Tag: European Union
Little England
The Curator Emerita of the Smithsonian and I spent last week in London. You’d think we would have something interesting to say about the election and Brexit.
We don’t.
The fact is no one we spoke to mentioned the election or Brexit without prompting. When prompted, the people we were talking with made it clear they would not vote for Boris Johnson and opposed Brexit, but their preferences varied. This, in a nutshell, is a major reason for the Conservative landslide, which gave Prime Minister Johnson control of parliament. The Brexiteers remained overwhelmingly united within the Conservative fold, disappointing the Brexit Party. The anti-Brexit vote got split up among Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, Scottish Nationalists, and others. And Labour managed to put forward the worst candidate ever: manifesto thumping Jeremy Corbyn.
The most overt political voice we heard all week was a demonstration heading up Haymarket to Piccadilly Circus chanting “Boris Johnson is not our prime minister!” It was mostly younger people shouting with real passion, but not enough votes.
Others we spoke with just wanted it all over. They seemed tired of talking about it. Unlike Americans, whose daily conversation in the capital is all about Donald Trump, many in London seemed to want to ignore Boris Johnson. Life, and even politics, has so much more to offer.
That said, no one should underestimate the impact of what the Brits have done. I’ll be surprised if it takes their economy less than a generation to recover, as companies that once used the United Kingdom as their base for European operations are moving out, any trade deal with the EU will not be as advantageous as membership, and the UK’s government budget will need to expand to make up for the functions the EU used to perform and for the 4.5 billion-pound abatement the UK received in 2018 as a member state.
Perhaps just as significant: the Kingdom is unlikely to remain united. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland want to stay in the EU. Scotland is on track for a second referendum on secession, sooner rather than later. Northern Ireland is bound to be disappointed with whatever Brexit brings, as it will increase either the trade barriers with the rest of Ireland or with Britain.
Anyone who think the US will rush to the rescue with some fantastic deal on trade and investment is smoking our latest legalized substance. The UK has far less negotiating leverage without the rest of the EU than it will in a bilateral transaction.
What it boils down to is Little England, not the Global Britain the prime minister has promised.
I hasten to add that we spent a wonderful, even if rainy, day in Cambridge, where I had visited 55 years ago while hitchhiking around England and Wales. Great Saint Mary’s Church, which was open, and Trinity College Chapel, which was not, are reminders of how much England has endured and survived. Seeing The Backs again was a thrill, even in typical Cambridge weather:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Geopolitics in the Balkans
These are the notes that used in making remarks via Skype to the Geoffrey Nice Foundation Conference on “Transitional, Post-Transitional and Strategic Narratives about the Yugoslav Wars: from Wars and Search for Justice to Geo-Political Power Games” in Pristina today.
1. It is a pleasure to be with you remotely, even if I do wish my schedule would have permitted me to join you in Pristina.
2. The world has changed dramatically since the breakup of former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
3. That was, we know now, truly the unipolar moment, when the US had no rivals and together with Europe could do what it wanted in the Balkans and much of the rest of the world.
4. With a lot of help from Croatia, NATO ended the Bosnian war at Dayton in 1995 and forced Serbia’s withdrawal from Kosovo in 1999.
5. Europe and the US together invested massive financial and personnel resources in Kosovo as a UN protectorate mandated to build self-governing democratic institutions.
6. The unipolar moment ended with the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 and the US responses in Afghanistan and Iraq.
7. But the state-building process in Kosovo had significant momentum and continued, first with standards before status and later standards with status, leading eventually to supervised and unsupervised independence.
8. You have not had an easy time of it, but I think your young state has risen to at least some challenges quite well: the economy has grown, after an initial spurt you managed to limit Islamist radicalization, your courts have begun to prosecute high-level corruption cases, your army is incubating with nurture from NATO, and you have managed several power transitions in accordance with election outcomes.
9. Today’s world is however dramatically different from the one that existed in 2001 or at independence in 2008.
10. While still globally dominant, the US faces regional challenges from China, Russia, Iran and even North Korea that take priority in Washington over the Balkans.
11. Bosnia and Kosovo, the object of top-tier attention in the 1990s, now get much lower priority.
12. That is true in Europe as well, where Brexit, Ukraine, and illegal immigration are issues that, each in its own way, cast a shadow over Balkan aspirations to join Europe.
