American Professor: No matter what Kurti says about dialogue, Kosovo needs recognition

He believes the West should end the privileged approach it has towards Serbia because of its stance towards Kosovo. It also proposes adopting two principles from the European bloc and NATO, through which political aggression halts and territorial changes are avoided.

His full interview for REL:

Mr. Joseph, in your recent article on the Wilson Center, you have said that you believe that the United States and the European Union have a lack of influence to close the Kosovo issue and that this problem affects other Balkan states as well. You have also said that the correction of divisions within the EU towards Kosovo is somehow key. Can you talk more about this?

Edward P. JosephIt's very simple. I actually believe all this confusion is not that complicated. We have not had the opportunity to close the Kosovo issue, and this is, of course, linked to Serbia, and Serbia is then linked to Kosovo as well as Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. This also relates to political development itself in Serbia. This is very important, as it relates to its democratic development, which is going back. And it's all related to lack of influence. The lack of influence we have in Kosovo concerns why the Kosovo issue is still open.

Serbia has not recognised Kosovo, so the Kosovo issue has remained, as has Serbia. Serbia has not been able to move forward. Instead of moving forward, it's going back. President Aleksandar Vuciq's travel is on its way back. And it's not just me saying that. So are Serbian academics and activists. And all of this has to do with our lack of influence.

Why do we lack this? Not because the United States is not powerful, they are actually very powerful, or that the European Union is not powerful, since many countries within it are powerful. The problem is that we are not united in the matter of Kosovo. Because of these divisions, because of these five EU states that do not recognise Kosovo, this means that those five countries have the same position as Serbia's. It turns out they have the same position as Russia and China. That means we're stuck. If five EU states have the same position as Serbia, Russia and China, that would mean Serbia is not stimulated to recognise Kosovo, because Kosovo is blocked by Russia and China.

Imagine Russia and China mean they will never recognise Kosovo's independence even if Serbia recognises its citizenship. But if the five EU countries recognise Kosovo, it would not be as problematic, and very serious. This, since Kosovo could then be part of NATO and the EU, and this blockade in the United Nations would not matter much. In this way, Serbia would not have so much influence and potentially could have stopped the pace, while Kosovo would become a NATO member, advance towards the EU and become a more powerful state. What Serbia would win except to look into and lose in the strategy of keeping Kosovo isolated. So all of this is related to divisions in Europe, which then increases influence on Serbia and because Serbia has influence, the problem is unresolved.

You are also critical of the West when it comes to its approach to Serbia. To be more precise, you say that the region's “anti-democratic government and the strategic partner of Russia and China regime in Serbia, led by President Aleksandar Vuciq, is treated in the most favourable way.

Edward P. Joseph: Yes, perfectly accurate, even worse than that. What I've said is absolutely true and has to do with this very lack of influence. Because we have these divisions, Serbia has more impact. And since it's influential, we're in a poor position and that's why we need “ ” Serbia. Neve “na must” Serbia, more than we need it. We are ready that in a position of entreaty. And what do we do? Are we seeking accounts from Serbia about its commitments to joining the EU and maintaining EU values and standards? No, we're not. In the year Serbia presented its candidacy towards the EU, Vuciq has weakened the level of democracy in Serbia. And you can see our answer in public statements.

Just last month, a prominent Western politician, who is publicly linked to Russia and China, has said Serbia is economic and political leaders in the region. And we continue not to hold Serbia responsible, which has a government that is essentially not liberal, although it wants to present itself as democratic but that is not. It does not apply democratic practices, nor those of the EU. It promotes the values of Russia, China and Hungary, and we still do not hold it accountable, as “na needs” on the Kosovo issue.

So we're also involved in the matter of exchanging territories at the time of former US President Donald Trump's administration, and the leadership of the time at the helm with Federica Moghrin. We had agreed that Kosovo would make a shift of territories, and later last month we were surprised when the Slovenian no-patial demanded the same would happen in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Top diplomats in the US and EU have been promoting the same concept as Slovenian documents.

The issue of changing territories in the Balkans has been circulated since 2018. You say Washington and Brussels have given up the exchange of territories, but this topic has not given up on these two countries. However, you still mention the possibility that the current US administration will create a standard for all six countries targeting the EU, stressing that the wars in the region are over.

Edward P. Joseph: Yeah, that's my choice. Washington and Brussels have said we give up the topic of exchange of territories. But last month suddenly, the Slovenian “bomb” was introduced for territorial changes. Same concept. We return to a lack of influence. The answer to this matter in theory can be resolved quickly. If the five EU nations -- Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece and Cyprus -- recognise Kosovo citizenship, this problem would be resolved immediately and the situation between Kosovo and Serbia would stabilise. But we know that these five states will not recognise Kosovo's citizenship because of their internal problems, such as Catalonia in Spain.

That's why I've come up with this. These countries do not need to recognise Kosovo, but those countries along with the rest of the EU and the United States must create a unanimous position that applies to Kosovo, Serbia and the rest of the region. Their approach should be towards ending political aggression. They may not recognise all of Kosovo and that may be okay, but those countries should set limits because Serbia is a candidate for EU membership, and Kosovo has a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European bloc.

They can then show these countries what they should do, as both countries want to be part of the EU. So they can be stopped in making war through political ways. Thus, a unanimous position of the entire EU cannot be ignored. Serbia would be banned from carrying out the campaign for non-recognition of Kosovo citizenship, because who is it to do so if the EU and the US do not stop something like that, or who is Serbia to prevent Kosovo from membership in Interpol, if great powers do not make such a stop?

