New round of Brussels Dialogue: Why is the CSM not on the Agenda for Pristina and the EU?

Nothing new from Brussels. This is how yesterday’s round of dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, mediated by the new EU facilitator Peter Sørensen, can be described. Analysts in Pristina offer a simple explanation: Besnik Bislimi lacks the legitimacy for this task. From Belgrade, the message is that without the formation of the Community/Association of Serb-majority Municipalities (CSM), it is questionable whether further talks make sense at all.

Written by: Djordje Barovic

“What we have said at every meeting and what we have insisted on is that the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities must be formed immediately and urgently, as a precondition for moving forward. Without the CSM, the very survival of the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija is in question. For us, this has already become a humanitarian issue,” the Director of the Office for Kosovo and Metohija stated after yesterday’s unsuccessful meeting in Brussels.

He added that the direct encounter with Pristina’s negotiator, Besnik Bislimi, “was not at all pleasant,” and that Bislimi did not want to discuss de-escalation in Kosovo, which has been an EU demand since June 2023.

Bislimi, for his part, said after the meeting that the idea had been to make progress on establishing a joint Commission on Missing Persons, but that the Serbian side insisted that “the part of the agreement on establishing the CSM be implemented first.”

“Serbia’s position can be translated very simply as: first the precondition for the CSM, and then Serbia’s red lines—meaning that Serbia has effectively withdrawn from the Basic Agreement or refuses to discuss it,” Bislimi said.

Koha’s Brussels correspondent, Augustin Paljokaj, noted that yesterday’s meeting in Brussels confirmed that there is no point in holding meetings merely to note that the dialogue is continuing.

“The proposals are not to change the agreement; they are Kosovo’s requests to change the order in the sequencing plan for implementation. That sequencing plan was drawn up long ago by the former special envoy for the dialogue, Miroslav Lajcák. The Kosovo side rejected that plan because it envisaged that Kosovo first establish the CSM, after which other steps would follow,” he explained.

He added that, at the same time, there is no genuine insistence by the European Union that the parties fully implement the agreement.

“Those who follow developments in Kosovo and Serbia have no hope of quick progress in the dialogue process,” Palokaj concluded.

On the other hand, for Kosovo’s opposition, the failure of yet another round of dialogue is secondary.

The key question is—Bislimi’s legitimacy to lead the talks in Brussels.

The Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) stated that the caretaker government’s decision to send Bislimi to Brussels for dialogue talks is “unjustified and without any civic or institutional legitimacy.”

Government Legitimacy

This view is shared by diplomat and former Kosovo ambassador to Italy, Albert Prenkaj.

“I do not think Bislimi is in a position to assume any decisive responsibility due to the political and constitutional situation. As you know, since the elections in February, Kosovo has not had a legitimate and lawful government that would be responsible for taking decisions on any issues of domestic or foreign policy,” Prenkaj asserted.

He recalled that the 2023 Brussels/Ohrid Agreement is “a binding document for both Kosovo and Serbia,” accepted by Kosovo’s Prime Minister Albin Kurti and Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic.

“The ultimate aim of the agreement is to reach a legally binding agreement on the comprehensive normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia,” the diplomat said.

He specified that the key messages of the Ohrid Agreement—particularly points 4 and 5—explicitly stipulate that both sides will urgently endorse the already negotiated Declaration on Missing Persons, and that Kosovo will immediately launch EU-facilitated negotiations to achieve an appropriate level of self-management for the Serbian community in Kosovo, in accordance with prior agreements reached in the dialogue.

“All points of the agreement are binding on both sides in the dialogue; thus, for Kosovo, implementation of the Association/Community of Serb-majority Municipalities is obligatory, just as the Serbian side is obliged to cooperate in the handover of remains of the missing,” Prenkaj stated firmly.

He emphasized that these are only two of many items from the 2023 Brussels talks—i.e., the Ohrid Agreement—that were on the table at yesterday’s trilateral in Brussels.

Regarding the formation of the CSM, he explained that the matter rests with the Constitutional Court and that it is up to the new Kosovo government to submit the relevant document to that institution.

Dialogue and „Scoring Points”

Former diplomat Zoran Milivojevic disagrees.

