Impasse in the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo

High level talks between Serbia and Kosovo, facilitated by the European Union, have failed to unblock the impasse between them.  EU High Representative Josep Borrell hosted the talks between Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti in Belgrade on Thursday, 18 August.

Kosovo declared independence unilaterally from Serbia in 2008, after a long period of tension with Belgrade which had already emerged during the time of Yugoslavia. 

Serbia still considers Kosovo an integral part of its territory. Around a hundred countries, including most EU member states, recognise Kosovo's independence.

Kosovo has a population of 1.8 million population, which is 90% ethnic Albanian. However 5% are Serbs, and it is the rights of this community that are the present stumbling block, but it is also recognised that differences are more substantial and wide-ranging.

A clearly disappointed EU High Representative told the media after the event that the immediate objective of the talks had failed, but that both sides agreed to keep talking.

Josep Borrell said:

Today, I hosted here in Brussels President Aleksandar Vučić from Serbia and Prime Minister Albin Kurti of Kosovo. This was the third High-level Meeting of the Dialogue looking for the normalisation of relations between Kosovo and Serbia. 

Let me say that today’s meeting was not a normal meeting. It was not a regular meeting. 

Together with the [EU] Special Representative Miroslav Lajčák, whom I want to thank [for] the good work, we called this meeting because we are facing very negative developments on the ground and increasing tensions in north Kosovo.  

We can say that this meeting was about the responsibility of both leaders to look for solutions in good faith, to ensure that peace and stability prevail in this part of Kosovo – in north Kosovo. 

And this happens at a moment where we are at a critical time for [the region] and Europe. We see the return of war to our continent after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We are facing a dramatic and very dangerous moment for our continent. And this is not a moment for increasing tensions – it is time to look for solutions and to solve long outstanding issues.  

As I said to the two leaders, this was a meeting in a crisis-management mode. It was a crisis management meeting, it was not an ordinary meeting. And the purpose of this meeting was to calm down the situation on the ground. 

On the other hand, we also focused on the way forward on the comprehensive normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia.  

Both leaders had the opportunity to talk – in detail - about this comprehensive agreement [on normalisation of relations], as the current tensions on the ground are symptoms of the broader issue of the unresolved status of their relations. What is happening is a symptom. Today it is happening there, tomorrow it may happen somewhere else because there is an underlying problem. 

I think that both President Vučić and Prime Minister Kurti understood that there is not an alternative to the [EU-facilitated] Dialogue in order to solve this problem.  

There are, certainly, well-known differences among them on their view about what will be the final the status of relations between Kosovo and Serbia, what this should be. But they agreed to continue discussions on a regular basis in the coming period to take the normalisation process quickly forward. 

And I will have this very high on my agenda, with the special support of the Special Representative of the European Union, Miroslav Lajčák. 

The current issues were the most pressing points in our agenda. We are witnessing recent tensions over licence plates and entry/exit documents for the people travelling between Kosovo and Serbia.  

The International Community does not want to see renewed tensions in the coming period, and the Parties will be fully responsible for any escalation on the ground.  

And unfortunately, we did not yet [come] to an agreement today. But it is not the end of the story. Both leaders agreed that the process needs to continue, and the discussions will resume in the coming days. There is still time until 1 September. I do not give up.

Today, there is not an agreement, but we do not give up. We need to continue discussing, we need to look for a solution. The process will continue. 

And, in closing the meeting, I made also clear to both leaders that the European Union accession should remain their ultimate objective, one to which they have both committed. And for this, they need to find a way to advance on this path - and the first step of this way is to look for a solution to the current situation.  

It has been a long day of meetings, and I think that the most important outcome is to say that we agreed that we have to continue working jointly, in a politically intelligent and responsible manner, looking for a comprehensive and mutually agreeable solution in a situation that is creating insecurity and instability first and foremost for the citizens of the region, but also for Europe as a whole. 

It is our responsibility and our duty to continue working in order to look for a solution that, unfortunately, today has not been possible. 

source: commonspace.eu with press service of the European External Action Service (Brussels)
photo: EU High Representative, Josep Borrell with the Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti at their meeting in Belgrade on 18 August 2022.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)