not allowed to speak Albanian. A good number of Serbs in Serbia have Albanian origins, as identified by their last names, though most would not admit to it and would speak against Albanians. Take, for example, Novak Đoković, a famous Serbian professional tennis player whose father was born in Kosovo, and Ivica Dačić, the Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was also born in Kosovo. Both of them bear Albanian last names (Gjokaj and Daci, respectively), yet they are both adamant Serbian nationalists who openly hate Albanians. By contrast, the Catholic Church was considerably more liberal and did not prevent Albanian parishioners from speaking Albanian, and they remain Albanian even today, living in Northern Albania, Montenegro, and Kosovo, although minorities there. Following the Ottomans’ defeat, Serbia, with the help of Russia and the Western European powers, gained control of Kosovo, which became part of the Yugoslav Federation. Thus, Kosovo’s majority ethnic Albanians view Kosovo as their country and accuse Serbia of occupation and repression. Following the disintegration of Yugoslavia and after a prolonged period of Serbian oppression of the worst kind, which necessitated the US and NATO to act, Kosovo declared its independence in 2008, once and for all removing itself from Belgrade’s suzerainty. However, Belgrade continues to refuse to recognize Kosovo’s declaration of independence, despite insistence to do so by U.S and EU. In the next section we will examine both successes and failures of EU and US in mediating peace process between the two countries.

Successes and Failures of EU Mediation

The purpose of this section is to highlight successes and failures of Western geopolitical policy and approach in resolving the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo and in securing peace in Balkan. Let’s start by examining the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo that has been going on for over a decade without substantial results.

The dialogues between Belgrade and Pristina, facilitated by the EU, started in 2011. While the parties achieved some initial success, such as the Brussels Agreement of 2013, the talks later came to a standstill. In March 2020, the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell appointed Slovak diplomat Miroslav Lajčák as special mediator for Kosovo in an attempt to provide fresh impetus. Lajcak’s appointment was viewed by many as a terrible mistake because they believed him to carry some serious political baggage. Austrian MEP Thomas Waits has expressed serious concerns about Lajčák’s ability to be impartial in negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo, based on his political history as Slovakia’s ambassador to Serbia and foreign minister during the Kosovo declaration. Notably, Lajčák maintains good relations with Serbia and his participation in the talks has been welcomed by Serbia, but Kosovo is treating him with reserve.

Furthermore, it is rather peculiar that the EU would appoint these two to mediate the negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo, since they come from countries that have not recognized Kosovo – namely Spain and Slovakia, respectively. Moreover, both are known to hold personal views favoring Serbia. Even the US envoy Gabriel Escobar, the Deputy Assistant Secretary overseeing policy toward the countries in the Western Balkans, has previously served as Deputy Chief Mission at the US Embassy in Belgrade as well as in some other posts in other states of former Yugoslavia. Because of their background, they may be viewed as experts in Balkan affairs, while in terms of being involved in negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia, their background does not serve the intended purpose; rather, it raises sufficient concerns about possible conflicts of interest.

The EU and US dos does not need experts in Balkan affairs to negotiate a fair and lasting agreement between Kosovo and Serbia; perhaps someone with no previous dealings in the Balkans would have been a more suitable negotiator, basing their judgment on facts without being clouded by personal feelings. There are several scholars with expertise in conflict resolution who could draw on their previous experience to draft a fair and balanced proposal. One such person, whom I have the privilege of knowing, is Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham, England. Wolff is a political scientist by background, specializing in the management of contemporary security challenges, especially in the prevention and settlement of ethnic conflicts and civil wars as well as postconflict resolution and reconstruction in deeply divided societies. He is the author of 24 books and over 100 journal articles and book chapters. To conclude this section, I wish to evoke Woodrow Wilson’s famous saying that only a peace between equals can last:

[the] equality of nations upon which peace must be founded, if it is to last, must be an equality of rights; the guarantees exchanged must neither recognize nor imply a difference between big nations and small, between those that are powerful and those that are weak. Right must be based upon the common strength, not upon the individual strength, of the nations upon whose concert peace will depend on […].

But, have EU and US envoys negotiated a peace between equals, as Woodrow Wilson suggested, or they have not – let’s examine the evidence in the next section?

Recent Developments

The purpose of this section is to examine recent flareups in Northern Kosovo that undermined not only Kosovo government but also Kosovo Force (KFOR)[ix] and EU and US brokered deals. Let’s see how this incident was handled by all the stakeholders and try to reach some logical conclusions.

