The uncertain future of the Brussels dialogue

Written for Kosovo Online by: Dragan Bisenic, a journalist

After the most serious confrontation between Kosovo and Serbia in recent years, the European press is discussing the future of the region. The most important question, following the incident in Banjska, is the fate of the agreements reached so far, the future of the Franco-German proposal, and the dialogue itself taking place in Brussels. The European Union has described the conflict in Banjska in the strongest terms, stating that it is a "terrorist action," which is also the assessment of Pristina. Pristina is announcing "institutional measures" against Serbian political parties, calling for sanctions against Serbia, accusing that everything was orchestrated in Serbia, drawing parallels with Ukraine, and explaining that even a "general attack on the north of Kosovo from three directions at 37 points" was planned. This is intensified by claims that "Russia had a hand in it" and is involved in everything, including Russian President Putin. Positive responses to these calls are coming from the European Union, with at least 7 EU countries preparing to request sanctions against Serbia.

European and Western reactions are moving in two directions. One is the urgent containment and control of the conflict, and the other is the continuation of the existing dialogue and the prevention of its collapse. It is striking in the US reactions that there is no mention of the terrorist nature of these events anywhere. The emphasis on continuing the dialogue and implementing previously reached agreements is strongly emphasized, which does not differ from the US positions before the events in Banjska, meaning that it has not shifted US positions. The European Parliament has announced a debate on Kosovo for tomorrow. All of this shows that day by day, there is less and less room for dialogue, communication, and compromise that has been relied upon so far, and questions are being raised about the purpose of the dialogue under current conditions. European media are also doing this, realizing that the fate of the political process is very uncertain in such a confrontation.

German public broadcaster ARD draws pessimistic conclusions about the future of the political process. "The European Union has presented a 'Franco-German proposal' for the normalization of relations to both the Serbian and Kosovo Governments. It proposes that Serbia does not have to be forced to recognize Kosovo's independence. However, Serbia would have to accept that Kosovo exercises autonomous authority on its state territory. But it seems that these attempts at rapprochement have become a distant goal due to many incidents in recent weeks," German television says.

Austrian "Kleine Zeitung" notes that "Borrell's dual strategy to start building a Community of Serb-majority Municipalities in northern Kosovo and at the same time work on Serbia recognizing Kosovo cannot work under these conditions."

As early as December of last year, Germany assessed the possibility of a new war between Serbia and Kosovo. Therefore, German politics and the public are most concerned today whether events in the small Banjska can escalate into a new regional conflict, and urgent measures are being sought to prevent such a possibility. Following the statement from the State Department, the German Government called on Belgrade to reduce its military presence near the demarcation line with Kosovo. "There must be no further escalation between Serbia and Kosovo. It is important for Serbia to immediately reduce troops on the border," the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote on the X platform. The German ministry stated that it was "in intensive contact with all parties" and called for the "political process" to continue.

To better understand the current state of the dialogue, let's remind ourselves of how the previous round of dialogue concluded, as the latest events may overshadow the outcome of the previous meeting. The last round of high-level political dialogue was held on September 14th in Brussels, but the EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, deemed it "unsuccessful" because Kosovo's Prime Minister Kurti "did not accept a compromise solution”. After the meeting, the Kosovo Prime Minister accused European officials of essentially being spokespersons for Serbian proposals, as they urgently called for the establishment of the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities and then proceeded to other issues. Kurti stated at a press conference in Pristina on September 18th that during the last round of dialogue, Lajcak "had a clear stance against Kosovo in general, especially against the Agreement on the normalization of relations."

He also felt that there was "coordination" between Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Lajcak to create an "alternative scenario in which half of the agreement would not be implemented." The US Balkans Envoy, Gabriel Escobar, assessed that attacks on Lajcak and Borrell were unjustified and added that they should stop.

"I can tell you that this letter is factually incorrect in claiming that Lajcak and Borrell are cooperating with Russia and have a biased approach to Kosovo," Escobar stated.

This conflict has not reached its conclusion, as it was interrupted by events on September 24th and everything that followed. However, this does not mean it will be forgotten. It is now just another obstacle, so to speak, for the continuation of the dialogue. Therefore, it seems that changes in the approach to the dialogue are likely.

Branislav Stanicek from the European Parliament's Research Center believes that different interpretations of the Ohrid Agreement by Belgrade and Pristina are the most significant "stumbling block" in achieving real progress towards a comprehensive agreement. For Belgrade, anything implying recognition of Kosovo's independence is unacceptable, while Pristina authorities reject any possibility of expanding autonomy for the Serbs in Kosovo.

The European Parliament has previously debated the Kosovo issue several times, emphasizing support for the dialogue while also highlighting the EU membership perspective and the importance of EU enlargement. The Parliament's recommendations from June 2020 on the Western Balkans underscore the need for enlargement as a positive EU agenda that must be accompanied by strong and tangible incentives. The Parliament stressed that the "enlargement process nurtures and strengthens capacities to resolve bilateral disputes and strives for reconciliation between societies in the region". According to the Parliament's recommendation on a new EU enlargement strategy adopted in November 2022, the enlargement policy is the "most effective instrument of EU foreign policy and one of the Union's most successful policies". It is a strategic investment in stability and prosperity on the European continent. The recommendation includes "enhancing EU constructive engagement with the authorities of Serbia and Kosovo to achieve a comprehensive legally binding agreement on normalization".

Expectations are that the European Union will raise its stake in this matter. In France, it is noted that 25 years after independence, Kosovo remains under NATO protection... The European Union is trying to mediate between Belgrade and Pristina by enticing them with the prospect of EU accession by 2030. This perspective still seems too uncertain to calm nationalist impulses on both sides. However, as seen elsewhere, only the European idea can resolve such a deadlock in the conflict.

The European Parliament has also supported the economic and investment plan for the Western Balkans, adopted in October 2020, which allocates approximately 9 billion euros for stimulating economic and social development in the region. From the perspective of current developments and the real capabilities of the EU, it must be said that this is indeed a modest sum for the six Western Balkan countries. In line with these recommendations, EU officials have announced bolder steps in EU enlargement several times during this autumn. Borrell mentioned the year 2030, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, spoke in her statement on the state of the EU about the need to begin preparations for a "30+" community, meaning the EU with more than 30 members.

Modifications to the negotiation process seem almost inevitable, but additional difficulties arise from internal relations within the EU, including the relationship between the two main drivers of the entire strategy, Germany and France. Poor relations between France and Germany are slowing down key decisions in the EU, including agreements on defense in Ukraine and trade, according to influential German MEP David McAllister.

McAllister, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament and a key figure in the opposition Christian Democratic Union of Germany expressed concern that the lack of contact between Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron was causing delays in crucial decisions on combat tanks, fighter jets, and a future trade agreement with Latin America. "At this moment, we see an exceptional lack of internal coordination between Paris and Berlin. And that's not good," McAllister said.

This would mean that if there are opportunities for the negotiation process to continue in the foreseeable future, the European Union would need to include clearer incentives that explicitly include membership in the European Union. Recent events indicate that this is not just a technical assessment but an important European strategic and political issue.