Kosovo versus USA: What is the cause and where does the increasingly open disagreement on the Washington-Pristina line lead?
"The partnership is jeopardized, and only in Washington do they know to what extent. Assistant Secretary of State James O'Brien's explanation that Kurti implemented the ban on the dinar unilaterally and without prior consultation and coordination, to the detriment of further development on the ground, indicates that he has compromised a certain interest of the current US administration".
Edited by: Milos Garic
The title of this article falls into the category of 'believe it or not'. However, the current Kosovo government, led by Albin Kurti, has definitely entered the 'red zone' of tolerance of the US State Department, after numerous serious 'fouls,' which were tolerated by Washington for a long time. Assistant Secretary of State James O'Brien's message to Kurti that he has squandered the partnership with the world's greatest power, the one that made him an Albanian leader and gave him the opportunity to implement extreme nationalist dreams, is certainly not accidental.
Those who are familiar with the character of extreme Albanian nationalism are not too surprised by the current events. Albin Kurti has simply shown his true colors. Considering the full support of the US for the realization of Kosovo's secession from Serbia and then the affirmation of that project on the world stage, Kurti and his like-minded individuals consider it a given that cannot be questioned, and at the same time, as a tool through which they will implement their most brutal plans for ethnic cleansing and the creation of a 'Greater Albania'. Something similar was done in Tito's Yugoslavia by Kurti's communist predecessors Fadil Hoxha, Mahmut Bakalli, Kole Shiroka, and others using all the weaknesses at the top of the then-state, comfortably sheltered behind the facade of 'brotherhood and unity' and the constant thesis of 'Albanian vulnerability to Serbs'. In fact, as early as 1966 and especially after the constitutional changes in 1974, the Albanian extremists in Kosovo were working at full speed on the separatism project, mostly avoiding responsibility for the numerous criminal acts committed.
Kurti's stubborn insistence on sticking to the decision to ban the dinar in Kosovo, thus rejecting all demands from the US on this issue, which came as the culmination of many other 'disobediences' over the past two years on numerous similar topics, has exhausted the patience even among the most persistent supporters of the Albanian position in Kosovo on the other side of the Atlantic. The question arises of how and to what extent, after everything, there will be changes in the relations between Washington and Pristina in practice and the further development of events in Kosovo.
Career diplomat Zoran Milivojevic emphasizes that the recent threats from Assistant Secretary of State O'Brien are so far the sharpest reaction from the United States towards the moves of the Pristina side.
End of partnership?
"With the message that the measures, actions, and disregard of the administration's position by the government of the temporary institutions in Pristina could question the 'partnership' relations between Washington and Pristina, the United States has reacted most sharply to Pristina so far. It is obvious that Kurti, in the way he adopted and implemented the suspension of the dinar and other measures in that context with evident consequences in Kosovo and Metohija, crossed the line of the usual tolerance (of the US administration) for the measures and actions his government has been implementing since coming to power three years ago. Here, it should be added that the emergency session of the UN Security Council was held at the request of Serbia, which did not correspond to the geopolitical interests of the United States. The explanation of the US administration's stance presented by Assistant O'Brien, that Kurti adopted and implemented a unilateral measure without prior consultation and coordination, to the detriment of further development on the ground, indicates that he jeopardized a certain interest of the current US administration in its approach to the Kosovo issue. Therefore, this time, the US stance should be seriously considered, which the US does not hide," Milivojevic points out for Kosovo Online.
Let's recall, that the key part of O'Brien's message reads, "I'm not someone who publicly issues vague threats. If they don't treat us as a partner, we won't treat the Government of Kosovo as a partner either".
Milivojevic notes that O'Brien speaks from the highest position in the US Department of State, covering our region operationally, and has consolidated previously expressed views (Eskobar, Ambassadors Hill, and Hovenier) and formalized the administration's stance directly.