13. At the same time, Moscow and Beijing are paying more attention than ever before to the Balkans.
14. The Russians are interfering blatantly by both violent and nonviolent means in the Balkans: assassination, media manipulation, renting crowds and financing political parties are all being used to slow if not halt Balkan progress towards NATO and the EU.
15. The Chinese are using their financial strength to build and buy. Caveat emptor of course, though my own view is that Beijing’s behavior is a lot more salubrious than Moscow’s and likely to produce some positive results for those Balkan countries and companies that know how to do business.
16. Turkey—also a strong force in the Balkans for historical, geographic, and cultural reasons—has taken a dramatic turn in a more Islamist and autocratic direction. The secular Turkey that contributed forces to NATO interventions in the 1990s is moribund. Erdogan’s Turkey is building mosques, capturing Gulenists, and encouraging political Islam while trying to maintain its previous good relations with non-Muslim countries in the Balkans.
17. How does all this affect Kosovo?
18. The Turkish influence is direct and palpable: though still largely secular in orientation, Kosovo is far Islamic than it once was and has cooperated with the capture and rendering of Gulenists in ways that don’t seem right to me.
19. As for the Chinese, most Kosovars might welcome more interest in investment from Beijing. I wouldn’t fault you for that but only urge caution about the financial and political conditions, which can be onerous.
20. The Russians have no purchase on the Kosovo Albanians, but their weight with the Kosovo and Serbian Serbs is certainly felt here. Moscow is a strong advocate of land swaps and of course blocks Kosovo entry into the UN and opposes its entry into other international organizations.
21. How Moscow will be brought around to accepting Kosovo’s UN membership is still a mystery, even to those of us who think Kosovo independence and sovereignty is permanent.
22. Washington continues to have enormous influence in Kosovo, but it is not the same Washington as even three years ago. Today’s Washington has an ethnic nationalist, not a liberal democratic, administration. Trump and some of his closest advisors are self-avowed “nationalists” who do not believe in equal rights.
23. That in my view is why they were open to the failed land swap idea, which may have died in Kosovo but still survives in Washington.
24. As for Europe, it’s failure of nerve is all too evident to everyone in the Balkans: the French and Dutch vetoes on opening accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia—negotiations that might take a decade—was tragic. So too is the failure to provide the visa waiver to Kosovo.
25. The Western, liberal democratic influence in the Balkans has declined. The Eastern, autocratic and ethno-nationalist influence—if I can use that umbrella term to refer to the very different roles of Russia, China, and Turkey—has grown.
26. Bottom line: responsibility for keeping the Western aspiration alive now rests more than in the past with you: the government, citizens, and society of Kosovo. The Europeans have already disappointed you. The Americans may do likewise. The Chinese and Turks will try to lure you in bad directions while the Russians will give aid and comfort to your antagonists.
27. But you showed how unified and good Kosovo can be to the English soccer fans. I hope you will harness that spirit to the cause of maintaining a liberal democracy that treats all its citizens equally!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Yes, the Balkans can accede
This French non-paper is roiling the Balkans: while promising eventual accession for all the countries of the region, it proposes tightening up on conditionality and allowing for reversibility.
That is good, not bad. Sharply criticized for blocking the opening of negotiations with Albania and Macedonia, Paris is taking a major step in the right direction by reaffirming that the goal is full membership and specifying precisely what President Macron wants to re-initiate the accession process.
The criticism of this move comes from two directions.
Some see the non-paper as an effort to postpone re-initiation of the process with Macedonia and Albania even further. I suppose that is a likely effect, since it will take time for the European Union to sort out what it wants to do with the French proposal, but there is nothing to prevent Skopje and Tirana from using the time to adopt and implement as many parts of the acquis communautaire as they can. The “negotiations” are not really much more than verification of progress in achieving implementation. All candidate countries know what they need to do to qualify for the EU. The faster they get on with it, the quicker they will get there.
Others say there are aspects of the French proposal that fail to take into account what is already being done. I imagine that might be true. I am not in a position to judge the details. It will certainly take some time for the other member states to evaluate and propose revisions to what the French have put forward. But if the result is a clearer and stricter set of conditions for EU membership, I see no reason not to applaud. Backsliding is all too apparent in the Balkans, including in current member Croatia. Scholarship has revealed interesting reasons for this, including the way the EU is currently conducting the accession process. Straightening that out might not accelerate accession, but it would improve performance in the candidate states.
