Neither the European Union nor the international community have formally given any signal, nor is it clearly defined what is meant by “painful engagement”.
Source: Kosovo online
Photo: Depositphotos / lajo_2
Political experts Naim Rash*ti and Donika Emini say they are talking about a “painful compromise” when it comes to reaching a comprehensive agreement between Belgrade and Pristina.
Officials from the European Union, the United States of America, but also officials from Serbia and Kosovo have repeatedly spoken about the need for a “painful compromise” to reach a peace agreement between Kosovo and Serbia, writes Gazeta Express.
Recently, the EU special envoy for dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, Miroslav Lajcak, declared at the Belgrade Security Forum that resolving the dispute “would be a painful compromise” that is possible and valuable.
However, Lajcak did not explain what that painful commitment was. The statement was not clarified by other EU officials.
EU spokesman Peter Stano, in charge of foreign policy, told Radio Free Europe that the “isolated prayers” of European officials who spoke at the event should never be interpreted.
“He (Lajcak) spoke in a larger context and said much more than this sentence, so no interpretation or explanation is needed,” Stano said.
However, EU officials, on condition of anonymity, explained that Lajcak “stated what was clear” at the Belgrade Security Forum and that, in his view, this signified a possible recognition of Kosovo’s independence by Serbia, but also the formation of the Union of Serbian Municipalities.
European officials recall that the President of Serbia, in some cases in his public appearances or interviews, said that Serbia must be ready for a painful compromise, which means, as they explained, “eventual acceptance and recognition that Kosovo no longer it will be part of Serbia – and therefore compensation is required. ”
Furthermore, officials said that even Kosovo politicians, in some cases, said the necessary compromise is never easy “and includes giving up some demands.
In this context, European officials who participated in the dialogue believe that the agreement on the establishment of the Union of Serbian Municipalities “can be seen as a painful compromise”.
“There are difficult issues on the table, where the willingness to compromise will be tested, and compromise will likely be difficult for one party or the other, in light of their internal political pressures,” said European officials, adding that it was still worth the effort. worth working on that commitment. considering that the end result will be normalization and eventual integration into the EU.
The director of the Balkan Policy Group, Naim Rash*ti, told Radio Free Europe that the actors involved in the dialogue did not indicate what the compromise would look like and that it was difficult to know.
According to him, it is known exactly what Kosovo and Serbia want. As he said, Kosovo demands the recognition of Serbia and the removal of barriers on the way to full international membership and a European perspective.
On the other hand, he added, Serbia wants to resolve the Kosovo problem enough so that it does not become an obstacle to EU membership.
Rash*ti noted that in this pledge, Kosovo would offer the Ahtisaari document or, as he calls it, “Ahtisaari plus”, the Union of Serbian Municipalities to receive recognition from Serbia, but preserving the unique character of the state and its functionality.
At the same time, he added, Serbia needs a compromise, either territorially or significantly expanded the status of Kosovo Serbs and the Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as other rights of Serbs in Kosovo, to possibly completely normalize relations.
But, according to him, Serbia is very reluctant to explicitly recognize Kosovo.
Now the problem is with the mediator. He described the process as a “painful compromise” to close all open issues and remove all obstacles to Kosovo’s progress towards the EU, but did not call the problem by its real name. EU Member States, especially Germany, are already talking about mutual recognition. “Before looking for the name of the agreement, mutual recognition between the two countries is sought. Based on the recognition between the two countries, a compromise must be found on how these two countries will adapt to this political process,” Rash*ti emphasized.
CiviKos Executive Director Donika Emini told Radio Free Europe that throughout the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue, when the parties returned, either from Brussels or Washington, they triumphantly created a perception against which each presented itself as defeating the opposing side or be one step ahead of the other side, write “Kosovo Online”.
