Surlic: Through “social diplomacy” toward constructive narratives in the dialogue

Normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina cannot be reduced to sporadic political concessions or crisis-driven negotiations. It is necessary to build a sustainable, inclusive, and transparent process that involves a wide range of actors, from political leaders to local communities and civil society. This is the view of Stefan Surlic, director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Balkan Studies, presented in his analysis “Dialogue in Stalemate: How Innovative Mechanisms Can Revitalize the Normalization Process.”

The analysis was published in the bulletin of the National Convention on the European Union’s Working Group for Chapter 35, where Surlic stresses that revitalizing the dialogue through clear mechanisms for implementing and monitoring agreements can produce positive effects: stabilization of political relations, opening of economic opportunities, and reducing tensions through institutionalized dispute resolution channels.

“It is necessary to institutionalize formats in which civil society, academic institutions, cultural and sports organizations from Serbia and Kosovo cooperate on joint projects. These forums should not remain one-off initiatives, but permanent platforms for mutual communication and the exchange of ideas. A key innovation could be the formation of ‘citizens’ working groups’ or ‘dialogue councils’ that would have an advisory role to the negotiating teams, providing recommendations regarding local priorities, from employment for vulnerable communities to the protection of cultural heritage,” Surlic states.

In this way, he notes, a mechanism of “social diplomacy” would be created that makes it possible to reduce stereotypes, build constructive narratives, and indirectly exert pressure on political elites to maintain continuity in the dialogue.

Institutionalizing these groups would be formalized through regular meetings with European mediators in Brussels held in parallel with meetings of leaders or technical teams.

He observes that one of the biggest challenges of the dialogue is the perception that it is “externally imposed,” which is why it is necessary to create a sense that the process belongs to the people on the ground.

“Holding occasional negotiation sessions in cities of Serbia and Kosovo, especially in mixed communities such as Kosovo Mitrovica or Bujanovac, would send a strong message that the voice of the local community is being heard. Such events could be enriched with public debates with citizens, youth workshops, meetings with local businesspeople, and joint cultural events. This would create ‘horizontal ownership’ of the process, where citizens become active participants rather than passive observers. Even if meetings at the highest level are not possible at first, that certainly does not prevent at least technical teams from meeting in Belgrade or Pristina, while continuing to respect status neutrality,” Surlic notes.

He also emphasizes that normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina cannot be viewed in isolation, but as part of a broader regional dynamic.

“Including regional initiatives such as the Berlin Process, Open Balkan, or the Regional Cooperation Council can link political progress in the dialogue with concrete economic benefits. For example, joint infrastructure projects, trade liberalization, or coordinated programs in the field of renewable energy could become a ‘material reward’ for political compromise,” he recommends.

An innovative approach, in his view, would also involve launching joint environmental projects, for instance a program to clean the Ibar River or regional actions against air pollution, since such initiatives have a direct positive impact on everyday life and create “positive interdependence” between communities.

He also stresses the need for other countries in the region to play the role of facilitators by insisting on the implementation of joint projects. As a starting point, he proposes unblocking and improving the functioning of CEFTA.

As one of the main problems in the dialogue so far, Surlic identifies the lack of transparency in implementing agreed points and considers it necessary to establish a publicly accessible digital platform that would track the implementation of all agreements in real time.

“This tool would contain clearly defined deadlines, responsible actors, success indicators, and the status of each item, for example ‘in progress,’ ‘implemented,’ ‘delayed.’ To ensure the platform’s credibility, it could be managed by an independent joint commission that includes representatives of the EU, civil society, and the academic community. In addition, the platform would offer space for citizen comments and proposals, which would directly increase public trust and reduce the room for media manipulation,” he explains.

To overcome the current fatigue in the dialogue, Surlic argues that innovative and thematically specific instruments are required: academic cooperation, student mobility, media cooperation through joint television programs, documentary content, and exchanges of journalists to overcome the “closed echo chambers” in which Serbian and Kosovo media operate.

“Only through coordinated efforts is it possible to move from the current stalemate toward lasting peace and stability, which is of vital importance not only for Serbia and Kosovo but for the entire Western Balkans region. Through their engagement, citizens can compel politicians to act, because normalization is not only a leader-level process,” Surlic concludes.