I am a fan of strict conditionality: there is no reason for current EU member states to invite as a new member any state that is unwilling to meet the requirements of membership. But how it is achieved–path dependency in political science terms–is important. Natasha Wunsch and Solveig Richter propose this:
If thorough democratic transformation still remains the EU’s goal in the region, conditionality needs to be complemented with a more comprehensive and deliberate empowerment of national parliaments and civil society actors as a counterweight to dominant executives. Favouring domestic deliberation rather than incentive-driven compliance should go a long way in ensuring the sustainability of rule of law and democratic reforms even once the Western Balkan countries have eventually become EU members.
I’m not sure this empowerment of civil society and national parliaments will be sufficient, but it seems to me a reasonable experiment to embark on. I think it also important to train up an independent civil service that remains in place with changing governments and to protect the independence of the judiciary and the media. The trouble with conditionality as currently pursued, as I read Richter and Wunsch, is that it strengthens executive power. Balancing that with constraining institutions is the right way to go.
In any event, those in the Balkans who want to see real reform should welcome the French proposal and hope the EU will get on expeditiously with whatever changes it wants to make in the accession process. And in the meanwhile, those serious about accession will be working hard implementing the acquis as swiftly as possible, to be ready when the political window to the EU opens once again.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two Americas
I won’t claim to have watched all of this, but some of you may want to see what integrity and dignity look like, since it has not been common in American public life lately:
I would say the same about George Kent* and Bill Taylor’s testimony from earlier in the week:
You don’t really need to watch much to understand that these are honest, sincere, knowledgeable, and capable people committed to serving America’s interests abroad. They respond cautiously but clearly to questions and project a coherent and compelling picture of American foreign policy in Ukraine.
The contrast with Donald Trump and his minions, who lie habitually and don’t hesitate to offer illogical and incoherent arguments, couldn’t be more dramatic. No matter how much the Republicans deny it, it is clear Trump sought to serve his own personal political interests by getting Ukraine to open an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, at the cost of weakening Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. If you can’t see the contrast, it’s time for a talk with your conscience.
The impeachment inquiry is revealing two America’s: one in which unrestrained pursuit of self-interest is paramount and another in which the nation’s interests and values come first. The real charge against Trump is inability even to conceive of the latter as he pursues the former.
But that is not how the indictment will read. More likely it will be something like the following:
- Corrupt abuse of power by trying to bribe Ukraine to open an investigation of a political opponent using military assistance appropriated by Congress.
- Illegally welcoming and accepting assistance from Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign.
- Obstructing justice during the Mueller investigation, intimidating witnesses with threatening tweets, and blocking Congressional oversight by ordering officials not to respond to subpoenas.
These are much more serious charges than against Bill Clinton, who lied to a grand jury about an affair with a White House intern. It is also arguably worse than the charges against Richard Nixon, which concerned a burglary and his attempts to cover up his role in ordering it.
As if to confirm his amorality, Trump yesterday pardoned three American soldiers accused of war crimes, over the objection of the Pentagon. The pardon power is unconstrained, so he will likely use it again in the cases of his seven campaign and administration officials already tried and convicted, including one of his best friends found guilty yesterday on seven criminal charges.
Clinton barely survived the vote in the Senate. Nixon resigned rather than allow that vote to seal his fate. Trump may survive and won’t resign. His only protection from financial and legal ruin is remaining in office. Removing him would require 20 honest Republicans to join with the Senate Democrats in finding him guilty as charged. There is no sign there are that many in the Senate. But if Trump loses a simple majority in the Senate, it would be a clear signal that his prospects in the 2020 election are fading. If ever the Republicans in Congress think they are going down with Trump, they may finally abandon him.
The rest of the world will need patience. The America of Yovanovitch, Packer, and Taylor is down but not out. Everywhere I go these days–mainly to talk with people from the Balkans, the European Union, and the Middle East–colleagues are longing for an America committed to democracy, human rights, integrity, and accountability. They can hardly believe it no longer exists in the White House. It does however exist and will return to power, I hope sooner rather than later.
