Hartwell: Establishing association in exchange for nothing is absurd

High researcher at the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington, D.C. The United States of America, Leon Hartwell, believes Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti, should continue to participate in the process of dialogue mediated by the European Union, but also seeking alternative ways to resolve the conflict with Serbia beyond the limits of the negotiating table.

Since the Union is looking for unrealistic things from Kosovo when it is conditioning its path towards the EU with the establishment of the Serbian Major Community Association, researcher Hartwell states, in an interview for Albanian Post.

High associate in Think Tank-un IDEAS based at the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE), Hartwell, while stressing that it is essential to remember the initial purpose of association, which, according to him, was to promote stability in Kosovo, not to create a sustainable tool for de-stability, points out that creating such an mechanism in exchange for nothing is absurd.

“Taking into account the significant impact Serbia already has on Kosovo Serbs, it is good for Kosovo to approach the founding of such an association carefully”, he tells the AP.

Asked about the EU's approach, which apparently gives the impression that it is wanting to individualise the responsibility on the level of Serbia's institutions for the September 24th terrorist attacks by bypassing the state responsibility of Belgrade and President Aleksandar Vucic, Hartwell says it is disturbing the trend of how the European bloc is neglecting facts on the ground while focusing selectively on information conforming to their beliefs.

The “is very clear that Banja events in September mark a key moment in the Balkans. Western diplomats can no longer approach the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue with the same assumptions as in the past. Vucic has demonstrated his unwillingness to engage in trust and readiness to de-stabilise the conflict situation. Western policymakers should be deeply concerned because de-stability in the Balkans has a tendency to spread beyond the region. The time has come for a deep review of Western diplomacy in the Balkans”, he cautions.

While Serbia has not distanced itself from the September 24th terrorist act, the international community has not imposed sanctions on it, while Kosovo continues to be under austerity measures imposed by the EU.

And according to Hartwell, a possible reason for the EU's reluctance to impose official Belgrade sanctions lies in the fact that the same ones are trying to maintain the illusion of saving dialogue.

Leon Hartwell's full interview for Albanian Post

Albanian Post: On September 24th, a terrorist group entered Kosovo illegally and attacked the Kosovo Police, leaving one member killed. Kosovo blamed Serbia for the attack, stressing that official Belgrade tried to re-negotiate the entire north of Kosovo”, but Belgrade has said it has nothing to do with it. How did you comment on the entire situation, do you doubt that the incident at Zvecan Bay could escalate into a broader conflict?

Leon Hartwell: Following the terrorist attack in Banja, an examination of available evidence strongly involves Belgrade's involvement. It seems very unlikely that the terrorist group can independently amass such a large quantity of weapons. Moreover, the undeniable ties between Milan Radojicic, a prominent figure within the terrorist group, and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic raise troubling questions. The fact that Belgrade considers Milan Radojicic a local hero and has chosen not to extradite him to Kosovo for his role in the terrorist attack speaks a lot about the co-ordination of the Vucic regime.

In the conflict situation, it is not uncommon for governments to use “devastating” to disrupt peace negotiations. The use of such destroyers, as illustrated by the Banja terrorist group, allows Serbia to distance itself from the guilt of worsening the conflict. As such, Vucic is easily washing his hands out of any involvement with portrayal of the situation as a local dispute. Moreover, he is exploiting the situation as a pretext to argue: “Look, association is essential because Kosovo Serbs and Kosovo Albanians cannot peacefully co-exist”.

When it comes to expanding conflicts, identifying a single catalyst can be elusive. However, in the unstable Serbia-Kosovo situation, the scene is created for a fire, and with a simple spark a wide-scale conflict could be sparked. It is disturbing to observe Western officials who continue with a common, seemingly unintelligible approach to unstable dynamics in the region. While Serbia-Kosovo relations are a boiling powder barrel, the international community must stay alert, because any complacency can lead to catastrophic consequences.

Albanian Post: The EU approach gives the impression that it is willing to individualise the responsibility at the level of Serbian institutions for terrorist attacks by bypassing Belgrade and Vucic's state responsibility. How should the international community approach Kosovo and Serbia after the events of September 24th?