Following border tensions in July 2022 and a Franco-German initiative in February 2023, the EU brokered the EU Proposal titled “Agreement on the path to normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia.” While the two sides only gave their implicit consent but not their signatures, the agreement provided positive momentum for negotiations as well as a blueprint for normalizing relationships between the two countries. As a follow-up, in March 2023 in Ohrid, North Macedonia, the implementation annex to the agreement was agreed on by Kosovo and Serbia. Despite these positive results, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has continually changed his stand on what he agreed to during the negotiations and what he told his citizens at home. Upon returning to Belgrade, Vučić told reporters that it was not the final deal: “We have agreed on some points, not on all points.” For Kosovo, an agreement means the recognition of its statehood by Serbia, whereas Serbia seems to attach more economic importance to such an agreement. As for a political solution, continually cites the Serbian constitution, which was amended during the Milošević regime and considers Kosovo an integral part of Serbia.

Thus, Serbia continues to ignore the fact that according to an EU Commission Report on Kosovo, the Parliament has passed a resolution that states:“the independence of Kosovo is irreversible,” underlining that “progress in normalizing relations with Serbia based on mutual recognition is a necessary precondition for both countries to advance on their European path.” Notwithstanding, Serbia has skillfully undermined the EU envoy’s efforts to negotiate a fair and lasting agreement, undoubtably under close advice from his strong ally Vladimir Putin of Russia. To keep the conflict going and impede the process of Kosovo’s international recognition and integration, Vučić continues to insist on the political association of Kosovo municipalities with a Serb majority, otherwise known as the “Serb Association,” as the first step in adhering to the April 2013 agreement signed by Kosovo and Serbia under EU auspices. In fact, the Serbian Parliament has never ratified the agreement, and Serbia has continued to abstract Kosovo’s international recognition, which is in violation of the terms of the agreement. Whereas Kosovo’s parliament signed the agreement within weeks, however, the Constitutional Court in Kosovo found the specific provisions of the agreement concerning the Serb Association to be unconstitutional in many respects.

Such a mono-ethnic organization with executive powers fundamentally violates the spirit of the constitution, which recognizes Kosovo society as multi-ethnic. This was a mandate under the 2007 Ahtisaari Plan, to which Kosovo had agreed, and which stipulated that Kosovo’s constitution must state that it is a “multi-ethnic state.” However, this is hardly the case because, according to the office of the German Defense Ministry, Albanians account for almost 95% of the population in Kosovo, while Serbs account for less than 4.5%. Needless to say, the agreement has not been implemented and Prime Minister Kurti has asked to amend it so that it passes Kosovo’s constitutional muster and prevents the creation of another “Republica Srpska” in Kosovo. This refers to a political entity within the country of Bosnia and Hercegovina, a huge blunder by the international community that will have lasting effects on peace and stability in the Balkans.

Under the Ahtisaari Plan, the Serb minority in Kosovo has achieved greater rights than any other country in Europe offers to its minorities, and certainly many more than Serbia is offering in its three Albanian-majority municipalities. Kosovo has two official languages, Albanian and Serbian, which are reflected at the national and municipal levels as well as in other aspects of life. The parliament of Kosovo has 120 seats, of which 10 seats (approx. 8%) are guaranteed to Serbs regardless of election outcomes. Another 10 seats go to the other six ethnic groups. Moreover, every Kosovo government must have at least one minister from the Serb minority and one from the other ethnic groups. If there are more than 12 ministries, minorities have the right to a third ministerial post. According to the constitution, a total of only seven members of parliament from minorities is sufficient to block amendments to the constitution. Thus, there is not another country in Europe with such significant minority rights; however, because of Serbia’s manipulation and threats, the willingness of the Serb minority to integrate into Kosovo society is nonexistent or is silenced. Serbian minority political parties are strictly controlled from Belgrade, and anyone who pursues a different, more integration-oriented policy has come under severe pressure. Some have been prosecuted, and at least one, Oliver Ivanovic, was murdered in 2018. Thus, Belgrade has maintained an influential position both in the Kosovo parliament and in every Kosovo government, steering Kosovo politics in its favor. Kosovar leadership, even before the Kurti administration, attempted to negotiate with Serbia in good faith, sometimes even making unwise concessions, but even that was not enough for Serbia and its leader, who is not interested in reaching an agreement with Kosovo at this time.

When Prime Minister Kurti entered the political scene, the rapport between the two countries deteriorated even further because he is smart, eloquent, and not easily intimidated. He claims to have been elected by his people as well as to be there to protect the sovereignty of Kosovo and to not let anyone take unfair advantage of the situation, which even the EU envoys are attempting to do just that to reach an agreement. This was clearly observed in their reactions to the recent violence that erupted after Kosovo authorities installed ethnic Albanian mayors in municipal offices where Serbs, who formed a majority following a legitimate election, saw a low turnout because of a boycott. Specifically, according to Kurti, Vučić had called on Serbs in the region to boycott the elections. In this regard, he stated the following:

The turnout was quite low because of the pressure, blackmail, and threats from Belgrade to all Serbian citizens – and in particular those who were planning to run. […]. All international bodies did recognize the elections that we had. Once you recognize the process of elections and their results, then mayors have to go to the municipalities. Who else should be in these municipal buildings if not the mayors?