*Apologies: I originally had “Packer” here. I’m reading that George’s bio of Holbrooke, so I plead crossed synapses.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks November 10-16
Beirut 1958: How America’s Wars in the Middle East Began|November 13, 2019|10:00AM-11:30AM|Brookings Institution|Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC, 20036|Register Here
On July 15, 1958, U.S. Marines assaulted the beach in Beirut, Lebanon. The amphibious attack was the first combat operation in the Middle East by American troops. It followed months of intrigue, espionage and conspiracy leading to a bloody coup in Baghdad, Iraq the day before the Marines landed. Now more than 60 years later, the United States is engaged in multiple combat operations across the region — seemingly endless wars.
In his new book, “Beirut 1958,” Senior Fellow Bruce Riedel tells the story of the mission and draws lessons on how to better deal with future challenges in the region. Please join the Center for Middle East Policy on Wednesday, November 13 for the launch of “Beirut 1958,” featuring a discussion with Riedel, moderated by Senior Fellow Suzanne Maloney. Following the discussion, the participants will take questions from the audience.
The Middle East in 2020 – What Are the Pathways to Stability?|November 13, 2019|9:30AM-4:00PM|Middle East Institute|JW Marriott Washington DC|1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW|Washington DC 20004|Register Here
The conference will feature a series of panels, one-on-one conversations, and a debate examining key priorities for reducing threats and building long-term stability in the MENA region given rising tensions and an increasingly unpredictable environment.
9:00-9:30am | Arrival and Registration
9:30-9:35am | Welcome Remarks
Paul Salem
President, MEI
9:40-10:00am | Keynote Address: General (ret.) Joseph Votel on U.S. Middle East Priorities
10:00-11:00am | Panel: Are there Pathways to De-escalation in the Middle East?
H.E. Mohammed Baharoon
Director General, b’huth
LTG. (ret.) Michael Nagata
Former director of Strategic Operational Planning, National Counterterrorism Center; Hanada Bridge, LLC
Randa Slim
Senior fellow and director, conflict resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI
Gonul Tol
Director, Turkish studies, MEI
Muna Shikaki, moderator
Correspondent, Al Arabiya
11:00am-11:15am | Coffee Break
11:15am-11:45am | Debate: How Will the Next Administration Confront Challenges and Meet Opportunities in the Middle East?
The Honorable Jim Moran
Former member of Congress, Virginia’s 8th Congressional District
Michael Pregent
Senior fellow, Hudson Institute
Randa Slim, moderator
Senior fellow and director, conflict resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI
11:50am-12:20pm | Panel: How Can MENA Countries Reduce the Threat of Cyber Attacks?
Steph Shample
Senior analyst, Flashpoint
Edwin Wilson
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Security
Richard A. Clarke, moderator
Chairman, Board of Governors, MEI
12:20-1:00pm | Lunch buffet
1:00-1:50pm | Panel: How is the Middle East Engaging with the Broader World?
H.E. David Bakradze
Ambassador of the Republic of Georgia to the United States
Intissar Fakir
Fellow, Middle East program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Deborah Lehr
Vice Chairman and Executive Director, Paulson Institute
Aparna Pande
Director, Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia, Hudson Institute
David Lawler, moderator
Editor, Axios World Stream
1:55-2:45pm | Panel: What are the Key Economic Challenges Facing the Middle East in 2020?
Jihad Azour
Director, Middle East and Central Asia, International Monetary Fund
Herman Franssen
Scholar, MEI
Habib Kairouz
Managing partner, Rho Partners
Delila Khaled
Senior advisor, Laurel Strategies
Adva Saldinger, moderator
Associate editor, Devex
2:45-3:00pm | Coffee Break
3:00pm-3:50pm | Panel: How are Arab Youth Innovating and Mobilizing for Change?
Sami Hourani
Founder and CEO, Forsa for Education
Joyce Karam
Corresponent, The National UAE
Shady Khalil
Managing partner, Greenish
Yasmeen Mjalli
Founder, BabyFist
Dina Sherif, moderator
Founder and CEO, Ahead of the Curve
4:00pm | Closing Remarks
2019 Czech and Slovak Freedom Lecture: 30 Years of Czech and Slovak Freedom|November 13, 2019|12:00PM-1:30PM|Woodrow Wilson Center|6th Floor, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20004|Register Here
This year‘s Freedom Lecture is co-hosted by the Embassy of the Czech Republic and the Embassy of the Slovak Republic. Both a Czech and a Slovak speaker are featured in order to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, which saw the return of freedom and democracy to both countries on November 17, 1989.
