Rexhep Qosja: I am pro-changing lands with Serbia

“The conversion of the above territories, reached in peace, with agreements between Albanians and Serbs, with reconciliation at the end of international factors, with the reconciliation of the US and EU, would make it greater than today's political, national and international potential, for the final, historic solution to the Kosovo issue: for the Kosovo Union with Albania”, Qosja points out.

It lists 9 orders for talks where it is first introduced as equal. Early in historical matters, early in history and negotiations, the professor says that an agreement that would be needed even for those who have not yet been born.

Next, Rexhepe's complete text.

The idea of exchange of territories between Kosovo and Serbia, made public many years ago, but updated the last two months, has already been raised to the level of the issue that is being discussed throughout Albanian space, even in the diaspora. The issue of exchange of territories is issues, political and national issues, because it is a matter of the territorial integrity of Kosovo, the territorial integrity of Serbia and, therefore, sustainability in the region, primarily in the region of the so-called Western Balkans.

Although the issue of exchange of territories has not yet become a matter of talks, to it they have called necessary, and to reason, to say their opinion, Kosovo and Albanian state institutions, leadership structures of political parties in Kosovo, political parties in Albania, Albanian political parties in Macedonia, Montenegro, the Presevo Valley and the diaspora, then, intellectuals, scientific scholars, writers and ordinary citizens.

In contrast to institutions and the properties of some of which are involved in participation and content, that is, with the territorial exchange project itself, I am concerned only with the concept, only with the issue of exchange of territories, aware that the division of its content should determine experts on both sides in the talks.

It is understandable that from all these institutions, all these party leaders, all these intellectuals and ordinary citizens, have been heard as different opinions on the exchange of territories, often mutually unconcilable.

Among these fully incompatible mutual thinking prevails, meanwhile, the opinions of those institutions, those leaders of political parties, those intellectuals and those ordinary citizens, that the exchange of territories denies, calling it antinational and dangerous for the region or even wider!

There is no doubt that the authors of these prevailing opinions against the exchange of territories rushed to ignore almost understanding expressions to the movement of borders -- namely, the exchange of territories between Kosovo and Serbia -- that were heard by high political and state figures in the US administration and some EU countries and in the administration of several other countries in the world, which, what is true -- more often than individual opinions were official.

It is not hard to note that in institutional and individual statements on the exchange of territories, as well as in our judgments on major national, social, economic and other issues in general, determining impacts exercise party affiliations, commitment to these or international factors, power commitments, cultural background and general information of the declared.

The issue of exchange of territories between Kosovo and Serbia is issues that, perhaps, could be put forward in talks between Albanians and Serbs in Brussels, and, as some of their observers say, could be exposed in a demaginative way by Serbia's president, Aleksandar Vuciq, can be exercised when and when even mysterious by Kosovo's president, Hashim Thaci, and can be clearly exercised by EU representatives in these talks, Federika Mogerini.

As it turned out, in this vast amount of view on the issue of exchange of territories, a number of logical and notional uncertainties were expressed. In a series of cases, the issue of exchange of territories was covered with the words of correction of borders, movement of borders or, even, the division of Kosovo. The particular misunderstanding of the issue of exchange of territories represents the range of Kosovo's division. With this range of words in some cases, the extreme devaluation of the issue of exchange of territories, correction of borders, movement of borders, which in no case have the goal, hence not the meaning of Kosovo's division.

All those who have little knowledge of the history of the Kosovo issue and all who, whether as political people or intellectuals, have once dealt with this issue know that forgers of the idea of partitioning Kosovo was Serbian politician and writer Dobrica Qosiq, with the inspiring understanding of former American Ambassador to Belgrade Warren Cimman. Since Dobrica Qosiqi and Serbian politicians and intellectuals targeted and desired the partitioning of Kosovo, it is understandable why the exchange of territories, then from me and later from our other intellectual, expressed in the notional range of the northern border, was not and couldn't be their idea of Serbs in any case. No. The idea of exchange of territories, the concept of exchange of territories now raised to the level of the issue, was, therefore, our idea, of some of our intellectuals who denied the idea of partitioning Kosovo. Even with this idea, with the idea of exchange of territories then, the idea of Kosovo's ethnic and historical wholeness with the Presevo Valley was actually protected, because Kosovo was occupied with territory, but more joined by territory.