He claims that yesterday’s meeting in Brussels showed that there are, in fact, “no conditions for a serious dialogue.”

“Unfortunately, we have a continuation of the process we had under the previous High Representative. There is nothing new,” Milivojevic told Kosovo Online.

He draws two conclusions from yesterday’s failed continuation of the dialogue.

“First, there are no conditions for any serious dialogue because the Pristina side is not changing its stance. Second, the mediators are not prepared. The new mediator approached the talks from the same position: it is important to hold a bilateral meeting and thereby ‘book’ a political point—but without results,” Milivojevic argued.

He noted that this is now the third EU team “coming in with the same positions.”

“We had two unsuccessful attempts with [Federica] Mogherini and later with [Josep] Borrell and [Miroslav] Lajcák, and now we have the same with Sørensen. We are in the same place,” the diplomat explained.

He stressed that the key problem is that the issue of forming the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities is no longer on the dialogue “agenda.”

“After these two failed negotiating blocks, Serbia has sent a clear message that it no longer intends to make concessions and that it insists on honoring previously undertaken obligations. The CSM and the Brussels Agreement are front and center because they are the condition for the survival of the Serbian people and for the possibility of discussing any kind of normalization at all,” Milivojevic said.

He added that the failure to respect what has been agreed so far has been “sharpened over the last three years” by the policies of the Vetëvendosje (Self-Determination) Movement and Albin Kurti.

“This policy continues and, in practical terms, calls into question the survival of the Serbian people in those areas, as well as the purpose of negotiations on normalization and on what should be the basis for a political solution,” Milivojevic maintained.

He said confirmation of this comes from Bislimi’s statements after yesterday’s round of dialogue.

“Bislimi was very clear: this is a message that there is continuity of policy even without a new government, and that there are no conditions for any change; that the CSM is not on any agenda envisaging the continuation of normalization talks between Belgrade and Pristina—at least as far as the Pristina side is concerned,” Milivojevic noted.

He believes the issue is also what the EU mediator in the dialogue, Peter Sørensen, thinks of such an approach.

“Quite simply, it was clear yesterday that there would be no results. It was clear that Bislimi would not discuss anything. He wants to talk only about recognition—at least that is how it seems to me. So it is unclear what the mediator thinks about that, and how the EU thinks this process can continue at all,” Milivojevic said.

The former diplomat warned that if the meetings held so far were merely “trial runs,” then the message is clear.

“In that case, there is no point in discussing the continuation of negotiations or new meetings unless there is a change in position—first by the mediator and then by the Pristina side—regarding previously undertaken obligations and the condition without which, let us be clear, there can be no continuation of negotiations, namely the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities,” Milivojevic argued.

He specified that this is the “condition of all conditions,” which gains further weight in light of current actions directed against the Serbian community in Kosovo.

“It becomes especially significant when, on a daily basis, we see repressive measures by the Pristina administration and elements of a kind of continued ethnic cleansing of the Serbian people, which prevents a normal life,” Milivojevic asserted.

As an example, he cited yesterday’s takeover of Serbian Post facilities in Gracanica and other parts of Kosovo.

“This matter with the post offices is simply a sign that they are not giving up, and under such conditions it is difficult to talk without guarantees that Serbs can even count on the possibility of a normal life. That is the first and basic guarantee before we can talk about other issues concerning normalization or a political solution,” Milivojevic concluded.

An „Old—Frozen Story”

Pristina-based political analyst Shkëlzen Maliqi describes the Belgrade–Pristina dialogue as an “old, frozen story.”

“It was a somewhat routine meeting. The teams working on this—the Europeans, etc.—have to do something. The dialogue has been practically frozen for two years, and the new team is getting ready to go on the field. There is still time to resolve things,” Maliqi told Kosovo Online.

He added that a meeting had been scheduled in Brussels to address the issue of the missing, but that the “old story” continued.

“A meeting was scheduled to discuss the missing, but then current topics were raised in Brussels: what has priority—the Community or the missing? It’s the same old story; nothing has changed,” Maliqi said.

He noted that Kosovo is currently awaiting local elections, and that the formation of the CSM and other topics will come onto the agenda once a new government is formed.