Speakers
Introduction
- Ivan Korčok Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic to the United States
- Hynek Kmoníček Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Czech Republic to the United States
Keynote
- Katarína Cséfalvayová Chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of the Slovak Republic
- Simon Pánek Former Czech student activist during the Velvet Revolution in 1989; Executive Director and Co-Founder of the largest Czech humanitarian organization, People in Need
Moderator
- Blair A. Ruble Distinguished FellowFormer Wilson Center Vice President for Programs (2014-2017); Director of the Comparative Urban Studies Program/Urban Sustainability Laboratory (1992-2017); Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies (1989-2012) and Director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Resilience (2012-2014)
Understanding the New Wave of Arab Protests: An Expert Panel|November 14, 2019|10:30AM-12:00PM|Woodrow Wilson Center|6th Floor, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20004|Register Here
A new series of protests and demonstrations has erupted across the Middle East and North Africa over the past 9 months. In Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Algeria, Jordan, and Egypt, these protests were largely triggered by dire socio-economic conditions, corruption and a sense of economic and political disenfranchisement with outright calls for regime change in the case of Algeria, Sudan, and very recently in Lebanon.
Join our discussion with a panel of Wilson and regional experts to analyze these events and understand difference and similarities between the present wave of protests and those that erupted in 2011.
Speakers
Introduction
- Merissa Khurma Project Manager, Middle East Special Initiatives
Moderator
- David Ottaway Middle East FellowMiddle East Specialist and Former Washington Post Correspondent
Panelists
- Rend Al-Rahim Co-founder and President of the Iraq Foundation
- Marina Ottaway Middle East Fellow and Former Senior Research Associate and Head of the Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Hussain Abdul-Hussain Washington Bureau Chief, Al Rai Newspaper
Protests in Chile: The Path Forward|November 14, 2019|12:00PM-1:00PM|Woodrow Wilson Center|6th Floor, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20004|Register Here
Since mid-October, Chile has been rocked by massive protests—some marked by extreme violence, but the vast majority of them peaceful and historic in numbers. Triggered by an increase in subway fares, the protests have laid bare deep inequalities and frustration over unmet needs in one of Latin America’s most prosperous countries. The government of President Sebastián Piñera has called for a dialogue with opposition parties over measures to address the crisis. Talks are ongoing.
Please join us for a discussion with noted Chilean experts over the underlying causes of unrest and, just as important, the path forward. Will the dialogue between the government and the opposition parties be successful? What reforms are on the table? Are there grounds for consensus, and if so, over what? How quickly will the legislature respond to measures introduced by the government or the opposition? How best can constitutional issues be addressed? How will the government address future challenges to public order in the midst of widespread criticism over human rights abuses committed by government forces?
Speakers
Moderator
- Cynthia J. Arnson Director, Latin American Program
Speakers
- Felipe Agüero FellowAssociate Professor, Department of International Studies, University of Miami
- Lucía Dammert Global FellowAssociate Professor, Universidad de Santiago de Chile; Expert on public security issues in Latin America
A Conversation with First Lady of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Rula Ghani: How to Protect Afghan Women’s Rights and Build Consensus for Peace|November 14, 2019|10:00AM-11:30AM|United States Institute of Peace|2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20037|Register Here
To explore the importance of Afghan women in building a sustainable peace process, H.E. First Lady Rula Ghani will join USIP for a timely discussion on her role in the Afghan Women’s National Consensus for Peace (Ejma-e-Mili), as well as other current events on peace, security, and governance in Afghanistan. Following a keynote address by the First Lady, there will be a moderated question and answer session.
Speakers
H.E Rula Ghani
First Lady of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Nancy Lindborg, moderator
President and CEO, U.S Institute of Peace
Ending Endless War: Lessons from the Counter-ISIS War|November 15, 2019|12:15PM-1:45PM|New America|740 15th St NW #900, Washington DC 20005|Register Here
In December 2011, the last American combat troops left Iraq. The Obama administration celebrated the withdrawal as the completion of a campaign promise to end the Iraq war. Fewer than three years later, the same administration returned the U.S. to war in Iraq to fight ISIS and then extended the war into Syria. In his new report, Decisionmaking in the Counter-ISIS War, New America Senior Policy Analyst David Sterman examines how the United States returned to war in Iraq, the role of preventive war logic in that decision, and what lessons the counter-ISIS war holds for efforts to end America’s seemingly endless counter-terrorism wars.