Treated in my writings several times even after the war, this issue will bring back rudely unrecognizable reactions, full of malnomous homelands, especially after my article published in January 2017.

It's not surprising, therefore, why, against the issue of exchange of territories there were then and there are today the fierce carriers of Serbian nationalism: The Serbian Plavoslav Church in Serbia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Croatia, throughout the Balkans and the Serbian Plavoslav Church in the US, then nationalist Serbian intellectuals at various institutions of education, science and culture, and almost all opposition parties in Serbia.

For the idea of sharing territories today in Serbia are declared when clearly and mysteriously the president of Serbia and the leader of the largest Serbian Party, the Serbian Progressive Party, Aleksandar Vuciq, with his party, with the government and with the majority in Serbia's Parliament. And they are declared in the hope that they thereby ensure the support of the European Union, which is supporting authoritarian stabilisations in most former communist countries, especially in Serbia and Kosovo!

The amount of our institutional, individual and party statements against the exchange of territories between Kosovo and Serbia actually shows the unmatched state of our policy today in general. The condition of our state policy is actually digitalized so much that the head of state speaks of border correction (without moral courage to call the exchange of territories what correction it is,) while the prime minister calls that correction a war entry!

In the political and state institutions and in the minds of those who decide in the name of Kosovo today, even on major issues such as talks with Kosovo's one-year-old conqueror deliberately or unwittingly yet are not known what should be known, what should be said and said, and what should not be done and said.

What should be known in these institutions and what should be known by these political and state representatives of the Kosovo Albanian people and, as seen, is still unknown or not known!

1. It would have to be known that today between the conquests and the one-year conquerors -- that is, among Albanians as occupied and Serbs as invaders of Kosovo during, nearly a century -- no dialogue takes place, but talks are held, formal talks, state, political and diplomatic. On major issues such as freedom and independence as borders, such as the independence of the state, no dialogue is being made. Official, state, political and diplomatic talks are being held. Scientific. Not dialogue. Calling dialogue rather than talks, official, state talks between the state of Kosovo and the state of Serbia Kosovo participants in that dialogue are essentially degrading Kosovo state status! Even if such an appointment is called, the dialogue of the talks is required of others they should not accept it!

2. It would have to be known that from the Berlin Congress, in which new world order would be decided -- first of all, European -- the Balkan political and state economics defined the major European powers: Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Italy. From the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 to the determination of the Balkan political and state economy will also play a decisive role in the United States.

It would also have to be known that great powers, depending on the timing, when less and more have moved them and can move the principles and criteria under which they have established them and can determine the political and state economy of the Balkans or other spaces.

3. The major political and global powers, with today's world institutions dominated by them, are now more and more often called international factors, when they are more directly and when they are more intermediate, or even define talks between peoples and countries that have not yet resolved all their political and state issues. These factors usually do not allow or even defined by one party to be donated all but nothing! When less and more care, they are sincerely and sometimes three-sided, for those talks to bring balanced solutions.

4. The major world powers, indeed, international factors that oversee them or even define them as having conversations between peoples and states, usually do not object to the area of agreement that peacefully reach the two sides in the negotiations and do not object to it, even if that agreement is reached by some solutions that are not in accordance with any principle of their international policy, such as, the word comes, the correction of borders, the movement of borders, the exchange of territories, or even, as between the two world wars, the voluntary displacement of parts of the population. So do international factors in the first place because disagreements with the agreement that two peoples, two states, are involved in their internal affairs, actually violating their political and state sovereignty, which, however, as we are looking at and out of nowhere in Kosovo, are quietly and cheering!

