Tanaskovic: Superficial similarities between Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh – no reason to expect “quick solutions”

Former Yugoslav Ambassador to Azerbaijan Darko Tanaskovic assessed that the peace agreement between that country and Armenia became possible only after the military reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh, but that this conflict has only superficial similarities with the case of Kosovo, and that no “quick solutions” should be expected here.

Tanaskovic is convinced that the United States, just as it mediated in the peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, will at some point also become involved in resolving the Kosovo issue.

“The role of the United States, without questioning their fundamental position that they recognized the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo, could be less biased in the sense that it might be more pragmatic, more rational, in line with that business-like logic Trump usually applies – to see what, in any potential agreement, one side gains and the other loses. However, I am not sure that the US administration, even under Trump, could take into account our ultimate reason above all reasons – that Kosovo is something unique for us. Kosovo, paradoxically, is for us what Nagorno-Karabakh is for the Armenians, from the standpoint of history, tradition, and national values,” Tanaskovic told Kosovo Online.

He added that the reason for a potentially more pragmatic approach to Kosovo lies in the fact that Trump “harbors no great or special ideological affection toward Albanians.”

“He will certainly insist on what was mentioned in the letter of the two congresswomen — mutual recognition of the two states — but only at the very end of the road. I think it is unrealistic to expect any quick resolution of this sort, because the matter between Azerbaijan and Armenia was concluded, and concluded on the battlefield,” Tanaskovic noted.

He pointed out that the United States got involved in the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia only when all the details of the agreement between the two countries had been finalized.

“In our case, I think the administration will be more pragmatic and will not be as emotionally and ideologically inclined toward either Pristina or Belgrade, which was evident during Trump’s first term. But that will not make it easier to reach a solution acceptable to us,” Tanaskovic said.

Asked why the US president, during the signing ceremony of the Azerbaijan–Armenia peace agreement, specifically emphasized that he had “prevented a war between Serbia and Kosovo,” the former diplomat said all of Trump’s statements should be “listened to carefully” and that this one was “enigmatic.”

“It is not entirely clear what he meant or what kind of war he had in mind, because all informed actors in the international community, as well as here at home, claimed there was absolutely no idea of starting any kind of war at that time, especially not on Serbia’s part. I think he was speaking in a general sense, that he had prevented a war, and to make it sound more effective, he tied it to this moment,” Tanaskovic said.

Commenting on the peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Tanaskovic said it was the result of the “military reintegration” of Nagorno-Karabakh and the diminishing of Russian influence.

“It is clear that peace became possible the moment Azerbaijan achieved its goals, that is, when it reintegrated by military force a territory it rightly considered, from the standpoint of international law, its own. At that point, Armenia could do very little,” Tanaskovic stressed.

One of the reasons, he said, was that Armenia lost Russia’s support.

“Armenia lost Russia’s support for a number of reasons, but in my opinion, even if Russia had supported Armenia more strongly, it still could not have avoided this outcome, especially since Russia, as we know, is preoccupied with a major war,” Tanaskovic explained.

Asked how similar the Azerbaijan–Armenia conflict is to the Kosovo issue, Tanaskovic said, “There are not as many similarities as some are inclined to see.”

“There are not many similarities. First, in terms of international law, there are none. Armenia occupied a part of Azerbaijan’s territory, whereas in our case, Kosovo and Metohija was taken from Serbia. Reasonably, any peace deal should imply the return of that territory to Serbia, which is now completely unimaginable,” Tanaskovic stated.

He sees stronger US engagement in the Belgrade–Pristina talks as a possible “new element.”

“The only new factor that could play a role is stronger US involvement, with President Trump. But we will have to see how that will manifest itself regarding Kosovo and Metohija,” the former diplomat noted.

He explained that, despite “superficial similarities,” the differences between the two cases are significant.

“The key difference, from the standpoint of international law, is that Armenia occupied part of Azerbaijan, and that Azerbaijan had every right to demand the return of that territory,” Tanaskovic said.

He recalled that in 1999, when he presented his credentials as ambassador of the FR Yugoslavia to Azerbaijan, the then-president of the country, Heydar Aliyev (father of the current president Ilham Aliyev), explained in detail the national strategy for returning the Nagorno-Karabakh territory within the framework of territorial sovereignty and integrity.

“Among other things, he told me that one must always have strong and effective international connections, at least one ally ready to decisively help at the crucial moment, and complete national unity regarding that goal. There are already major differences here, even though our position on Kosovo and Metohija is indisputably valid in terms of international law. That law has been violated, and no one cares anymore,” Tanaskovic said.

On the other hand, he added, Serbia does not have, as Azerbaijan does, an ally like Turkey, which at the “decisive moment”, and when it was deemed geopolitically feasible, gave crucial military assistance to Azerbaijan in retaking Nagorno-Karabakh.

“Furthermore, we lack the necessary national unity to achieve this. Therefore, all similarities end there, and the major and essential differences begin,” Tanaskovic concluded.