"Assistant O'Brien also revealed the administration's strategy, which is questioned by Kosovo's measures because the US believes that dialogue based on the 'agreements' mediated by the EU should be given absolute priority. By implementing them, it ensures de facto recognition of 'Kosovo', with the assessment of both the European Union and the US Ministry that the first steps on that path have already been taken by accepting the 'tables' and 'customs documents' and that this political path should be continued step by step until complete realization. This approach is confirmed by the United States, including President Biden's congratulatory message on Statehood Day, in which the United States opts for cooperation with Serbia in the fields of economy, energy, and military through joint activities on a multilateral level, supporting dialogue between the two sides for the implementation of agreements under the auspices of the EU and seeking solutions on that basis. It is also important for the United States to express its well-known expectations regarding Russia, but there has been no regular stance on 'mutual recognition' so far, nor reminders of the US firm stance on the status issue of Kosovo, around which there is no consensus, which is not coincidental," Milivojevic emphasized.
There are two reasons, according to him, for the US pragmatism in this case.
"Firstly, the fact that without Serbia, no solution to the Kosovo and Metohija issue is possible, and that, due to its real reach, Serbia should be kept in an active politically opportune relationship through strengthening all other mechanisms of influence through cooperation (economic mechanisms, energy, and military cooperation, etc.) for a positive environment regarding the Kosovo and Metohija issue. This has resulted in overall improvement of relations during the previous year of 2023, with the orientation of the United States towards de facto recognition without emphasizing direct ('mutual recognition') status issue of Kosovo," Milivojevic says.
He warns that as far as Serbia is concerned, recognition is recognition, whether de facto or de jure because it directly provides international subjectivity to "Kosovo" (the German model and the GDR), which de facto satisfies the interests of the United States and the allies of the recognizers.
Kurti broke his promise
"Secondly, the other reason lies in the fact that the United States views the matter and projects its interest based on the position of global power and a broader context, including Ukraine, Russia, China, and the region in a broader European and Eurasian geostrategy. Just as the United States has acted in the context of EU and NATO expansion towards the Black Sea, the region, then in the case of Dayton, and in resolving the Athens-Skopje dispute and the 'consolidation' of North Macedonia. In addition to their interest, they also took into account the real positions of actors in accordance with the nature of great power politics and strategy. This is also the case now with a strengthened Serbia, to which they give priority in terms of influence and importance for achieving their goals, compared to the current government represented by Kurti, while of course not changing their final stance on 'Kosovo' as a state and generally as a strategic-political proven ally," Milivojevic explains.
He continues by stating that the overall dimension of Serbian-Albanian relations is now realistically seen by the United States primarily through the Belgrade-Tirana line.
"The line of centers of main national and geostrategic influence in the region will be realized, as they calculate when the project of 'Kosovo' is implemented with de facto recognition according to the German model, which would ensure a balance of power between the two dominant national cores in the conditions integrated into the transatlantic community. To a large extent, this is also the current difference in positioning towards Kurti's recent action with the dinar, where the United States is sharper and clearer than the Germans, British, and some others with tendencies of rivalry with Germany, which lacks the position of a global power. Whether and how the United States will react more clearly this time remains to be seen, but the fact remains that this time their interests have been significantly affected by Kurti's measures, and that in a sensitive temporal context related to Ukraine, various elections, the Middle East, etc. In any case, with their reaction regarding the dinar, the United States has opened the question of their influential credibility in these areas, but also among their allies," Zoran Milivojevic concluded.
Bojan Bilbija, the editor of the political section in "Politika", told Kosovo Online that if we looked at the statement of Assistant US Secretary of State James O'Brien from Tuesday, stating that Pristina should withdraw the decision to ban the dinar, we would see not only a changed rhetoric, which we had been witnessing for months, but also a clear indication of a change in attitude towards Pristina, or Prime Minister Albin Kurti.