Kurti was attempting to implement some law and order in this part of the country, which has not even paid its electricity bills for the past 3 years and is run by thugs and militia men directed by. When the Kosovo government attempted to install the newly elected mayors, clashes with Kosovo police and then the NATO-led KFOR peacekeeping force were the result, leaving more than two dozen police and soldiers seriously hurt. EU envoys and some Western European countries have not reacted to this incident – for which Serbia and its president are clearly to blame – as one would expect. They have instead placed the blame where it does not belong – that is, on Kurti – and threatened to take action if he does not withdraw. Similarly, both Borrell and Lajčák have put most of the blame on Kurti, calling on him to take actions to de-escalate the situation, suspend police operations in the vicinity of the municipal buildings in question, and hold new elections. Kurti agreed to new elections, but he was not prepared to surrender the country to what he described as a Serbian “fascist militia.”

Even the US issued a strong statement condemning Kosovo’s decision to force access to municipal buildings and called on Kosovo’s authorities to immediately step back, de-escalate, and closely coordinate with EULEX and KFOR. The most comforting statement for Kosovo came from former NATO secretary Anders Rasmussen, who said that after 12 years of ensuring stability, there is no turning back – KFOR troops must act in self-defense if necessary and maintain a safe and secure environment, by which he was referring to NATO’s peacekeeping force in Kosovo. In response to an EU request, Kurti has presented a five-point plan, but the EU nevertheless stated that the “Kosovar Prime Minister has not taken the necessary steps to reduce tensions in the north” and that it will proceed with EU sanctions. The US has also canceled Kosovo’s participation in the “Defender Europe ‘23” military exercises as a first punitive measure due to its failure to meet the demands of the international community.

This is the world we live in. Instead of sanctions and punitive measures being directed against the true culprit in Balkan problems, namely Serbia and its leadership, the EU and the US are going after Kosovo, which has not done anything wrong to be condemned and feels alienated even by those few friends. Some Kosovar leaders who fought for the safety of their people and the liberation of their country are in jail in The Hague, while Serbians who participated in aggression against Kosovo, such as Prime Minister Vučić and his Minister of Foreign Affairs  Dačić and many others who had Slobodan Milošević as their mentor and were part of his regime, are treated with respect rather than being tried for war crimes. Yet, it is not only the majority of Albanians who are frustrated with the double standards of the EU and the US toward Serbia; many influential individuals from Western countries have called upon the EU and the US to force Belgrade to make a clear choice between the West and Russia. Serbia has not implemented sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine and the Serbian–Russian connection is stronger than ever, while the West continues to look the other way.

According to the Center for Research, Transparency, and Accountability, a human rights organization, 72% of Serbs believe that NATO is to blame for the war in Ukraine because of its intention to enlarge and that Russia had to act to safeguard its country. All this time, Serbia has managed to sit in two chairs or, as Albanians say, to eat with two spoons. When it comes to conducting foreign policy, Serbia has proven to be quite clever. Mindful that it depends on the EU economically and politically, it stays close to both Germany and France. This closeness has helped Serbia to be a front-runner among the other states in the Western Balkan aiming to join the EU, despite the fact that, according to a 2022 survey conducted by research organization New Third Way, 66% of Serbs feel closer to Moscow than to the West, and 44% would not even want to join the EU.

Because of the internal political situation, Prime Minister Vučić is not interested in signing any peace agreement with Kosovo or joining the EU at this time; for him, maintaining the status quo is the best approach for remaining in power. To do this, he is using the political parties in Kosovo to push his agenda as well as occasionally using thugs and criminal elements to create conflict in the Serb majority area north of Mitrovica. Obviously, Russia, with a permanent seat on the Security Council, is helping Serbia in its endeavor to alienate Kosovo as much as possible by preventing the latter from gaining wider acceptance by the international community and attempting to convince those who have recognized its independence to reverse course. Moreover, to strengthen its strategic position in negotiating with the West, Serbia has also cultivated close relations with China, Turkey, and Hungary. Its alliance with Russia, especially the military one, has raised concerns among neighboring countries in the Western Balkans. In recent years, Serbia has procured some of the most sophisticated armaments from Russia, China, and Turkey and has increased its military budget. Therefore, it is normal that Albanians in Kosovo are fearful when daily newspapers in Belgrade write that Serbia will regain Kosovo once the US leaves, as they did in Afghanistan.

One thing is for sure: Russian and Serbian regional influence is real and has penetrated deep into media and politics in the Western Balkan states, something the EU and the US are quite aware of. Perhaps this is why the US pulled US diplomat Christopher Hill out of retirement and nominated him as its next ambassador to Serbia. Hill is well-versed in regional issues. He served as a deputy to Richard Holbrooke, the US’s chief negotiator, in the peace talks in Dayton that ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. While he is well respected by Albanians in Kosovo because of the role he played during the war, they are surprised by the change in his rhetoric toward Serbia now that he is the ambassador. To the delight of Serbs, Hill frequently criticizes Kurti and his government for their failure to stand by the 2013 Brussels Agreement without mentioning Serbia’s refusal to accept its core provisions. However, in politics, one must be careful when a former adversary pats you on the back, as he may be working on your demise.

