Hand call America: Do not pressure Kosovo, Serbia for quick deal

In an interview for Voice of AmericaHand said he himself disagreed with the idea of changing borders, but added that it was not removed from the table.

The early acquaintance of Balkan issues told Voice of America that the 100 per cent fee to Serbia is a tactical mistake, but that in the long term, however, the United States will be Kosovo's friend and ally.

Voice of America: Mr. Hunt, the United States has called on Kosovo and Serbia to resume negotiations on normalising relations. The American administration says the time is now for an agreement, but some analysts say there is no need to be a hurry. Why is it now?

Robert Hunt: I think now is the time to resume negotiations and dialogue. And I like some of the statements that have recently come from the administration, calling for the removal of tariffs Kosovo has set, as well as urging Serbia to stop aggressive efforts to bring back some of Kosovo's recognitions, so to stop these negative actions and start taking some positive actions.

As for the rush, I think it's mostly focused on reaching an agreement by the end of the year and it's not as surprising as this is. I've seen diplomats and politicians over the decades I've been working with the Balkans, that have the focus very short-term, that they're responsible for taking credit, trying to secure a deal very quickly. And it's done in quite a hurry. And then after a year, you start to see the consequences of this rush in the field because things have become very, very fast. So I myself am not opposed to agreeing to start negotiations, to start dialogue to see what is possible, but I don't think there should necessarily be a hurry to agree, but maybe there should be time to express disputes, start and consolidate a dialogue, and go from that point, instead of hoping for a deal by the end of the year.

Voice of America: So are you suggesting that the United States adjust their position or expectations for the end of the year?

Robert Hunt: I think it should encourage the beginning of a dialogue as soon as possible. It should not mean that dialogue should end with an agreement at the end of the year and try to insist on reaching an agreement when Serbia and Kosovo have some very difficult issues to discuss, which may take time to resolve. And it's better to be allowed to have time to settle disputes and reach a good and consolidated agreement than to rush to achieve something, just for the sake of having a deal, just so some can claim victory.

Voice of America: To put it in the context of the United States, there will be choices here next year. Do you think the impetus for reaching an agreement has to do with the fact that if it is not reached by the end of the year, with the approach of elections, the start of an intensive campaign, this issue can remain out of focus and can drag on?

Robert Hunt: I can't say if it's so direct, but as I said, with politicians and diplomats, because of changing their positions, the upcoming elections, they naturally tend to think over short term. Although there are objections to some proposals that have been made in terms of dialogue in Europe because we also have European Parliament elections this year (May) and the situation in Europe is very fluidd and this could spur some people in Brussels to rush. So it may be from here, either from Brussels, but simply the nature of politics, gives political leaders a shorter time frame and they push for reaching agreement while my view as someone who has been following the Balkans for decades, I have seen the consequences of trying to reach a hasty agreement. I think it's better to bring people to the table, start talking and then see what happens, than to push for a deal at the end of the year.

Voice of America: Since last summer, ideas for border correction, exchange, or change of territory began to be dropped as a way to reach a compromise. The United States has urged the parties to be flexible and has hinted it will support any solution Pristina and Belgrade agree on. What is your opinion about the possibility of a compromise based on each of these scenarios?

Robert Hunt: I'm pretty worried about this kind of proposal. I'm not one of those who automatically dismiss this idea of changing or exchanging territory, or whatever you call it. I think we should remember that in the early 2000s, before Kosovo was recognised, once Milosevic was overthrown, there was the possibility of such an agreement (with a change of borders). I'm more of a person who thinks times have changed. At the time, Serbia was able to prevent Kosovo's declaration of independence. In 2008, independence was declared. Kosovo has been recognised by a large number of countries. Times have changed, and this changes the nature of what can happen between Belgrade and Pristina, what can be negotiated. Some of my real concerns also have to do with the fact that times have changed. We now have a much more dangerous situation in Europe, with a much more aggressive Russia, which fosters instability in the Balkans, and we have had the intensification of nationalist rhetoric, not only in the Balkans, but in Europe, and however much more aggressive Russia would be an agreement where both sides would agree, that in some way this is a unique situation, to be sure that other nationalist exposes in the Balkans and found in Europe, Russia, in terms of Caucasuss, Ukraine, the territory that is taken there, they will use this as precedent, and thus try to meet their goals and thus try to meet their goals. There are other reasons I don't like this idea. It's being made by some politicians from behind closed doors. It does not seem to me that whatever can be agreed on at the negotiating table will receive popular support, neither in Serbia nor in Kosovo. I wish these deals had popular support. It may also increase tensions in the area, because Serbs south of the Iber River, or those living in the Presevo Valley, Albanians who can live in other areas of Serbia or who have properties south of the Ibër, make all nervous about what might happen. So it's a very delicate issue. Another concern is that it's almost like accepting that in the 21st century, we can't achieve the transformation of countries in Europe, except on national affiliations, we can't have a multicultural and multiethnic state, as if we give up in this direction if we want to share borders to accommodate these concerns. And this is a principle that I think we have to fight to have in Europe, that borders don't matter as much, and regardless of ethnic affiliation, you're a citizen of a country and you have an equal role to play like everybody else. And the last reason why I'm worried is that, of course, if both sides agree on it, but as the situation is now, it seems to me that the greatest pressure is on Kosovo to somehow enable it. It would be nice to hear an American official say that we are accepting a mutual agreement, but if one of the parties, Pristina, but Belgrade says “yo” we will respect and fully support it. But in fact I think that what has happened is a constant pressure to especially convince Kosovo to accept a compromise, accept a kind of border change, or exchange territory or something like that. So I see this as a somewhat asymmetric situation right now, and that worries me.