Leon Hartwell: I am not a psychologist, but it seems that EU officials are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias. Their tendency to selectively process information that conforms to their pre-existing beliefs, while neglecting the facts that should change their prospects, is deeply disturbing.

Long before the terrorist attack on Banja, EU officials seemed to have concluded that Vucic was a stabilising force in the unstable Balkans despite his authoritarian tendencies. Politologists often use the term “stabilocracy” to describe his regime ʹ a term referring to an autocratic government that receives Western support due to false belief that it ensures regional stability, despite its internal democratic deficits.

As such, in the context of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, the EU had chosen to adopt a conciliatory approach to Serbia by exercising considerable pressure on Kosovo, especially over the past two years, to create the Association of Serb Major Communities. In exchange, Brussels requires absolutely nothing essential from Serbia that would permanently end the Serbia-Kosovo conflict. EU officials boasted of a “agreement” in February of this year, which some Westerners present as the first step in de facto recognition of Kosovo by Serbia. However, the February “agreement” lacks legal weight under international law, as it has not been ratified by both sides.

The United States, in turn, left leadership in the Balkans to Brussels several years ago. Consequently, even when EU access seems wrong, Washington follows in the step.

It is very clear that Banja's events in September mark a key moment in the Balkans. Western diplomats can no longer approach the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue with the same assumptions as in the past. Vucic has demonstrated his unwillingness to engage in trust and readiness to destabilise the conflict situation. Western policymakers should be deeply concerned because de-stability in the Balkans has a tendency to spread beyond the region. The time has come for a deep review of Western diplomacy in the Balkans.

Albanian Post: While Serbia has not distanced itself from the September 24th terrorist act, the international community has not imposed sanctions on it, while Kosovo continues to be under austerity measures imposed by the EU. What is your opinion of these punitive measures against Kosovo?

Leon Hartwell: The announcement of national mourning days in Serbia for Banja terrorists appears to signal that Vucic is embracing their actions. A possible reason for the EU's reluctance to impose sanctions against the Vucic regime may be to preserve the illusion of saving dialogue. However, this approach ignores the grim reality that dialogue has stalled long ago. If that's the reasoning, the question arises: Why should restrictive measures be imposed on Kosovo for questionable reasons and the Vucic regime not be sanctioned for its association with terrorism?

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, there is an outstanding question of prejudice. Both the EU, supported by the US, constantly points to Pristina for the escalation of the conflict situation or, at least, makes statements “both sides”, even when responsibility for escalation is evidently unilateral and based on Belgrade.

In June, the EU and the US imposed various restrictions on Kosovo for failing to “scale the situation, despite the fact that Vucic orchestrated the events that led to attacks on KFOR troops by Kosovo Serbs. Shortly after, the US suspended Kosovo's participation in military exercise Defender Europe 23. On the other hand, Vucic was rewarded by US and several NATO member states with participation in Platinum Wolfe 23, which was organised in Serbia.

There's an unfortunate model. Not long after the September 2021 border dispute, when Vucic sent Serbian tanks to the Kosovo border, The EU similarly rewarded him by opening the 4th Group of the EU accession process a completely ill-managed situation. The opening of the group 4 with Serbia conveyed an optimistic message, suggesting Belgrade was progressing rapidly on its path towards EU accession. However, the movement can only be described as a mix of carrots and sticks to reinforce the conflict resolution process.

Therefore, after the terrorist attack in Banja, when the EU and the US refrained from imposing sanctions on the Vucic regime for its role in promoting tensions in Kosovo, while at the same time continued to penalise Kosovo for seemingly groundless reasons, it was not quite surprising. It matches the pattern of action in recent years. What is very clear is that the EU and the US should take a stronger stance by imposing sanctions on the Vucic regime to send a firm message that instability in the Balkans will not be tolerated.

The consequences of Vucic's actions will affect not only Kosovo but also the Serb population. Some opposition figures in Serbia are depressed by the space given to the Western Vucic regime, which creates the perception that his regime could act unpunished. Given his authoritarian tendencies, this is an ominous prospect for Serbs, as it could lead them into difficulties for decades.