Furthermore, the US and the EU may have had enough of Serbia’s shenanigans and are ready to change course in dealing with Serbia. The recent sanctions imposed by the US against Aleksandr Vulin, the head of the Serbian Secret Service and former Minister of Defense and Internal Affairs (known to be pro-Russian and tied to criminal activities) are a good signal that perhaps the US has finally started moving in that direction. Thus, I would not be surprised if Vučić and his cronies are gone before Hill’s term expires. As for why the US and the West are punishing Kosovo and unjustifiably applying pressure on Kurti and his regime rather than on the true culprit Serbia, there is a saying among Albanians that when you cannot or do not want to hit the horse, you hit the saddle so the horse can hear. I am certain that the West would also want to discover – if they have not already done so – Albanians who have been recruited by Serbia to hamper Kosovo’s efforts to acquire international recognition and build a free and democratic country under their watchful eyes.

Notwithstanding, it is obvious that sanctions will hurt Kosovo politically, both domestically and internationally. However, Kurti believes that the US, which created Kosovo, will not back down in supporting Kosovo’s efforts to build a democratic state, and also that eventually the rule of law will be applied equally to Kosovo and Serbia. By standing tall and in defiance of the EU position, Kurti has entered uncharted waters and put his political career on the line. If he succeeds, he will be viewed as a hero by most Albanians in Kosovo and elsewhere, but if he fails, his political career may be in jeopardy. When he installed four duly elected mayors of Albanian nationality in four northern municipalities with a Serb majority, Kurti made a political blunder by not informing his allies and other stakeholders. The situation gave his political adversaries at home an opportunity to call for his replacement. There are also those who believe that Albanians cannot stand up for their rights but must agree with EU and US decisions, even when they are clearly unfair and not in their national interest. Essentially, Albanians must remain subservient to those who hold power over them.

Nevertheless, there are many who believe that Kurti is doing what any responsible leader is supposed to do for the state to function as a state. Suzan Woodward, Professor of Political Science at CUNY, put the blame on the transatlantic partnership for having failed to produce a workable solution to prevent violence and continued conflicts in Kosovo. She stated that it was the “Standards before the Status” policy that caused the impasse. Furthermore, Janusz Bugajski, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated that the biggest hurdle in implementing policy is the government’s lack of authority and credibility, which are diminished by the fact that UNMIK controls everything; hence, a long-term EU–US policy is hardly practical. Establishing Kosovo’s true statehood, guaranteed and protected by the international community, is the only solution. Then, there are others, such as renowned journalist and expert on Balkan affairs Tim Judah, who highlighted how fast things have changed in Kosovo, which has further eroded perceptions about the role of international leadership in this process. According to Judah, finding a viable solution depends on the reorganization of Kosovo’s internal boundaries and its ability to establish effective local governance. Essentially, what he suggested is to return to the land swap proposal, which currently remains at an impasse. Albanians are angered by this suggestion and the mindset that Kosovo was snatched away from Serbia, when in fact Kosovo is now liberating itself from being snatched by Serbia with the blessing of the West. Following the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the Western Powers, in their negotiations with Russia, ended up ceding Kosovo to Serbia, Chamria to Greece, and huge chunks of land to Macedonia and Montenegro. International negotiators must be mindful of these facts and change their mindset that considers Serbia to be losing territory, which in fact was never theirs.

After a careful examination of the current prospects for peace, I believe that a land exchange strategy may be a vital solution to the current impasse. Kosovo should seriously consider surrendering the Serbian majority region north of Mitrovica in exchange for Presheva (Preševo) Valley, under EU and US mandate and guarantee, to bring peace and stability once and for all and pave the way for Kosovo’s unification with its motherland Albania. However, under no circumstances should Kosovo give up Trepça (Trepča) Mines or Ujemani (Gazivoda) Lake, which is a critical water resource. This may sound contradictory to reaction of what Rama and Previous Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi were trying to negotiate with Aleksander Vučić of Serbia, but because secrecy under which they were conducting talks, Albanians were afraid that they will make some more unwise concession to Serbia, which would have lasting consequences.

Prime Minister Rama’s Interference – Friend or Foe of Kosovo?

The main purpose of this section is to examine Rama’s attitude towards Kosovo and determine whether he is a friend or a foe of Kosovo.

Today, the Kosovo government regrettably must deal with both external and internal adversaries who put their political careers and self-interest before the nation. For example, instead of defending Kosovo’s position, the Prime Minister of Albania Edi Rama continually throws fuel on the fire. The latest was a previously scheduled joint meeting of the governments of Albania and Kosovo was abruptly canceled by Tirana. The official reason given by Rama’s government was that the meeting could not be held given the backdrop of current relations between Kosovo and its European and US partners. Moreover, without first consulting with the Kosovo government, Rama developed his own proposal for the association and sent a confidential draft to French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Daniel Server, an expert in US relations, criticized Rama’s proposal as not only unjust but also something that undermined the credibility of Kosovo’s Prime Minister and created unnecessary complications.

