German expert: Berlin conveys a clear message to Mogher on April 29th

President Macron's April 29th meeting with the Thaci presidents, Vuciq and Balkan leaders in Berlin is viewed by expert Johanna Deimel as a signal to Washington and Brussels: No border changes in the Balkans.

Deutsche Walle: On 29 April, President Hashim Thaci, Serbian Aleksandar Vuciq and Balkan leaders meet in Berlin with Chancellor Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron. Why was this meeting suddenly called?

Johanna Deimel: Germany is part of those EU countries that have clearly expressed themselves and against Vuciqi and Thaci's proposal for border changes. The related deployments pose a major political security risk not only for Kosovo, but for the entire Balkan region. It seems that clear criticism and concern, which came from Berlin and renowned international personalities and Balkan experts, has produced its own effect.

Should we have high expectations from such a summit, we have two important EU leaders, Merkel and Macron?

Germany and France, KanW Invite nW The highest level in the informal meeting in late April. With this two countries, which after the catastrophic world wars ended their enmity with the Elysee Agreement in 1963, show that normalisation is possible, that good neighbourly relations are possible after the terrible wars between Kosovo and Serbia. At the same time, German-French tandim with this invitation also gives a clear signal that Europe -- that Europe -- that the EU stands ready -- engages -- that it will have to be sitting at the negotiating table.

Is this meeting the answer to Berlin and Paris on the controversial issue of changing borders?

With this meeting Chancellor Merkel and President Macron send a clear signal towards Washington, especially in Brussels, to the EU's foreign policy charge, Federica Moghrini. It not only tolerated negotiations between Thaci and Vuciqi, but also prompted them. She had neither the mandate nor the support of 28 EU members. In all, the dialogue, which has been conducted in Brussels for years, has entered the deadlock. Even the Vuciq-Thaci negotiations behind closed doors have not led to its continuation. If now a new impulse is given from Berlin, if clear messages are launched in the direction of Pristina, Belgrade and Tirana, which only a comprehensive agreement between Serbia and Kosovo without border changes based on ethnic criteria could be the objective for both countries, for the region and for Europe, then we have achieved much.

The idea of changing borders still being debated is behind it the forces that promote it?

In my opinion the idea still exists, but has lost dynamics in recent weeks. Yes, both in the US and the EU there are forces that come out clearly and powerfully next to Vuciqi and Thaci. But there is resistance, not only in Berlin, but also in other EU countries. A negotiating team has been established in Kosovo, which has a platform supported by parliament as a negotiating basis. What Thaci and Vuchy are up to, because there's nothing open on the table.

For the supporting forces of the territorial exchange idea, the agreement would be reached...

I am very convinced that a exchange of territories would not make a difference in the fragile situation. There's no “, peaceful ethnic cleansing”, that's an incompatible eufemism. The exchange of territories conflicts with basic European values, conflicts with the multiethnic base of the post-war order, following the wars in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 20 years ago. The dialogue, as it developed in Brussels, needs a new momentum, a new format and a clear goal at the end, so Serbia's recognition of Kosovo and the development of good neighbourly relations.

Another probematic, Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj, still insists on customs 100% on Serbian products, despite international criticism. Do you see a plan behind this attitude, where it will come up?

It is fair that the deployment of customs against Serbian products is sharply criticised as a measure. But it has more symbolic value than genuine economic character, and in my opinion it is not the reason that Brussels' dialogue has frozen. It had been stalled since before, and neither of the parties, Belgrade nor Pristina at the moment, have any interest in continuing the dialogue in the form it once was. Other factors add to this: The EU's busy Federica Moghrini will soon leave the post, Vucinqi faces road pressure, in Kosovo there is rivalry between President Thaci and Prime Minister Haradinaj. Thaci with after-door talks with Vuciqi is very isolated in Kosovo. The account Haradinaj makes is that with “the strong position” even in the direction of customs can stay in power, because indeed most citizens oppose secret negotiations and a exchange of territories.

20 years ago there was war in Kosovo, how would you assess the situation in this country today?

Kosovo has come a long way. Today it is an independent country, still struggling for international recognition, and through Belgrade's influence, there is still a frozen <x0-conflict” in the country's north, which has caused many obstacles and international and national blockade. But over the years we have seen that Serbian citizens in southern Kosovo, at least south of the Ibar slowly, but have gained more confidence in political institutions. This is certainly dedicated to the Ahtisaari Package and the 2008 constitution, which established guarantees and grounds for ethnic co-existence.

But the wounds of war are still deep, they also expect a concrete work by the Special War Crimes Court in Kosovo. Kosovo and Serbia need a common face of the past. True, postwar reconstruction has marked success, but the vital capacity of the state is still affected by the weight of the past. It cannot be so that former KLA fighters still remain in office and still act on the logic of the then war.

And if we look into the future...

In Kosovo no real reforms were made towards a liberal social order of a functioning law state with economic development. We still have a system defined by corruption, nepotism. This makes Kosovo sick today. I see a danger to the future, because in the meantime a post-war generation that understands, their chances have been stolen. Therefore, we need visa liberalisation to prevent a radicalisation of the political situation and give it to future young people./Doice Welle/.