If you want historic, you’ll be disappointed
Here’s an interview I did last week for Shpat Blakcori of Radio Television Dukagjini:
Q: Prime minister of Kosovo, Avdullah Hoti, has said that within a year we except state recognition from Serbia, how do you comment on this issue?
A: The Prime Minister knows better than I do what will happen, but I see little sign that President Vucic is getting ready to recognize Kosovo. A year from now Vucic will be entering a pre-electoral period, which will make it more difficult. But I certainly hope what the Prime Minister says is true.
Q: Did Kosovo make the right decision, to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel?
A: I think it is a mistake to pre-judge the outcome of the final status negotiations between Israel and Palestine, even if I am also convinced West Jerusalem and most of the Old City will remain in Israel as its capital.
Q: How you do see the relations between USA and EU, regarding the dialogue, it seems that they are not finding a common ground.
A: The State Department claims they are cooperating well. I’m not seeing it. I’m seeing an American Administration that is doing all it can to help President Trump get re-elected, regardless of the implications for Kosovo, Serbia, and the European Union. The “economic normalization” deal is far from normalizing economic relations, which in any event is a subject more suitable for Europe than the US. Washington has more clout when it comes to political issues, as the recognition of Kosovo by Israel suggests.
I also did this for Fitim Gashi of KOHA:
Q: How do you evaluate the Agreement in Washington, where Kosovo and Serbia pledged before the United States for Economic Normalization, between two countries.
A: The document doesn’t even really begin to normalize economic relations between Kosovo and Serbia. What it does is to call for implementation of some existing transportation agreements and aligns Pristina and Belgrade with US policy on airport screening, Hizbollah, Jerusalem and a few other things.
Q: Is there any point of this agreement that can bring benefits for parties and lead to full normalization?
A: I doubt it. I would look to the EU-sponsored talks for more serious results. The Washington meeting was a campaign gimmick that failed.
Q: In the initial drafts of the agreement there was a point that speaks of the commitment of the parties towards mutual recognition, but after the refusal of Serbia it wast lifted. Could this issue have been pushed forward, since the deal was mediated in the White House?
A: It could have been pressed. It wasn’t. That is one of many signs that this was not a serious effort.
Q: An agreement of this kind, how much can it guarantee peace and the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia?
A: It is a very small step forward, but the harm it did was in the Middle East, not the Balkans. The pledge to move two embassies to Jerusalem hurts the prospects for a peace settlement there.
Q: If we go back to the past, which agreements you consider can be called “Historic” in the context between Kosovo and Serbia?
A: I really haven’t seen any historic agreements between Serbia and Kosovo yet. But the habit of talking to each other is a good one. I am an admirer of the technical agreements and wish they were fully implemented. I also think the 2013 Brussels political agreement is a good one, so long as the Association of Serb Municipalities is established in accordance with the decision of Kosovo’s Constitutional Court.
Q: What elements should the next agreement with Serbia contain, to be so called “Historic?” Recognition and exchange of ambassadorial representatives, as well as membership in international organizations and the United Nations. That would be historic.
RSS - Posts