Obviously, Kurti saw such a move as interference by Rama in Kosovo’s affairs and outright rejected his draft, stating that he had presented his own version based on the example of Croatia, where there is a National Council for the Serbian community. Rama’s move caused anger in Kosovo and among most Albanians, who saw it as a slap in the face from someone they least expected it from. Despite their public declarations, personal relations between the two leaders have been rocky for quite some time, mostly because of Rama’s close relations with as well as his perceived devious ideas concerning Kosovo; yet, this marks a new low, and Kurti refused to meet Rama during his recent visits to Prishtina.

Furthermore, because of his previous involvement in negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia, Rama has lost his credibility in Kosovo. During the administration of former US President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Rama, President Vučić and former Kosovo Prime Minister Thaçi were working in secrecy behind closed doors on a plan to exchange territories between Serbia and Kosovo. Apparently, Vučić was ready to exchange the Presheva ​​Valley with the areas in northern Kosovo, but no details were made available – and the devil is always in the details. The EU and the US also opted for a short-term quick gain by supporting the land swap along ethnic lines after failing to achieve a noticeable success in Serbia–Kosovo negotiations. Rama and Thaçi were motivated to reach an agreement so that they could remain in office, whereas the EU politicians and American diplomats involved did not care much about the consequences, which they would not have to live with. Several lobbying firms from the US and EU were hired to push this deal, including Alexander Soros; however, who hired them or paid for their services remains a mystery. Moreover, concerns were growing over such a plan to partition Kosovo, with critics saying that it would open a “Pandora’s box” in the Balkans. The majority of Albanians are against land swaps because it makes no sense to give up Albanian lands to gain some other Albanian lands. Thanks to the steadfast opposition of former German chancellor Angela Merkel, this deal never materialized. Let’s get back to EU and US peace talks and is there a new impetus needed to get the process out of rut and back on tracts.

The EU and the US Must Develop a New Approach

Having examined both successes and failures of EU and US negotiators so far, it is fair to say that while they were able to keep the situation at stand still, they have basically failed to reach the ultimate goal of bringing lasting peace in Balkan. The purpose of this section is to see if a new approach and fresh ideas are needed.

Evidently, the efforts of the EU and the US to negotiate a peace deal between Kosovo and Serbia have failed. Today, the potential for a fair and sustainable deal is much more complicated than it was after Serbia and NATO signed an agreement to stop the armed conflict and pave the way for Kosovo to declare independence in 2008. The primary aim has been to normalize relations between the two countries, which have had a long history of tensions and conflicts. This is akin to trying to make a sick patient feel better but not addressing the root cause of his problem. Several deeply rooted factors have made it challenging to strike a comprehensive deal between Kosovo and Serbia, which are elaborated as follows:

Historical Context: The conflict between Kosovo and Serbia is deeply rooted in historical, ethnic, and territorial disputes that must be dealt with fairly and squarely. Serbian false pretenses and government propaganda regarding these issues have fueled nationalist sentiments and complicated efforts to find a mutually acceptable resolution.

Status of Kosovo: Serbia does not recognize Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008, considering Kosovo a secessionist province. However, Kosovo has sought international recognition as an independent state and has gained it from a significant number of countries, including the US and a majority of EU Member States. Bridging this gap in perspectives on Kosovo’s status is a major obstacle in negotiations, and the EU and US must do more in this regard, especially with respect to EU members that still have not recognize its independence.

Territorial Disputes: Kosovo and Serbia have disagreements over the delineation of borders and control over certain regions, particularly in the north of Kosovo, where a significant Serb minority resides. Simultaneously, three predominantly Albanian-populated regions (Presheva, Bujanovc, and Medvegje) are in Serbia. Finding a solution that addresses these territorial disputes while respecting the rights and aspirations of both parties is a complex and risky task that cannot be ignored.

Political Challenges: Both Kosovo and Serbia have faced internal political challenges that have at times hindered the negotiation process. Domestic political considerations, public opinion, and differing priorities among political leaders have sometimes made reaching a consensus on key issues difficult.

Interests of External Actors: Various external actors, including Russia, have their own interests in the Balkans and have at times exerted influence on the negotiations. This external involvement has added another layer of complexity to the process.

Noteworthily, some agreements have been reached between Kosovo and Serbia, such as the 2013 Brussels Agreement, which was aimed at normalizing relations; however, progress toward a comprehensive deal has been slow and elusive. The EU and the US continue to play a role in facilitating dialogue between the two sides, but the complexities and entrenched positions on key issues make reaching a final agreement challenging. The EU’s own internal problems and disagreements between its members have added another layer of difficulty. Regarding this, British historian Garton Ash stated the following:

For the EU to stand against challenges, it must be able to decide fast and firmly. and the EU itself must take on some of the characteristics of empires. It must have a sufficient degree of unity, central authority, and the possibility of effective decision-making to protect the common interests and values of Europeans. If every member state continues to have the right of veto over vital decisions, the Union will be hampered internally and externally.

