Hill: Serbia is a closer partner to NATO than Kosovo

The US Ambassador to Belgrade, Christopher Hill, stated tonight that Serbia was currently closer to being a NATO partner than Kosovo, reiterating that the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities must be established, expressing confidence that it would happen.

Hill told RTS, speaking about the events of 1998 and 1999 before the bombing of Yugoslavia, and when asked how the status of the KLA changed from a terrorist organization, as the State Department initially labeled it, to an acceptable partner, he said that Serbia was currently closer to being a NATO partner than Kosovo.

"If you look at who is a NATO partner, Serbia is much closer to NATO than Kosovo. Currently, yes. That is very true now. We work with the Serbian army every day, we've had exercises, training, a range of things with the Serbian army... Now we are doing much more together than with the KLA or whatever it has evolved into," Hill said.

He added that he understood the question of whether calls to discuss the future meant forgetting crimes against the Serbs, and that the past decades had been a difficult period in history, with many crimes considered in various tribunals, including those against the Serbs.

However, he stated that his function was to look forward – whether Serbia and the US had enough in common to do more together.

"I have a strong sense that we do, and I hope we can," Hill said.

Responding to the observation that the same determination is not seen in addressing Pristina and Belgrade, for example regarding the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities, because it seems that the US is quite lenient when it comes to persuading Pristina to implement what it has committed to, he says that this is only Belgrade's perception because, he notes, Washington has taken a firm line and clearly indicated that this was a long-overdue obligation.

"The CSM was agreed upon 11 years ago, and our position, and the EU's position – we have heard Josep Borrell talk about it – is that the CSM must be formed. It is necessary and would solve many problems, for example, the issue of pensioners – how to provide funds for pensioners, how to solve the issue of dinars, how to manage education... All of this would be solved with the CSM," Hill emphasized.

He reiterated that the US stood behind it and insisted on it.

"I think at one point, our envoy Gabriel Escobar, regarding the CSM and Kurti, said that we would do it with Kurti or without him. Those are strong words, and the US stood behind them. There are negotiations, you have to resolve things, it's not easy, but we are committed to it, and I am sure that we will do it at some point," the US Ambassador said.

When it was pointed out that it had already taken 11 years, he replied that they "won't sit around and defend 11 years," because that was too long a period in someone's life, and that the US had clearly shown dedication to supporting the process of Miroslav Lajcak, where the issue of Serb-majority municipalities was central.

"It has to be done. The Serbs living in Kosovo need to know what their future holds, they need to know what the future holds for their children, so we are absolutely committed to it. The tone, the way we approach it, it all comes down to how you negotiate things, but we have been completely clear not only here in Belgrade but also in Pristina that it has to be done," Hill reiterated.

On the remark that this means he doesn't expect a journalist to ask the US Ambassador the same question in 25 years - when will we get the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities in Kosovo, he replied: "I hope not."

"I don't plan to be here in 25 years, but whoever is here, I hope we will have a much better answer to that question. I would like to see a normal relationship between Kosovo and Serbia there. I would like to see normalcy so that people could look at those borders as borders that connect rather than divide. I would like to see the whole region doing much better together and eventually all of that region being in the European Union. And for that reason, I won't be pessimistic about this issue. I am still optimistic that all of this makes sense, and that we can do this. But I think people need to have a much more optimistic view of things, to understand the logic and do it, and that includes people in Pristina," Hill said.

He recalled that 25 years ago, ahead of March 24, 1999, he was the US Ambassador to Skopje, and during the last visit of Richard Holbrooke, he accompanied the US diplomat on that trip, after which he returned to Skopje.

Asked if there was a chance to avoid the bombing during that visit, he replied that there had been hope that it could be avoided.

"In Rambouillet, an attempt was made to establish broad autonomy for Kosovo. The Albanian side accepted it, the Serbian side did not. Meanwhile, there were additional military actions in Kosovo, which we believed needed to be responded to and stopped," Hill said.

On the remark that the conditions in Rambouillet were unacceptable for Serbia, he said that at that time, nobody had been thrilled about bombing Serbia.

"The question was to stop the bloody and increasingly bloody situation in Kosovo, and it was an effort to try to stop Milosevic's forces," the ambassador added.

He noted, however, that he had not expected 25 years later to be talking about that and the retrospective of everything that had happened, rather than about what could be done after these 25 years.

He also added that the expectations of the US in Rambouillet had been that everyone would be in Europe in a few years, but the outcome had evidently been different.

"But that doesn't change what needs to be done. The right place for Serbia is in the European Union, and we would like to help Serbia get there. I hope that will happen sooner rather than later," Hill said.

On the remark that 2024 is, compared to 1999, a 25-year future, and that people in Serbia don't think they have been fairly rewarded for all the cooperation and hard compromises they have made to achieve peace and establish good relations with the US, Hill admitted that there was a policy of discontent and an idea that the US had not treated Serbia well enough.

"However, I would like to emphasize that 25 years ago, you would have been under heavy pressure to find US investment in Serbia. And today, the US has invested not only in various factories but also in some of the most advanced technologies we have. And that technology is part of the US-Serbian relations," Ambassador Hill pointed out.

The reason why the US is Serbia's largest trading partner in services, he sees in the fact that high-tech companies operate in Serbia, employing young Serbs, many of whom were not even born during the events being discussed.

"And yet, they are excellent workers for big US companies. I would like to see more of such investments. That is a big part of my job, to attract investors. And, I must say, talking to US investors today about Serbia is not a conversation about 1999. It's a conversation about how we see Serbia in the future. Will Serbia, in our opinion, become a member of the European Union? What are the problems Serbia faces? What are the issues? What are the opportunities? Those are the conversations we have," Hill added.

Asked about his stance in those conversations, he responds that he always says Serbia has a good future.

"I think Serbia has a talented workforce. An economy that is moving forward. Serbia has problems. We all know what the problems are. But I think maybe one of the biggest problems Serbia has... first of all, there is great pride in Serbia as it should be, but there is also a dose of pessimism that this pride will not be in line with achievements. And yet, I believe this is a country that can be very successful," Hill stated.

In response to the observation that a message appeared on the US Embassy's Twitter account after Sweden joined NATO, suggesting they "have an idea" for Serbia to be the next member, and the question of where they go wrong in "trying to win the hearts and minds of the Serbs," the US Ambassador replied that it was up to Serbia to decide, but that perhaps, after 25 years, it was a good time to consider what was best for security in the future.

"Serbia is currently pursuing a policy of military neutrality, and we absolutely respect that policy. But Serbs may come to a different conclusion at some point. For example, Sweden pursued a policy of neutrality. It lasted for 200 years. They made a change. So I think it's somewhat up to Serbia to decide what it wants to do. I certainly understand the issue of NATO relations. I understand that. The best I can do is to be as open as possible and, above all, to understand that there is another narrative on this issue. But whether Serbia should at some point be a part of collective defense? That will be up to Serbia to decide," the Ambassador stated clearly.

When asked about a potential major US real estate project in Serbia, he responded that he did not want to discuss such negotiations since there was no signed contract.

"I'm not involved in this issue. We at the Embassy try to help all possible companies. I am not aware that they have approached us," Hill added.