What Lajcak had told Bislim Kurt at his first meeting in Brussels

From April 27th to 29th last year, Besnik Bislimi, deputy prime minister for European Integration, Development and Dialog, had stayed for the first time in Brussels to meet with the European Union's emissar for Kosovo-Serbia dialogue, Miroslav Lajcak.

Democracy. com has secured the letter that Besnik Bislimi had first sent to institutional and party leaders on May 4th of last year as reporting after meetings he had held there.

It seems that the enthusiasm he was led to the dialogue led him to become so cautious and responsible, but this was the first and last time he reported this way.

The “Since after taking office as deputy prime minister of the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, one of the covered sectors is dialogue with Serbia, the first priority has been to collect the base date and documents produced both in the preparation phase and during negotiations with the Serbian side. Unfortunately, at the prime minister's offices we found Mr. Look at the documents in this field. At the same time, no transfer of documentation has taken place that, according to persons involved both inside and outside Kosovo, has been collected by former Prime Minister Hoti with the idea of moving away to Prime Minister Kurti. The former prime minister has forwarded only two-quartered documents that have addressed Kosovo's position on any of the topics addressed, or co-operation agreements not directly related to the negotiator process”, says Democracy.com.

Bislimi, as well as his public presentations back then, but even through this letter, had complained that when they came to power they had found no documents about the dialogue process.

But for this claim, Bislim was exposed by former Prime Minister Avdullah Hoti himself, who had said all documents have been handed over to Kurti Government.

According to Bislim, due to lack of documents he had been forced to travel to Brussels earlier and meet with Lajcak and other members of his office.

“As a result, we have been forced to use alternative sources for data collection, including non-institute mechanisms involved in various stages of dialogue, while some of the materials have been delivered by representatives of diplomatic missions present in Kosovo. I've literally established contact with public figures that at certain times have had a significant role in negotiating processes, including Mr. Skender Hyseni, Mr. Veton Surroi and Mr. Blerim Shala. Mrs. Edita Tahiri has endured to meet with concern that the affairs of dialogue are sensitive. Of course, an important source of information is also collected by the institution itself that has taken over mediation in dialogue, in this case the European Union. In this context, I had agreed with Mr. Lajcak, for me to travel the day before, because the rest of the delegation hold information meetings where Mr. Lajcak and his entire team would inform about all the details of the meetings, the progress achieved, and would also prepare files on all agreement reached. We had two separate meetings with Mr. Lajcak and his entire team, each in 90 minutes. The main goal of these meetings in no case has been to discuss or position the Kosovo side for specific topics, but simply exchange information for the past of the process. With me at both meetings have been present in charge of work as ambassador of the Republic of Kosovo, Mr. Astrit Zemaj, and the first secretary of the embassy, Mr. Murati” won, says the Bislem Letter, which Democracy.com provided.

According to Bislim, at this meeting, it was discussed in the exchange of the ZERE board, reaching agreement with the Elektrosverin, for the unconscious, the Association of Serb majority municipalities, opening the KLA archives, which Serbia claims committed crimes on its territory, presenting Kosovo without introduction, the final agreement with Serbia, etc.

Lower, Democracy.com brings you all the points Bislim had presented in his first and last reporting of this nature, which, according to him, was the topic that was discussed at the first meeting, but that he presented at short points.

Below a brief summary of the appointment performance:

1. First Mr. Lajcak has handed over a file that has all the agreements reached since the start of the dialogue in 2011. And he announced some dynamics that are expected over the next two months on various European Commission commissions, which in some way could even be linked to the dialogue process.

2. Mrs. Anna Maria Boura of Mr. Lajcak briefed on the current stages of dialogue, initiated by the technical one under Mr. Tahiri until the moment of Mr. Lajcak as a special representative. The format of discussions, technical topics raised according to the pre-coordinated list, parallel discussions among technical groups, was explained. It explained how it happened to the transition of dialogue from that non-technic to political at the request of Mr. Thaci (with the reasoning that in technical dialogue, talks are taking too long), and Blerim Shala's appointment as political co-ordinator. The chronology of the 2013 and 2015 agreement on the association of Serb majority municipalities was also mentioned.

3. The resumption of dialogue in 2020 is seen in a move even in response to the involvement of Ambassador Richard Green and his ideas (including non-coordination with the EU). The task of giving weight to the process is to appoint a person who has dialogue as a single and full-time commitment, Mr. Lajcak would say. The contract with Mr. Lajcak, according to the reference, has two components -- commitment to a comprehensive agreement and no specific segments of dialogue -- and the implementation of the agreements thus far. Serbia's idea of going to a segment after the segment has been rejected because it has been misappreciated with the poor intention of procrastinating in the endlessness of the process. Dialogue (at reference) has only one goal and meaning -- a final agreement that has in it mutual recognition, recognition by the remaining five EU nations, UN membership and the exchange of diplomatic missions between Kosovo and Serbia.

4. According to the above concept, a list of topics for discussion has been set up and agreed to start with the subject of undiscovered and displaced persons to continue with those of economic co-operation. According to the reference, there has been progress in these areas and there are drafts of agreement, but that only become relevant when the general and legally binding agreement is reached (in principle, nothing has been agreed upon as long as everything is not agreed on). After that, the issue of association and financial requirements was agreed to open, but negotiations cannot continue since Hoti has announced he no longer enjoys political support and therefore cannot go on for negotiations. In drafts for missing persons and displaced persons, The EU has taken care to specify details so that there is no space for different interpretations on the sides. Also talked about regular reports made in the EU on the current implementation of agreements signed earlier (which are included in the SAA).