By punishing Kosovo with the sole purpose of pulling Serbia aboard the Western ship amidst the waters of the Euro-Atlantic powers, EU diplomats today claim to punish the newest state in the old continent. This is completely contrary to the values on which the EU was founded and badly damages the process that Ash wrote about. One does not have to be a political scientist; rather, it is simply common sense that the recent EU and US carrot-and-stick approach, in which the carrot is offered to Serbia and the stick to Kosovo, is not only unfair but will also not work. Kosovo is finally governed by a leadership that is smart and works in tandem to preserve its rights from all its adversaries, whether internal or external. Belgrade’s political trap in relation to the north of Kosovo and the so-called Association, into which Brussels has already fallen, is proof that the EU still lacks a geopolitical agenda for South-Eastern Europe, with an emphasis on Kosovo.

It is time for the US to take the lead and, together with the EU, chart a new geopolitical plan and agenda for peace and stability in the Balkans, which would also address issues relating to Kosovo and Serbia. Note, however, that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the specific approaches to resolving the Kosovo–Serbia issue may vary based on the evolving dynamics as well as the interests of the parties involved. Here, previously found postconflict resolutions and agreements in Europe may provide a valuable lesson. The complexity of the conflict requires a comprehensive and multifaceted approach that considers the interests and aspirations of all stakeholders. In the following paragraphs, I provide some suggestions that I believe reasonable people would consider vital for unblocking the current political impasse and paving the way toward a peaceful resolution between Kosovo and Serbia:

1. International Involvement and Mediation: Engaging international actors, such as the EU, the US, NATO, and other relevant stakeholders, should provide neutral mediation and facilitation. International involvement can help to bridge the gaps between the parties, offer technical expertise, provide diplomatic support, and provide a security guarantee for the negotiation process. The EU’s engagement is critical, but so far, the EU has proven unfit to lead the high-level negotiations. It is time to reverse the roles and have the US lead the talks together with new EU envoys, who should be from countries that have recognized Kosovo’s independence.
2. Reconciliation and Transitional Justice: The first step in any postconflict resolution is to establish a truth and reconciliation commission, as dealing with the legacy of past conflicts and addressing grievances is essential for long-term stability. The processes of reconciliation, transitional justice, and truth and reconciliation commissions can help to address historical grievances, promote healing, and foster a shared vision for the future. Regrettably, the EU and the US have bypassed this process, letting Serbia go unpunished for its crimes in Kosovo and other parts of former Yugoslavia. While forcing Serbia to sign the pact with NATO that stopped the bombing was a good thing, it should have been followed by having Serbia also sign a postconflict resolution and commitment to be enforced by the West. Serbia must rehabilitate and cut itself off from its problematic past; otherwise, it is bound to repeat history. The EU and the US must not omit this critical step.
3. Continued Dialogue and Negotiation: A sustained and comprehensive dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia is crucial for them to resolve their differences. This should involve high-level talks, negotiations, and the involvement of unbiased international mediators or facilitators. However, the current mediators have proven that they are not the right team for reasons that were previously mentioned. The aim should be to address the core issues, such as the status of Kosovo and the pathway toward UN recognition, EU and NATO membership, territorial disputes, minority rights without preferential treatment, and economic cooperation and assistance.

Mutual Recognition: Finding a mutually acceptable compromise that would lead to mutual recognition is the key to resolving the conflict as well as the first step in the process of peace settlement. This could involve creative solutions that consider the interests and concerns of both parties. Such compromises may include territorial adjustments, but mediators must be careful not to open Pandora’s Box. For any agreement between the two parties to be sustained, it must also be guaranteed by the EU and the US.

Regional Cooperation: Encouraging regional cooperation and integration could contribute to stability and the resolution of conflicts in the Balkans. Strengthening economic ties, promoting trade, and enhancing regional security cooperation could create incentives for Kosovo and Serbia to find common ground and work toward shared prosperity. The first step should be for the EU to have all Member States recognize Kosovo’s independence. If this process continues to be blocked by powers wasted in each individual state, then that would prove that the EU’s basic formula is flawed, making the EU impotent in reaching critical decisions.

A Clear Process and Timeline: Kosovo is essentially a state under the suzerainty of the KFOR and protected by NATO. The EU and the US should have a clear mandate and timeline to make Kosovo a member of NATO and the EU as soon as possible. This would eliminate continued incursions by Serbian forces and its sponsored criminals in northern Kosovo, which lead to periodic flare-ups and undermine Kosovo’s sovereignty.