5. In official state, political and diplomatic talks between the two peoples, two states, such as today's talks between Kosovo and Serbia on major political and national issues usually do not come with dogmatic minds, do not take a stance. In talks on such major issues, you usually go with two versions of the same attitude or, even with an attitude called alternative. Kosovo representatives in the current talks with representatives of Serbia almost completely deny this practice and deny it because they do not recognise it or want to recognise the experiences of states with major state, diplomatic, negotiating traditions in general.

6. In official, state, political and diplomatic talks, between peoples and states, such as talks on major issues between Kosovo and Serbia, they are not usually spoken with folk and romantic categories, and they are not spoken to such categories because they are categories of youth of political and state culture. And Kosovo representatives in official, state, political talks, with representatives of Serbia and other states happen to talk exactly with such categories! Their romantic and folk political presentations of the frequent season contain the goal of betraying local opinion.

Their romance and folklore becomes especially trumpeting after the cycles of negotiations when they want to let local opinion know of their current and future conversational successes. In such cases they tell their listeners that the agreement with Serbia will certainly bring Kosovo the country to the United Nations Organisation, almost Serbia's reconciliation to become the UN member state is more important than the recognition of 115 states! They do not know or want to know that Kosovo's UN seat depends more on the reconciliation of Russia and China, which have veto rights to the Security Council of this organisation.

Even more trumpeting this political folklore is expressed in so often repeated statements about uniting the Presevo Valley with Kosovo without showing that this union can only be realised by giving Serbia part of northern Kosovo with the Serb majority. It is politically and morally illegal to be deceived and belittled by our political mind with such misleading statements!

7. In official, state, political and diplomatic talks between peoples and states, such as the current talks between Kosovo and Serbia, the participation's political life story, in particular, of the other party's top participants in these talks should usually be recognised. If equipped with the relevant data from the start of talks on Serbia's chief representative's political life story in the talks, Aleksandar Vuciqi, Kosovo representatives would have to “, who represented” participating in talks with his departure. And, you know, it would have to be “who represented their participation in the talks with his departure because he was a senior official in the Serbian Radical Party as Vojislav SESHel's shovinist party, because he was senior official in Milosevic's government, which, apart from others, has made and the violent shift of nearly half of Kosovo Albanians in the first half of 1999, because he was a follower of the political stance, Vojislav SESH's state party for the expulsion of Albanians beyond the Nejamun, and at last, because he was a political leader of Bosnian Srebrenica genocide. Following the official statement of the government of Serbia, in which the Serbian delegation reportedly does not accept talks with the Albanian delegation led by Kosovo Deputy Prime Minister Fatmir Limaj, the participation of Kosovo representatives in those talks with the Serbian delegation led by Aleksandar Vuciqi becomes completely unlicable politically, morally and nationally.

8. Kosovo representatives in the current talks with Serbia's representatives will have to know that, as history teaches us, no world order is always: any world order is replaced earlier or later by another world order. Today's world order, based on human rights, is the world order as donated by God to us Albanians. But we should not forget that this world order will also have an end and will once be replaced by another world order. Sadly, none of us today can say for sure whether that other world order will be fortunate or unfortunate for us. But we, as a people, as a people now with two countries don't dare to think about this second possibility.

9. Kosovo representatives in the current talks with representatives of Serbia would need to know that even further, many, many Serbs, in fact, the largest number of them, believe in medieval Serb mythology. They believe the history of the Plavoslav Serb Church in Kosovo is 800-year-old history! They believe Prizren was the capital of the Car Dusan Empire! They believe Kosovo is the spiritual source of Serbs! They believe that Kosovo with its history and traditions determines Serbian spirituality! This cysodomitology is the contents of the writings of a range of scholars, writers and other Serbian intellectuals today who object with supposedly scientific, actually euphoric languages, any ideas for reconciliation with the exchange of territories and with the independence of Kosovo. They repeat the opinion of former Greek President Karamanlis, who on one occasion has told Dobrica Qosikiqi: Nothing you can do for Kosovo today, because everyone is against you; you must wait for another time that will inevitably come”!

