A Look from Beneath the Eyebrows

Written for Kosovo Online by Muharem Bazdulj
Trump has returned to the White House, and the entire world is in anticipation. Although he started furiously, issuing a significant number of executive orders, they have so far mostly addressed internal American issues.
As for foreign policy, despite numerous announcements, it remains unclear which direction it will take. Regarding the Western Balkans, there have been no official statements yet. However, all the countries and leaders in the region have certain expectations. Serbia largely relies on the friendship of Richard Grenell and the business interests of Jared Kushner, though it should be noted that Kushner also has business interests in Albania. From Serbia’s perspective, the end of Trump’s previous term was marked by the so-called “Washington Agreement between Belgrade and Pristina.”
Ultimately, due to Trump’s loss to Joseph Biden in 2020, much of the agreement remained unimplemented, with its only significant outcome being Israel’s recognition of Kosovo’s independence. Different analysts hold varying perspectives on Trump’s policy toward this region in the second term, which has just begun. Some anticipate the reactivation of the “Washington Agreement,” while others foresee a completely new approach. Nevertheless, both groups clearly focus on foreign influence.
In one of his books, the globally renowned Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek recalls a program on Austrian television from the late 1990s, shortly before the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It featured a Serb, an Albanian, and an Austrian pacifist. Zizek describes it as follows:
"Both the Serb and the Albanian presented their views in a consistent and rational manner (of course, consistent and rational if, and only if, we accept their fundamental premises: that Kosovo is the historical cradle of Serbia, and that Serbia holds inalienable rights to it, or that Albanians, after decades of Serbian oppression, have the right to establish a sovereign national entity). In contrast, the Austrian pacifist tried to play the role of a reconciler, pleading with the two opponents: ‘Whatever you think, just promise not to shoot at each other, to resist the dreadful temptation of hatred and revenge.’ At that moment, the Serb and the Albanian, the two 'official' opponents, exchanged a brief look of mutual bewilderment, as if to say: 'What is this idiot talking about? Does he understand any of this?' In that brief exchange, I see a glimmer of hope (...)."
Žižek concludes that the look was not a sign of mutual solidarity but merely shared confusion. As he interprets it, they were not surprised by the pacifist’s insight into the ethnic, religious, and other complexities of the Balkans but rather by the realization that he genuinely believed in the clichés about "ancient ethnic hatreds."
Both the Serb and the Albanian are perfectly aware that so-called "ancient ethnic hatreds" are merely rhetoric convenient for internal political manipulation, while the foreign pacifist views the situation from a depoliticized and somewhat racist perspective.
This anecdote, more than a quarter of a century old, is no less instructive today. While the English poet John Donne was undoubtedly correct in stating that "no man is an island," and while it is impossible for the Western Balkans to escape external influences, it is still wrong to routinely prioritize such influences.
The likely only way to achieve lasting peace and a realistic agreement would be through honest dialogue without external interference. This would require both Serbs and Albanians to consciously step out of a state of "self-imposed immaturity."
The calculations currently dominating the opposing publics and among intellectuals and influencers who act as their spokespeople are often infantile, boiling down to which great power sides with whom at a given time. It is rarely acknowledged that great powers do not choose sides out of affection or ideals but for stark interests that can shift or adapt depending on broader relations with another great power. At the same time, great powers in this part of the world often prefer the status quo so that the Western Balkans remains a battleground for their geopolitical disputes.
Therefore, an honest, rational, and well-prepared dialogue between the two sides, without foreign tutelage or mediation, would likely be a better and more realistic way to achieve a sustainable agreement than the usual "one step forward, two steps back" struggles. The anecdote recorded by Zizek symbolizes a starting point for such negotiations: the realization that both Belgrade and Pristina are more aware of each other’s true motives and interests than any distant mentors.
0 comments