Expediting the End Result: It has been said that one does not put the cart before the horse, but in this case, perhaps doing just that may provide the easiest solution to permanent peace in the Balkans. The ultimate goal of Kosovo and every Albanian is for Kosovo to join its mother state Albania, from which it was unjustly and forcefully separated by a joint compromise between the West and Russia. This approach would eliminate the process of establishing a new statehood as well as resolve Serbia’s continued territorial claims. While this is a tall order, it is not one that should be ignored.

8. Confidence-Building Measures: Implementing confidence-building measures could help to build trust and create an atmosphere conducive to negotiations. Confidence-building measures can help to mitigate tensions and lay the foundation for long-term reconciliation. I made this the last item on the list because, when so much detestation currently exists between both parties and they are losing faith in the conflict resolution process, and any normal confidence-building measures would be in vain.

Before ending this article, it is also imperative say something about Albanian nation and its problems, which are highlighted in the next section.

The Albanian Nation: Quo Vadis?

The purpose of this section is to highlight some main internal problems facing Albanian nations and try to find a way out without sustaining further deterioration as a society and  how to get back to traditional values for which Albanians are known historically.

At the Via Apia, Saint Peter met Jesus, who was being taken to Rome to face prosecution. “Quo Vadis, Domine?” (Lord, where are you going), asked Peter. “I am going to Rome to be crucified,” Jesus answered as he was whisked away by Roman soldiers. Albanians should ask themselves the same question: Where are they going like this? Is it to their ultimate demise as a nation? Or are they working toward a renaissance of their glory days as one of the oldest civilizations in Europe and the autochthonous race of the entire Balkans? Notwithstanding their glorious past, Albanians today are disseminated across several states of the Balkans, with only one-third left to form the country of Albania. During the most difficult periods in history, Albanians have stood by each other and fought together to preserve their land, identity, and culture. Unfriendly relations between Albania and other Balkan states with Albanian populations, especially during the communist regime, adversely affected national cohesion. With the collapse of communism and the arrival of democracy in the Balkans, it was expected that Albanians would come together again as a nation, but that did not happen. Today’s Albanians are more fragmented than ever before. Factors that contribute to this social phenomenon include Russia’s infiltration in the region through Serbia, its main proxy in Balkan affairs; the open conflict between Kosovo and Serbia; and the derailment of democratic system building in the Balkans. These factors have given way to corruption, criminal activities, the absence of a functioning rule of law, the illegal appropriation of state resources, the destruction of the economy, the impoverishment of the population, disenchantment with the system, and mass emigration. Furthermore, like other countries in the Balkans, both Albania and Kosovo have experienced political polarization, where differing ideologies and interests have led to fragmentation and a lack of consensus on key issues.

In the US, we often hear the slogan “united we stand, divided we fall,” which has resonated since the American Revolution and reemerges every time the country has faced internal or external threats. Another motto that encourages unity is the building of bridges rather than walls. No matter which words are used, the point is the same: Overcome your differences to make a greater whole together. These words are excellent advice for any nation, but they should echo much louder to Albanians – a small nation on the brink of extinction, a sheep among a pack of wolves, and Europe’s “Last of the Mohicans.” Historically speaking, Albanians have never threatened any other nation nor occupied any foreign territory – they have only fought invaders and attempted to defend their own lands. Yes, Albanians can realistically blame the others for all their mishaps, but it is not without their own weaknesses as a nation and historical mistakes they have made along the way. Every Albanian should think deeply and try to rationally answer the following fundamental question: What are weakest traits of Albanians that have prevented them from succeeding historically and even today in the 21st century? Notwithstanding the expected different answers, I venture to say that high on the list – if not in first place – would be individualism and a lack of national unity.

National unity is of paramount importance for any nation, especially for Albanians. A unified nation stands on a stronger foundation, enabling it to face challenges and pursue progress effectively. I highlight the benefits of a unified Albanian nation as follows:

Strength and stability: A united nation is more stable and resilient against internal and external threats. Being united will help to prevent divisions that could lead to conflicts or weaken the country’s ability to respond to crises.

Economic development: National unity fosters an environment conducive to economic growth. When people are united and work together, there is less disruption in economic activities, leading to increased productivity and investment. Albania and Kosovo, if working in tandem, have enough natural resources to develop their economies and provide a better standard of living for their respective citizens.

Social harmony: A unified Albanian nation would promote social cohesion and reduce tensions among different communities. This will foster a complete nation and society where citizens can live and work together harmoniously.

Political progress: In a united Albanian nation, the political system would function more efficiently. Elected representatives would (and should) focus on addressing the needs and aspirations of the entire nation, rather than being trapped by internal divisions and political parties.

International standing: A nation that demonstrates strong national unity is likely to be respected and taken seriously on the international stage. United Albanians would give the countries of Albania and Kosovo more credibility and negotiating power in international affairs, particularly for the recently reestablished country of Kosovo. This cannot be achieved by elected representatives in their own capacity without the backing of a united nation.