It could be assumed that informing Kosovo representatives of the official, state, political and diplomatic talks with Serbia's representatives in Brussels of political, diplomatic, state-run, contained in the above points would not be fruitless for them. There is no doubt that the foregoing explanations bring conviction that the exchange of territories will see and treat as his opposers are treating it.

I do not call wisdom the supposed resolution of the long-standing Albanian-Serbian historical conflict with temporary armaments! I call it political and historical wisdom to resolve this conflict with permanent solutions, with historical solutions, meaning the exchange of territories, as if almost unexpected today, for our generation.

The insights that have been gathered in our national opinion on the history of the Kosovo issue and the Albanian question in general, the knowledge that have been gathered in our national thinker of Serbia's history and of its medieval presumption that, however, constitutes the defining of the Serbian spiritual and cultural situation, the knowledge that we should have of the role of the Serbian Povoslav Church in politics and national, state, political and cultural life during today's history, and the inevitable, unhibitive thoughts that we, today's generation, must have the peaceful future and safe to our offspring, without the tragedy of our own lives until the end of the region, I believe all of the Northern Mitrovics's relations, of Kosovo, of course, the state's solution to the state-run province's solution -- namely, Kosovo's solution to the state-run municipalities, which is the state-run municipalities, the political solution to the province's solution to the next year.

Repeat, our current generation has no right to think about concluding talks with Serbia without thinking about the future of our descendants. And we will think about the future of our offspring if we have in mind that great European thinker's wisdom that has said: “The state is a co-owner of the living, of the dead and the unborn still”. I mean: The State belongs to those who have lived, but are no longer alive, to those who live in it today, and to those who will live behind us in it, that is, our descendants.

Not only European political and historical tradition and the thought of historical, objective, tell us that it is not the exchange of territories, in this amid the above-mentioned territories, reached peacefully, with agreements between the two sides, issues that bring war. No. And, no. Peaceful agreements, reached with agreements between the parties in the conflict or still unrecognised, do not bring war; war may bring agreed agreements under pressure: under pressure from internal or external factors.

The exchange of foregoing territories between Kosovo and Serbia would remove from the present Kosovo all those demands and obstacles of Serbia and Serb structures in Kosovo, which are preventing Kosovo from becoming a functional state.

The exchange of the above-mentioned territories would keep Kosovo from the history of Kosovo and the Albanian history of general possible surprises, when less and more counter-active, including the Serb Community of Communities in Kosovo, which, with its policy and its activities, prior to and unseen, constitutes the factor of strengthening the role of Serbs in Kosovo, through their strengthening Serbia's political role even in Kosovo and in the region to strengthen with the composition of unpredictable purposes by the state structures of Kosovo today!

As a result, the exchange of territories peacefully, with Agreements, between Kosovo and Serbia can be hoped for, I repeat, can be hoped, however surely not by a hundred others, that it brings peace between these states and their people, lasting peace and historical peace. Such an agreement, carried out in exchange of territories, would actually have to make it impossible, with all the impossible views, rebirth, in fact, the vampireisation of the consequences of Serb quadocology in Kosovo. That, meanwhile, cannot be said for other agreements, reached with armaments, reconciliations and other reconciliations!

It cannot be assumed at all, meanwhile, that such a historic role in exchange of territories has increased today's and former political and state officials in the US and the EU and in some other countries, which have been expressed in favour of exchanging territories between Kosovo and Serbia.

And in the end, let this thought clearly and clearly be said that could grieve the political and intellectual feudalists in Kosovo today:

The exchange of the above territories, reached in peace, with agreements between Albanians and Serbs, with reconciliation at the end of international factors, with US and EU reconciliation, would make it greater than today's political, national and international potential for the final, historic solution to the Kosovo issue -- for the Kosovo Union with Albania.

So be it!