Albanian Post: Following the terrorist attack, many politicians and experts from various fields said Kosovo authorities, following victory on the ground through the Kosovo Police, should reap victories even in diplomacy. Did Kosovo manage to capitalise on the situation created after the terrorist attack, advance Kosovo's position in dialogue?

Leon Hartwell: Unfortunately, the Balkans have largely emerged from the international agenda in recent years. In stark contrast to the 1990s and 2000s, there is an obvious lack of dedicated Balkan programmes in Washington, D.C. and organizations Tank tank-The focus of the region is few. Individual Balkan experts are distributed across the United States, but their collective influence remains limited.

So, to get back to your question in question, while the terrorist attack on Banja got some cover on the Western media, he remained restricted to the suburbs. Covering Baja's terrorist attack and its consequences competed with a series of issues considered more important than the Serbia-Kosovo conflict, particularly the Russia-Ukrainian conflicts and Israel-Palestinian. As a result, the Balkans find themselves sorry marginalised in the international discour.

Albanian Post: Kosovo and Serbia on Saturday visited the group, which is known as “ -- the large pair of” -- the first since the September 24th attack. Lajcak said after meeting with Kurti that Kosovo should establish the Association of Communities with the Serbian Majority without further delays, without the establishment of association, according to Lajcak, there will be no progress on Kosovo's European journey. How should Kosovo authorities act and proceed further with this case?

Leon Hartwell: In the complex world of negotiations, it is essential to remember that there are many sides sitting around the table. The start of a conflict is relatively simple, since it requires only the opponent's decision. However, closing a conflict requires unanimous consensus. Thus, when the EU insists that Kosovo will not have a path towards the EU without the establishment of Association, it presents a relatively unrealistic perspective, charging the blame for lack of progress only to one side. This unilateral EU stance on the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue serves as an outstanding example of the confirmation bias that I mentioned earlier.

The fastest way to end the Serbia-Kosovo conflict lies in recognising Kosovo's independence from Belgrade. At the moment, however, this prospect seems politically unstable for Vucic and he is not preparing the public for such a move. Moreover, he is promoting anti - political emotions - The EU, leading to a significant drop in support for EU integration in Serbia. As a result, the EU's previously coveted carton for promoting “abnormalisation” a meaningless legal word has been reduced to almost insignificant.

Prime Minister Albin Kurti finds himself in an uncertain position, under pressure from both the EU and the US, to preserve the will to negotiate with a counterpart who seems determined to undermine the negotiations process. However, negotiators engage in negotiations to realise their goals, and when negotiations are hampered, they must explore alternative ways to achieve the same goals. Therefore, while Kurti can continue to participate in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, he must also establish alternative ways for resolving the Serbia-Kosovo conflict that extend beyond the limits of the negotiating table.

Albanian Post: How can Kosovo run away from establishing the Association of Serb-run municipalities when it signed the Association Agreement since 2013 and then transformed that agreement into Kosovo law?

Leon Hartwell: The notion of association carries more complexity than it seems. Kosovo's Constitutional Court, in fact, has decided that some elements of this idea are incompatible with the country's constitution. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Kurt has not completely rejected the concept of association. Instead, the Government of Kosovo has submitted various EU and Serbian proposals. However, Serbia is adopting a maximumist stance, insisting on an entity equipped with powerful executive competencies. This attitude is disturbing, especially in the context of what is being revealed in Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding Republika Srpska.

It is essential to remember that the initial goal of the Association was to promote stability in Kosovo, not to create a sustainable means for de-stability. Given the considerable impact Serbia already has on Kosovo Serbs, it is good for Kosovo to approach the founding of such an association carefully.. Moreover, the creation of association in exchange for nothing that would ultimately end the conflict seems absurd. This last point is of great importance because, as I mentioned, “agreement on February” lacks the legal position of a formal agreement.

Furthermore, it is necessary for the EU and the US to walk carefully to avoid the unwanted promotion of a form of “Apartheid light” within Kosovo or any other Balkan region. If Kosovo Serbs are given an entity with considerable autonomous competency due to their majority status in specific areas, except other identity groups, it raises questions about where to place the border. The situation further extends to regions like Vojvodina, which house a varied mosaic of at least 24 ethnic groups.