Nation building: National unity plays a critical role in nation building. It helps in forging a shared identity and common purpose among diverse groups. An Albanian nation united would be able to thwart foreign interventions aimed at disrupting social cohesion, as Serbia is doing in Kosovo. Thus, Albanians must stand united in helping Kosovo to build its nation.

Social cohesion: National unity fosters a sense of belonging and a common identity among citizens. This can reduce feelings of alienation and marginalization, leading to higher levels of trust and cooperation within society. For this to happen, Albanians must choose selfless leaders who are not motivated by self-interest, whether politically or materially.

Resilience in times of crisis: During times of crisis, be it a war, natural disaster, or other emergency, a united Albanian nation would be able to mobilize resources and respond more effectively to mitigate the impacts and provide support to those affected.

Cultural preservation: For Albanians, national unity in terms of culture means the preservation of a diverse cultural heritage within a common national identity as well as prevention of homogenization of the culture of Albanians living in their lands outside Albania. This will ensure that the unique aspects of each Albanian community, inside or outside Albania, are celebrated and protected.

The time has come for Albanians everywhere to leave behind their differences and unite for the greater cause, building a stronger foundation for an Albanian nation that is capable of withstanding challenges today and securing a better future for tomorrow. It is time for the common citizens of Albania to take their country back from unscrupulous politicians who have turned democracy into a dictatorship. Democracies become dictatorships only when people allow it to happen. The time has come for progressive forces to come together and demand change – to eradicate all of the bad things that have captivated the country and to bring back the decency, humanity, and moral values for which Albanians were known for centuries. Furthermore, the time has come for the citizens of Albania to create a new class of politicians who subscribe to the highest standards and would restart the democratization process based on democratic principles and the rule of law. Albanian citizens must ensure that their elected leaders govern with their consent and respect the limits placed on them by electorate in free and fair elections. Moreover, to protect democracy from going astray, Albania must introduce term limits for its elected officials. Such limits prevent the elected leader from accumulating too much power, turning it into a monopoly, and the country becoming a de facto dictatorship.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. — Margaret Mead

[i]For purpose of this article, I am using the internationally accepted spelling of Kosovo, although in Albanian is Kosova

[ii] The Albanian-American Enterprise Fund (AAEF) is a non-political, not-for-profit US corporation established pursuant to the Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989 (“SEED ACT”). Its primary purpose is to promote the private sector development of Albania. In 2009 the AAEF created its legacy organization, the Albanian-American Development Foundation (AADF). The AADF’s mission is to facilitate the development of a sustainable private sector economy and a democratic society in Albania, and to contribute to stability in Southeastern Europe

[iii] The Srebrenica massacre also known as the Srebrenica genocide. Happened on the July 1995 killing of more than 8,000 Muslim Bosnian men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during dhe war in Bosnia. Minors not transported to safety by the UN met the grim fate: 600 minors, including babies, toddlers, children, and teens, were also summarily executed, and dumped into mass graves. The killings were perpetrated by units of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of Ratko Mladić.

[iv] Račak is a village in the Shtime municipality of Kosovo. It was the site of the January 1999 massacre, in which 45 villagers, including women and children were killed by Serbian forces.

[v] The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA), Dayton Accords, Paris Protocol or Dayton-Paris Agreement, is the peace agreement reached at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, United States, in November 1995, and formally signed in Paris on 14 December 1995. These accords put an end to the 3 1⁄2-year-long Bosnian War, one of the armed conflicts in the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.

[vi] Stefan Uroš IV Dušan, known as Dušan the Mighty, was the King of Serbia from 8 September 1331 and Tsar and autocrat of the Serbs, Greeks, Albanians, and Bulgarians from 16 April 1346 until his death in 1355. Dušan conquered a large part of southeast Europe, becoming one of the most powerful monarchs of the era. under his rule, Serbia was the most powerful state in the Southeast Europe, one of the most powerful European states and an Eastern Orthodox multi-ethnic and multilingual empire that stretched from the Danube in the north to the Gulf of Corinth in the south, with its capital in Skopje.

[vii] The ICC is an independent judicial body with the jurisdiction to investigate and charge persons who have committed war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity – such as those committed by Serbia in Kosovo.

[viii] On April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948. It became known as the Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall, who in 1947 proposed that the United States provide economic assistance to restore the economic infrastructure of postwar Europe. The Marshall Plan, also known as the European Recovery Program, was a US program providing aid to Western Europe following the devastation of World War II. It was enacted in 1948 and provided more than $15 billion to help finance rebuilding efforts on the continent.

[ix] The Kosovo Force (KFOR) is a NATO-led international peacekeeping force in Kosovo.  KFOR deployed into Kosovo on 12 June 1999, in the wake of a 78-day air campaign. This air campaign was launched by the Alliance in March 1999 to halt and reverse the humanitarian catastrophe that was then unfolding. KFOR derives its mandate from United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244 of 10 June 1999 and the Military-Technical Agreement between NATO and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia. KFOR operates under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and, as such, is a peace enforcement operation.