He warned that if there is again an institutional blockade, the direction Kosovo will take is entirely uncertain.

“I think the European Union has no other option—unless there are some major geostrategic agreements—because everything is changing on the global stage,” Maliqi emphasized.

He interpreted the Kosovo opposition’s challenge to Bislimi’s role in Brussels as stemming from the view that he cannot perform a “dual function” as both deputy prime minister and MP.

“The opposition believes he is usurping positions, because under the Law and the Constitution—legislation sponsored by Kurti’s own government—you cannot hold two positions, being in the executive while also being an MP. He has to choose one. This dispute has been going on for seven months,” the analyst concluded.

A „Burning Issue” for the Dialogue

Aleksandar Sljuka, associate of the NGO New Social Initiative, believes that the closure of Serbian institutions should be at the center of the Brussels dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina.

He stressed that today’s raid on the Health Insurance Fund (RFZO) and the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (PIO) in North Mitrovica is only the latest in a series of “burning issues” for Serbs in Kosovo.

“Dialogue certainly needs to be conducted, but under these circumstances, it should focus on such issues. When we have closures of institutions—and this is just one of a series of numerous closures in the past year and a half—I believe the dialogue should primarily be directed toward resolving this crisis, because that is where the citizens suffer the most,” Sljuka told Kosovo Online.

He stressed that while all other issues within the Brussels dialogue are indeed important, this is the “burning issue” that the EU and others are “ignoring and tolerating.”

“This is silence, in an essential sense, regarding the closure of institutions that are of vital importance to the citizens of Kosovo—not only to the Serbian community, but also to others, including Albanians. If such silence leads to a worsening of conditions in the community, then all those other issues will, if not now, then in the future, appear irrelevant or less important,” the analyst emphasized.

He added that the Brussels dialogue should also address the “neglected issues.”

“As we face new crises, we neglect previous issues. What happened to the issue of the dinar? We had seven or eight rounds of talks that were broken off, no solution was reached, and we have seen no outcome. People are still leaving Kosovo to withdraw their money from the budget of the Republic of Serbia. That is just one of many unresolved crises,” Sljuka explained.

He therefore believes that the essence of the dialogue should be what “primarily burdens citizens at this moment.”

“And once that is resolved—once a degree of normalization and de-escalation is established—then the ground will be more fertile for addressing larger issues,” he said.

Commenting on yesterday’s meeting in Brussels between representatives of Pristina and Belgrade, Sljuka said that judging by their statements, “it seems as if they were not at the same meeting.”

“In addition to the lack of results, we again have contradictory statements from both sides. From what Petkovic and Bislimi said, it sounds as if they were not actually at the same meeting. I think this is a problem that has been going on for some time, and in my opinion it is precisely the European Union, with Sørensen now as facilitator, that should resolve it,” Sljuka stated.

He is convinced that either the facilitator himself or the EU should, after each meeting, issue a statement specifying what was on the agenda, what was actually discussed, and what both sides presented.

He cited the issue of forming the Commission on Missing Persons as the best example—an issue previously considered resolved.

“In December last year, it was said that the commission had de facto been established and was expected to begin work. We all expected that to be the breakthrough—a humanitarian issue in the interest of both sides to be resolved as soon as possible—with progress perhaps by January or February of this year. But now, judging by these statements—at least from Bislimi’s side—the Serbian side understands that there are still some reservations about the commission’s work and functioning, and that supposedly only now have these been removed. Yet it has still not begun work, nor held its first meeting,” Sljuka emphasized.

He assessed that the Kosovo government, currently in a caretaker mandate, does not have the legitimacy to conduct politically charged dialogue.

“It should not be making any major decisions—that is why it is called a caretaker government, limited to technical decisions only. And while the Brussels dialogue is formally at a technical level, it is deeply politically charged. There are many sensitive issues for citizens on both sides, and having someone with questionable legitimacy negotiate on behalf of the citizens of Kosovo can be very problematic,” Sljuka warned.

He added that the current Kosovo authorities, despite lacking public trust, are striving to maintain the appearance of political strength and to continue asserting themselves on key issues.