Last week was the most dynamic week of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue since its resumption in July, after almost two years of impasse. In less than four days, representatives from Belgrade and Pristina met with representatives of the United States in Washington and the European Union in Brussels as part of a new round of dialogue.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and Kosovo Prime Minister Avdullah Hoti pledged on September 4 to normalize their economic relations, signing an agreement in the presence of American President Donald Trump.
However, instead of economic cooperation, it is the provisions regarding the transfer of the Serbian embassy to Jerusalem, which oppose the EU foreign policy, and the mutual recognition between Israel and Kosovo which have held back the more attention.
However, the executive director of the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence (BFPE) Marko Savkovic recalls that it is still under discussion whether this agreement is really an international agreement generating obligations.
“I think it’s a sort of declaration of will, or political commitment to this administration, not the next one. We’ll see if Biden will insist on the Grenell-sponsored deal. There are, however, points that will interest him or “his people”, and which represent a reflection of broader, long-term US interests – in the area of energy security (diversification, less dependence on Russia) and cybersecurity (5G technology). , less dependence on China),” Savković said, adding that how this will be implemented is not clear and that is why he thinks we should still wait until November.
Professor at the University of Graz and member of the Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG) Florian Bieber believes that neither Serbia nor Kosovo gained much in Washington, but rather a victory for Trump and for Israel.
“Kosovo got recognition, from Israel, and both sides got a moratorium on Kosovo seeking membership in international organizations for Serbia, and for Kosovo, Serbia stopping the derecognition campaign. All this is very modest and the economic aspect is just a set of declarations, without concrete objectives or timetables. If there’s no follow-up, it won’t matter much,” Bieber said.
However, he added that the meeting in Washington worsened Kosovo and Serbia’s relations with the EU due to the commitment to move the embassies to Jerusalem, which goes against the position of the EU on this issue.
“Kosovo may be forced to go all the way, but Serbia could change its position, depending on who wins the US presidential election in November. Overall, I doubt there’s much left of this deal,” Bieber concludes.
More concrete agreements in Brussels
After the resumption of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, several rounds of talks took place in Brussels, both on a technical and political level.
Concretely, the fourth meeting between Belgrade and Pristina at the technical level, that is to say the experts, was held on Sunday September 6 in Brussels, during which the two parties reconciled their positions and began to agreement on a text on the issue of missing and displaced persons and on economic cooperation. The meeting was led by the Director of the Serbian Office for Kosovo and Metohija, Marko Đurić, and the Kosovo Coordinator for Dialogue with Serbia, Skender Hyseni.
The next day, September 7, a political level meeting took place in Brussels between Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, Kosovo Prime Minister Avdullah Hoti, EU High Representative Josep Borrell and EU Special Representative for Belgrade-Pristina dialogue Miroslav Lajčák.
After the meeting, Vučić said that Belgrade and Pristina had “basically harmonized” the issue of missing and displaced persons as well as some economic topics and opened two new ones – the Association/Community of Serbian Municipalities in Kosovo and real estate issues and financial.
Vučić and Hoti previously issued a joint statement confirming that their biggest priorities are European integration and continued work on the EU-facilitated Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. They also committed to redouble their efforts to ensure better alignment with the EU, in line with their respective obligations.
Borrell welcomed that they had jointly confirmed this and added that these talks are not always easy, but he is happy to see the commitment and respect from both sides.
“Naturally, their positions differ, but they return here to find common ground and work towards a comprehensive normalization of their relations – addressing all outstanding issues,” Borrell said.
What did Belgrade and Pristina gain from the meetings in Brussels?
Regarding the results of the recent round of Belgrade-Pristina dialogue in Brussels, Bieber stressed that the results of the meetings in Brussels are not clear, because we have to rely on the contradictory statements of both parties.
“Here I would like greater transparency of the process and results. It seems that the Brussels process has rather tried to catch up on the backlog of unimplemented agreements, which is a good thing, but I have not yet seen much good will, especially on the Serbian side, and I So I’m not sure what progress we can expect. ” Bieber said.
Savković stressed that within the framework of the dialogue one should not expect too much, except that the “most difficult” topics were discussed in Brussels, judging by the statements made after the meetings.
“But there is a trend: another indirect confirmation of statehood for Kosovo, in terms of recognition of Israel, after years of failure, and economic compensation for Serbia,” Savković emphasized.
The heads of the two expert teams, Marko Jurić and Skender Hyseni, will continue negotiations on the Community of Serbian Municipalities on September 17, while the next high-level meeting is scheduled for September 28 in Brussels. But what do recent events mean for the continuation of the process of normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina during the upcoming meetings?
Savković said the positive effect is the additional pressure on the EU to speed up “its part” of the process, i.e. political dialogue, so that the parties move closer to an agreement overall.
“We saw Palmer this weekend alongside Lajčák – so there is coordination at the level of the EU and US foreign services. The negative effect could be that if the EU fails in its efforts and Trump wins, I imagine that the United States will again take the initiative to reach a political agreement (part of),” Savković emphasized .
On the other hand, Bieber emphasized that, given the spectacle, the recent meetings in Washington and Brussels do not mean much for the continuation of the process of normalization of relations.
“For the most part, the European process will continue, but I have no immediate expectations, given the weakness of the Kosovo government and the very different expectations of the two sides. At best, some small outstanding issues could be resolved in the coming months, but a major breakthrough seems unlikely in the near future,” Bieber concluded.