5. At this stage I just proposed that we don't think that the parties have been treated the same until now. We will not agree to sit at the table with the default agenda (if we are part of the dialogue and are part of the agenda). Neither do we accept the sequence, because we will not agree to talk about economic co-operation with Serbia without the whole topic of compensation and other financial compensation. We also agreed to deal again with both the document agreed on missing and missing persons. Especially in the part about displaced persons (the most controversial ones who seem to have been introduced and imported from Serbia) needs intervention. Dialogue should be redefined as dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, not between Belgrade and Pristina, since neither I nor the prime minister are representatives of the city of Pristina.

6. Mr. Lajcak listed some of the achievements from the dialogue for the Kosovo side (Kosovo International Code, the integration of parallel structures, the extension of tax policies, the transition from UNMIK to Kosovo of several other structures. Also cited as the EU's final goal, improving the lives of citizens. He promised them that the EU would never try to impose any solution on the parties. It was said that their principle is that each agreement reached is in full agreement with Kosovo legislation.

7. On the subject of undiscovered persons, it is understood to be a very sensitive topic, which, according to Red Cross estimates, has yet to remain 25% of those who have not been found. It was talked about a joint team where Ibrahim Makolli from the Kosovar side is the group, which has worked hard but lacks political support, since it lacks political will. This especially from the Serb side, which consistently reacts harshly by demanding that KLA archives be opened where Albanian crimes would be seen. We told them that this topic should be reopened, since Serbia should not only be required to open archives, but simply to present precise information about where mass cemetery is located (all has been transmitted with military logistics and recorded on their part). The Serbian side should seek information from Kosovo about any crime the KLA may have committed on Serbia's territory, similar to the crimes police, military and Serb paramilitary have committed on Kosovo territory. I've also announced that we're going to treat this thesis with the financial share, since the non-material damage is much greater in the families of the missing people than in the families of the martyrs.

8. The other topic we were informed about was that of Kosovo's international representation, the elements of the agreement about the introduction, and the fact that it has agreed that the introductions are valid for new agreements where Kosovo is represented, but does not affect those of the past. This means that our team has agreed to further be represented by UNMIK in the agreement, such as CEFTA or the Energy Community. This has already advanced to the problem, since Kosovo's Assembly is refusing to ratify amendments to these agreements with the demand that initially leave U. NMIC as a pair. We told them that progress cannot be made without these changes and that Serbia has violated this agreement since it has consistently hampered Kosovo's membership in regional or international initiatives. We also mentioned that compromise has actually not been compromise, since it has been reached below the minimum level possible. Therefore, efforts and support should be not only in the direction of UNMIK's removal but also intensive. If the banner is a compromise between the countries that have recognised Kosovo and those who have not done so, then the compromise is to be sought between the “Republic of Kosovo” and the Republic of Kosovo “*”. In this case alone, the banner could imply that some states do not recognise Kosovo as a state.

9. The energy topic was also discussed as the focus of earlier agreements and the implementation of which has problems. It was named a very hot topic, and an emergency was mentioned in the appointment of the ZERE board, but also the need to find a transitional solution to avoid eventual tensions in the north. It told them that the Elektroseverer, according to them, has successfully completed the ZRRE application and that has applied for both supply and distribution services. Lajcak also mentioned the option so that when dialogue is resumed, the energy topic will be the first in question. David Cullen said that for the Kosovar side, it shouldn't be a major problem for temporary financial support to cover the cost of finding the final solution, because in addition to tensions, major trouble with COSTS after NTSOE membership. Ana Maria Boure presented the energy deal as a very good compromise since it takes away parallel structures in the north. On our part, differences of the agreement were highlighted, the perverted institutions that this creates on the Serbian side, problems with the application of the Elektrosverer, the fact that Elektroseveri under no circumstances will be licensed for distribution services, and that they actually don't have the application seriously, and that Kosovo's obligation to pay is meaningless and breaks budgetary principles. Serbia's “Gatisity” to sign this agreement should not be seen as their compromise, but Serbia must be found guilty of the damage it has caused by unable to resolve so far.

10. The details of the agreement and problems in implementation were cited on official visits. Our comment was that the agreement as such only opens the doors to commitment with provocation purposes, and that the 72-hour deadline for application can be respected because it requires the ministry of foreign affairs's over-proportionate commitment and priority treatment that we are not willing to make. In the future the visits should be warned minimum days earlier.

11. The next established topic was the issue of the agreement in the field of integration of the justice system, and the refusal to implement on the part of Kosovo's KDR. The EU views this agreement as an important instrument for the protection of minority rights, and was asked that the Kosovo side commit to appointing mixed panels with judges in Serb-run municipalities (according to the agreement). The 2013 agreement on recognition of the validity of parallel court decisions was also cited before the trial agreement and the transition phase. The problem was especially seen in the transition which, instead of several months, has lasted a total of 5 years.

Twelve. The last topic reported for was the Association of Serb majority municipalities, where it was shown how, under the agreement, association, troops, statute, decision-making, areas and responsibilities, financing, are expected to appear. It was under legislation in Kosovo and something similar to the Kosovo Communist Association. Without questioning, we only informed them of the incriminating principles under which the AKK operates (can't exclude any municipality due to ethnicity) and the fact that there is no executive competence and that there is no verdict from the constitutional court that the AKK considers contrary to the constitution”.

These were the general topics our team was informed about by Mr. Lajcak. The cases where we've been involved in the discussion, they've been of the explanatory nature and no negotiation or position. Even in the future I will continue with the same principle of detailed information by parliamentary political parties with the performance of visits to Brussels”, the Bislim letter said.

Since May 4th 2021, Bislim has never reported to parliamentary parties about the process of dialogue and meetings he has held.