But on the other hand, Kosovo cannot start political aggression against Serbia and Serbs in Kosovo and threaten to join Albania, making Serbs in Kosovo even smaller minorities. So who is Kosovo to do that? Kosovo cannot do that. Not if he wants to implement the SAA. And these actions are not in line with him. It's aggression, and this has to stop.

When this political aggression stops, everything changes because the power of influence is carried out. In such situations, when Serbia's campaign for non-recognition of Kosovo stops, this state cannot stop Kosovo from developing, from increasing its international capacity, then cannot stop EU membership and other organisations or even establishing relations with other countries. Serbia then or has to negotiate something that should do or reject that. If you refuse, it clearly shows what her choice is. It tells of the EU's refusal to differ from alleged joining the EU, while promoting the agenda of Russia, China and Hungary.

In your article, you have cited the need to draw up two conciise principles, one formed by the EU, and the other by NATO. Can you expand them?

Edward P. Joseph: We need to remember what all this is about. All this aims to enable the EU and the US to no longer privileged Serbia, because this is what they are doing now. Since we have no influence over Serbia, we privilege it. Serbia can behave undemocraticly, may be allied with Russia and China, and we say “you are leader”. This has to end. This ends when we treat Serbia as we do other countries. Not by putting it in a worse position, but not even better than others. Then we could have two principles. One from the EU and the other from NATO. They are designed in a way that can never be implemented -- an example to Catalonia. Everything is very carefully drafted and linked to Serbia and Kosovo, which have formal agreements with the EU. Catalonia can never get involved in these principles unless Government in Madrid approves of something like that, but that will not happen. The EU principle stipulates that these two states cannot commit political aggression against each other. NATO principle is very specific and is related to border changes. In this case it relates to the possibility of joining Kosovo with Albania, but also Bosnia and Herzegovina. So this could be worth all the countries.

This is what we do. They enable the EU and the US to do something they cannot do now, as they do not have the support of all states, because the five EU states are linked to Serbia and Russia and China in terms of the Kosovo issue.

You have also presented the possibility that the U.S. will draw up a TWG Treaty with Kosovo, as it has with South Korea.

Edward P. Joseph: This treaty is important for two reasons, as the five non-recognitional EU states may object to the idea of stopping Serbia from recognising Kosovo and saying Serbia can do whatever it wants and does not care if Russia and China extend its influence in the Balkans.

Well if there's such a mood, then we need to increase influence on it as well. If Spain is only interested in Catalonia and thus enables Serbia to continue committing political aggression and enable influence to Russia and China, then it also moves us to make some changes. Thus, the US could be forced to establish a bilateral agreement with Kosovo, for which neither Spain nor Serbia, Russia nor China can do anything. And if the US turns Kosovo into strategic partners, then for Serbia everything changes. Serbia's strategy at that level fails, while Kosovo gains security almost as if it were a NATO member.

Therefore, if these states refuse to accept the proposal not to recognise Kosovo, even Serbia will not recognise Kosovo, then it forces the US to make other decisions, because it can no longer be tolerated.

The new principles would politically violate Serbian President Aleksandar Vuciq. Why do you think that?

Edward P. Joseph: This is very important. That's a very important question because one of the arguments that people say "you don't understand this," because if we criticize Serbia for the level of democracy or for the position in the region to harm Montenegro or Bosnia, President Vuciq means that you see, I'm protecting the interests of Serbs in Kosovo, Montenegro, Bosnia or Croatia, I'm protecting them, and for that they pressure me.

He thus thinks he can do something like that and the opposition will remain weaker. But not with this scenario, because even the opposition in Serbia does not have to recognise Kosovo. They can say what they want for Kosovo, but they can also criticise President Vuciq in a way they cannot now. The opposition cannot now criticise Vucinqi because it has US and EU public support. He might say that you see how I am interfering with Montenegro's affairs and yet have the support of the EU and the US. But with the new scenario he can't do that, because the opposition can say you don't have the support of the US and EU, and you're guilty of it. You did this.

Along the text, you mention Serbian President Vuciq, but not even Kosovo leaders. How did Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti comment on the dialogue with Serbia? He has said that this process should have principles, and both sides should be equal.

Edward P. Joseph: It's not necessary for me. Why do I need to talk about Kosovo leaders? They almost have no influence. They're in second position. Kosovo needs recognition. It doesn't matter what Kurt says that dialogue is not his priority, because that's not reality. The reality is that Kosovo needs this, and he knows that.

Kosovo is in weaker position because it has no influence and neither do we. So it's not the center of the problem. I want to refer to Kurt in the statement he made in February for a Croatian daily. It has openly promoted the idea of uniting Kosovo with Serbia. He has also voted in elections in Albania, and his party has competed in Albania's elections. Through all these actions, he is promoting the union between Kosovo and Serbia, and such a thing is prohibited according to my approach. His party should not compete in elections in Albania and he should not promote joining Albania. This has to stop. This is aggression against Serbs in Kosovo and Serbia.

Albin Kurti is prime minister of all citizens, including Kosovo Serbs. He cannot change the nationality of his citizens, he cannot say that you are now citizens of Kosovo, but we will change that because we will be confederation with Albania.

I think Kurti has recently said they cannot join Albania because the Constitution of Kosovo does not allow that.

Edward P. Joseph: He said that even in his interview in February. But it has also said that the Constitution of Kosovo is unfair. He does not say we should join Albania because Serbia does not allow us to join NATO, and that is the only way to do so. He doesn't say that.

He says the similar reason as it exists for Greater Serbia. He mentions how Albanians were divided a century ago. That's the mentality we shouldn't have. This isn't the 20th century. This is something of the 19th century. The wars are over. Albanians will live in northern Macedonia, in independent Kosovo, in Montenegro and Albania, but not in a joint state. / REL