"When such an important official from the State Department says that Pristina's ban on the dinar has called into question the partnership with the United States because they made that decision despite Washington's opposition and that Kurti personally promised him that he wouldn't make this decision unilaterally, but he still did, then it's not surprising that O'Brien's conclusion follows, 'If they don't treat us as partners, we won't treat the government of Kosovo as a partner either'. We should recall the recent forum in Davos and the reports in opposition media, claiming that the Prime Minister of Pristina supposedly outplayed President Aleksandar Vucic there, who was walking around the city late in the evening with O'Brien, while Kurti had an 'official meeting' with him. It's probably during that meeting that Kurti officially promised what he later unilaterally broke by abolishing the dinar. It won't be as the opposition claims, that Vucic went to Davos to 'chase US officials through the snow to take pictures with him or to build a snowman', or that the 'nonsense story' about walking with the US official was made up to cover Kurti's meeting with Jim O'Brien. And they haven't missed pointing out that Kurti is the 'sole winner in this story'. The only true thing is that Kurti has now become the 'winner' of serious reprimands from O'Brien, and that's probably just the beginning," Bilbija emphasized.
He reminds us that opposition media didn't quote Vucic after the walk with O'Brien when he said that he had had 'important discussions about the future of Serbia, relations with Pristina, and improving Serbian-American relations', and that 'for Serbia, it's important, and I believe possible, to build relationships of greater trust and cooperation with the United States in the future'.
Before the meeting, Vucic sent a message that he feared Kurti would attempt to raid the branch of the Postal Savings Bank in Kosovo in the coming days due to the ban on the Serbian dinar, and that he would discuss this with the US representative. As we can see, Vucic's information was, as usual, precise and reliable, unlike Kurti's promises.
What does Washington want?
“For the US, it's crucial that Belgrade, and Vucic personally, guarantee peace and stability. Serbia has a well-established strategy towards the United States, our goals, and the means to achieve them. Our priorities in these relationships are to protect the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija from Kurti's pogrom and arbitrariness while preserving state and national interests," Bilbija emphasized.
Regarding who the winners and losers are, he adds, it was best seen at the emergency session of the UN Security Council, where even the United States and France, along with 11 other members of the highest global body, had plenty of criticisms for Kurti for depriving the Serbs of basic means of livelihood.
"Obviously, Aleksandar Vucic's arguments were more than convincing when he accused the Prime Minister of Pristina of committing crimes against the Serbs in his speech. A part of the similar rhetoric towards the Kosovar Prime Minister is now being used by James O'Brien, which was immediately welcomed by Richard Grenell, former Trump's point man for the Balkans, who ousted Kurti in 2020, saying that Biden's team is now finally following the policy towards Kurti that the Trump administration pursued. Therefore, Kurti does not enter the campaign for the elections expected in Kosovo this year with ease. Obviously, he will not be Washington's main favorite in those elections, just as it is clear that his policy is closer to the interests of other powers in the region, such as Berlin or London. Here we can see the rivalry of the great powers, no matter how much Germany is currently facing problems and dependent on the US. Kurti's desire to 'punish' Serbs and Serbia is not convergent with US plans at the moment, as it faces global challenges on several fronts - from Ukraine, through Israel, Yemen, Iraq, to China and other hotspots," Bilbija pointed out.
According to him, Washington primarily wants to preserve the stability of the order in the Balkans that it has been building for decades and prevent a greater penetration of other external powers, primarily Russia and China, but also Turkey and Germany.
"They don't want to use US engagement to achieve their goals in the Balkans. Belgrade's strategy is constructiveness and the implementation of achieved agreements, but also the preservation of stability, security, and the acquired rights of the Serbs in Kosovo, which the US guarantees. Kurti's constant destabilization makes the realization of US goals jeopardized, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for Belgrade to maintain its previous policy of peace and stability, which is clear to Washington as well. Kurti wants exactly that, to provoke a conflict between Serbia and the West, and that's why he constantly provokes, with the support of some external powers. That's why not only the rhetoric but also the partnership between the US and Pristina is changing towards him. Partners do not behave like him, and that is an opportunity for our country to improve overall relations with Washington, including regarding Kosovo," Bilbija concluded.
comments