REL: American Umbrella begins closing for Balkans

In a region with fragile institutions and open tensions, this approach is not safe.

The co-worker of the American Institute of Enterprises, Heather Conley, singles out Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo as the most vulnerable countries, the first because of the fragmented state structure and ethnic divisions, the second due to continuing disputes with Serbia and international security community dependence.

She says moving towards the local “sector”, without clear and detailed leadership, can deepen existing blockades and strengthen nationalist and corrupt actors, although she considers the new approach necessary.

I think solutions should come and be supported by countries themselves, because this is the best way to move forward. The efforts of transatlantic foreign forces to impose solutions have not succeeded, despite evidence of both one and the other. Kosovo and Serbia, for example, have used agreements to boost nationalism on both sides”, Conley says of the Radio Expose Free Europe programme.

U.S. State Department published one by the end of May report New to US policy in the Western Balkans, in response to an American Congress request.

The document emphasises that the era of building states under American leadership has ended and that US engagement will focus more on stability and mutually beneficial partnerships than on direct interventions for reconstruction or “on the security of” in the region.

Radio Free Europe addressed the incumbent Government of Kosovo and the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina for comment on the American document, but received no response from any institution.

What is noted is that the American approach now clearly differs from the politics of the years, when the United States played a direct role in resolving conflicts in the Balkans.

At the time, Washington led the process of reaching the Dayton Agreement to end the three-year war in Bosnia, while later running NATO's air campaign against Serbian forces to stop violence and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

We are acting to prevent a broader war... and a powder keg in the heart of Europe that has erupted twice over this century with catastrophic consequences. We are acting to stay united with our allies for peace”, said US President Bill Clinton, on March 24, 1999, the day NATO launched the bombings.

After that period, the American role took on the form of a “passport” continuing to build states and institutions in the Balkans, supporting rule of law, economic development and especially security.

Radio Free Europe addressed the U.S. State Department with questions about the new approach to the region and its effects, but received no answers.

Conley, who in the early 2000s has served as deputy US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, estimates that the document does not constitute a full strategy, but rather an effort to reflect the current priorities of the American administration.

According to her, it combines elements of traditional U.S. policy in the region like fighting organised crime with the economic focus of President Donald Trump's era.

It is time to try some new approaches, where leaders take responsibility for a new course, without blaming external factors for forcing them towards it. Europeans and Americans can offer support but also corrective measures if the situation starts to deviate and increase instability. So I'm open to new approaches, but I don't see the details and the people that are going to move forward those”, Conley says.

What stands out, according to Conley, is also the absence of a traditional element of American politics - European perspective.

In previous American documents for the Western Balkans, EU integration was the central goal. In this case, Europe is almost invisible. This change, according to Conley, signals a greater division of roles between the United States and the EU.

“We have the same interests with the EU for stability and economic development in the region, but the EU has had trouble fulfilling that role. And when the crises begin, usually the United States intervenes and tries to manage them. But we would like to see a more stable approach of the EU in this direction. Therefore, the American document clearly emphasizes that the United States will follow its own policy and, in some way, separates itself from what the EU is doing, says Conley.

The European Union's long-term policy has been the integration of all Western Balkan countries into the EU. In this process, Montenegro is considered the most advanced, while Kosovo is the only one without candidate status.

And recently, several EU member states have proposed that future member states have limited rights over a transitional period, following accession to the bloc, which has prompted Reaction Different in the region.

For Mark Montgomery, from the Foundation for the Protection of Democracy, the EU cannot replace the US in the Balkans because it lacks both reliable military ability and political unity.

He estimates that even the Western Balkans itself is not yet available for the new American approach, as the security balance especially in the Kosovo-Serbia report remains fragile.

Although the U.S. State Department report considers the presence of American forces in the NATO mission in Kosovo, KFOR, as the key component for ensuring a safe environment, Montgomery says there are rumours that Elbridge Colby, deputy defence secretary for Politika, is considering some changes in KFOR.

“I think reducing American forces in KFOR would be largely destabilising. It would imply that the United States is no longer fully engaged in managing the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo, which I consider the most dangerous point of tensions in the Balkans. Also, it would send a signal to Russia and Serbia that the US is withdrawing from an important security role in the region”, Montgomery says of Expose.

Reports of possible US withdrawal from KFOR, where they currently serve around 590 American soldiersThey are not new, and are circulated before.

The last time the Pentagon responded to Radio Europe's free interest in the issue, it was in February, when it declared it will not announce any changes in the delocation of forces.

The question now, if Undersecretary Colby is considering changes, as Montgomery claims, was not answered.

NATO itself warned on June 12th that it will gradually reduce its presence in Kosovo during the coming year because of improving the security situation in the country, but it is not yet clear which contingent can or will be withdrawn.

Montgomery links any change in American presence in Europe with even broader strategic implications.

He views the Western Balkans as a space where Russian and Chinese influence remains present through political, economic and security networks, so he warns that these actors read very carefully every change in American engagement.

The most important thing to be prepared for China is to believe that the U.S. will be really involved when security is in danger. If we weaken the credibility of our military presence in Europe, then we send signals that we are not interested. Therefore, I'm very concerned about how this will be reflected in Russia-Kine” dynamics, Montgomery says.

The US State Department report identifies Russia and China as malicious actors aiming to benefit from instability, corruption and weaknesses in governance in the region, but also underlines US commitment to opposing their influence.

Vedran Gisic, a legalist at the Faculty of Political Sciences at Vienna University, says that although the US document presents China and Russia as factors that act against US interests, these positions are not unchanged.

According to him, global developments and economic interests can turn Russia from threat to partner.

“If it ends War in Ukraine And the U.S. has major economic interests in both the creation of businesses with Russia and the exploitation of mining resources and energy sectors in Ukraine then we can end up in a situation where Russia becomes a partner of the United States and the Western Balkans. In such a scenario, it may be imagined that Russia and the US will be engaged together in business projects, for example in the energy sector in Bosnia or Serbia”, says Gisic for Expose.

Gisic singles out Kosovo- Serbia as a deeply political and unresolved issue, which it says the new American approach focused on the economy and transaction agreements is not enough.

For Kosovo, according to him, the most secure long-term path is to get closer to the EU and to strengthen itself through reforms, in order to cope better with both American policy fluctuations and pressure from Serbia.

<x)

The “E know that this does not fully depend on Kosovo, because of the five EU states that do not recognise it, but, however, the country must move forward, focus on internal reforms, rule of law, fighting corruption and others. It has to prove the functionality of the state, to lobby continuously and to be sustainable in its” efforts, Gisic says.

In a similar line, Montgomery argues that Kosovo and neighbouring countries should strengthen their role as reliable political and economic partners, including progress towards energy independence.

But he also suggests that NATO regional allies Albania, Northern Macedonia, Croatia lobby both in NATO and directly in the US structures to preserve the American role in the Balkans.

The “would be in Kosovo's best interest to elect a functional government that can assume responsibilities and the government effectively. This is always important, but it becomes especially critical in cases where the United States may not be fully co-operative”, Montgomery says.

Thus, although from different perspectives, observers come to a common point: each step behind the US does not remain empty, but it creates space that can be filled with uncertainty or the influence of competitive actors.

Therefore, a pragmatic and balanced approach by all sides remains key to avoiding escalation of risks in a still fragile region. /Radio Free Europe