Voice of America: What do you think would be another option for the election to be acceptable and not include changing the border?

Robert Hunt: As practical issues, come up with a solution as a condition for both sides to enter the EU. The first thing I would recommend is for the European Union to make a stronger commitment to the Western Balkans in terms of EU integration, and here European Parliament elections will be important. But most importantly, Serbia knows it cannot enter the European Union without normalising relations with Kosovo and at a certain moment ensuring that Belgrade can't play two gates, it can't play games all the time -- what it lost has lost. We cannot go back to history and it's a pity for Serbia that it had to experience Milosevic's years, or the mistakes Kostunica and others may have made, but we can't just forgive and go back in time and renegotiate things. We are where we are now and Serbia must accept the situation. Even Kosovo must do some things unilaterally, without negotiating with Serbia: do more to make Serbs living in Kosovo, feel as citizens of the country, equal to those who have ethnic Albanian affiliation, give a future in the country, because it would be good for Kosovo, not because it is part of Serbia's accession negotiations. So there are things that both sides can be motivated to do, without having to agree with each other.

Voice of America: The idea that has circulated for correction, or change of borders, or exchange of territory, also highlighted the division of the issue between the United States and some EU countries, namely Germany. What does that mean for the process?

Robert HuntI think it means that we have to weigh the value of continuing with this idea. I think the concerns I've heard from Germany about changing borders, about risks and precedents are legitimate. And as I said before, I have those concerns. This is a bad idea. So I hope those here in Washington who support this idea and I think the official position of the United States is that they're open to the idea, not that they expressly support it, but those who think it's a good idea. They need to analyze the implications, namely how they will be used as precedents in other cases, if there is popular support in Kosovo and Serbia, and what the possible consequences can be if they do so.

Voice of AmericaOne more question about the idea of changing borders. Do you think it's fading, or do you think it's still on the table?

Robert Hunt: There has been a lot of serious opposition to it, primarily from many nongovernmental organisations in Kosovo and Serbia, sometimes even co-operating in their stance that this is not a solution, and I see this as a positive development. I love seeing civil society and public opinion play a role in how these things are done. There have been people who have expressed much more negatively than I have. Like I said, I'm against the idea, but there's been some who totally rejected it from the beginning and their arguments are very good. Not only is it something that may not be achieved but it can increase tensions in the region and make it less stable. And whatever you get to in this direction, you can create dangerous precedents or allow claims from others in the Balkans to be made, or find in Europe, or around the globe where they might want to make similar border changes, where they have not agreed. So, at least for me, those arguments are very convincing, and I think they've made those who might have thought that this could be a good and quick solution, to think again. Is it fading? I'm not sure it might. Is it gone? No, it's still there. I have the impression that this is something where Belgrade thinks it can play and from which something can benefit, whether there is a deal. And so I'm sure that the issue of border change, or the exchange of territories, or whatever it is called, is something that will continue to emerge but I repeat that there is probably less support than there was six months ago.

Voice of America: After the Kosovo government imposed the 100 per cent fee on Serbian imports, Belgrade has refused to resume talks, but perhaps what is most disturbing for Kosovo is the impact on relations with the United States that have insisted that it be removed. How much damage has this done to this relationship, and will it be long lasting?

Robert Hunt: I don't think it'll be long. As with many things that have happened in recent years, we are facing obstacles and I see it in O The SEU, for example, and I was recently in Vienna where they had talks with allies, in the short term we may have disagreements, but in the long term, I think that our relationship with Kosovo, as well as with many other friends and allies, is strong, and is present, and the view of Congress is that it should continue to be. So I think that the United States will continue to remain a strong friend and partner of Kosovo and that we may not agree on a decision the government makes in Pristina, that does not mean that we are no longer a friend or partner. We'll figure it out, we just don't agree on this. In fact, I think it was a tactical mistake to set these fees.

Voice of America: It is not just the issue that the government imposed these fees, but the prime minister placed them as counterweight against Serbia, and this has caused problems between him and President Thaci. How difficult do you think this rigidity has become?

Robert Hunt: The fact that there are different views in Kosovo is not necessarily something bad. I just said there's opposing views here in Washington about some of these things we're talking about. That's how democracy works. I can understand what the prime minister was trying to accomplish when he set these fees, if he might have been trying to put a counterweight on Serbia, because Serbia has made active efforts for countries and organisations to draw recognition for Kosovo and similar ones, but I think it is a tactical mistake and the best thing that can be done is to (the prime minister) accept that fact and find a way out of this stance. I think Kosovo would only benefit at this moment if it removed these tariffs, eliminate the dispute with Washington on the issue, and then try to put pressure on Serbia to start taking some positive steps, so Serbia is required to stop trying to attract Kosovo recognitions. The fact is that Kosovo is a state, therefore let's find a way to make progress rather than step back.