To discuss the report, New America welcomes Dr. Joshua Geltzer, a New America International Security program fellow and former senior director for counter-terrorism at the National Security Council, and Dr. Alexandra Stark, senior researcher with New America’s Political Reform program. Dr. Stark holds a PhD from the government department at Georgetown University. She was previously a research fellow at the Middle East Initiative of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Minerva/Jennings Randolph Peace Scholar at the United States Institute of Peace.
Participants:
David Sterman, @Dsterms
Author, Decisionmaking in the Counter-ISIS War
Senior Policy Analyst, New America International Security program
Dr. Joshua Geltzer, @jgeltzer
Fellow, New America International Security program
Former Senior Director for Counter-Terrorism, National Security Council
Dr. Alexandra Stark
Senior Researcher, New America Political Reform program
Moderator:
Melissa Salyk-Virk
Senior Policy Analyst, New America International Security program
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Daring to dream
This joint “non-paper” from the presidents of the Serbia and Kosovo Chambers of Commerce arrived in my inbox earlier this week. My compliments to them for the constructive tone and interesting ideas. Economic progress is not a substitute for a political settlement, but it might make one easier to achieve:
NON PAPER
- We, as the Presidents of the Serbian and Kosovo Chambers of Commerce, are recollecting the commitments of all the parties to the goals expressed in the Final Declaration of the Conference on the Western Balkans held in Berlin, 2014;
- We regret the disunity of the European Union that leads to the refusal to open membership talks with North Macedonia and Albania despite the clear endorsement and promise made to those two countries by the European Council and the Commission. Moreover, the Eurochambers, the biggest association of businesses in Europe representing more than 21 million businesses, strongly supported the European Union enlargement on the Western Balkans as it will benefit both sides economically and will foster stability in the region;
- As the main advocates of the free trade and regional economic integration, we are calling for the adoption of a “New Deal for the Region“ that should lead to a creation of the Western Balkans Economic Area, based on well-established principles of other similar models, including the European Economic Area, built on four fundamental freedoms of the European Union – the free movement of people, goods, services and capital among its members, enabling economic growth, attracting foreign investments and enhancing the global competitiveness of the region. Thus, we are appealing to the European Union to lift the visa regime with Kosovo, enabling its citizens to join their neighbours in enjoying the unrestricted freedom of movement;
- We are aware that the process of normalizing relations between Serbia and Kosovo is one of the key prerequisites for providing a prosperous and stable future to all citizens in the region, and will have a positive effect for overall economic, social and political development of the Western Balkans;
- Finding a long-lasting, sustainable and comprehensive agreement that would provide the future stability of Serbian and Kosovar societies, and laying the ground for unleashing their development potential must be priority for the Kosovo and Serbian Governments, European Union and all other interested parties willing to contribute to the stabilization and development of Serbia, Kosovo and the Western Balkans as a whole;
- To guarantee the success of the agreement, all parties need to be committed and to secure its implementation through a carefully-designed action plan of its implementation, with an overall investment and development package;
- Financial and overall support of the process of normalization, development and cooperation of Kosovo and Serbia should be a priority for international financial institutions, bilateral donors, the European Union, its member states, the United States and for the Serbian and Kosovo Governments;
- Our two Chambers are committed to contribute, in every possible way, to finding a comprehensive and long-lasting agreement between Kosovo and Serbia by proposing priorities in the form of a document on economic cooperation between Kosovo and Serbia, which will take into consideration all the obligations of the two sides, but will also propose areas of cooperation – in energy, infrastructure, education, agro industry, services and other areas – that will be the pillars and drivers of the future development;
- We would like to reiterate our commitment to maintain excellent relations between our Chambers, with the business communities and individuals both in Serbia and in Kosovo, despite the current strained political relations between the two sides. Bearing this in mind, we are committed to further strengthening and enhancing our collaboration and dialogue in order to create a favourable environment for economic cooperation, enabling, inter alia:
- Free movement of people, goods, services and capital,
- Recognition and harmonization of all pending documents,
- Facilitation, if necessary, of talks that would lead to re-establishing and advancing road, railway, air and postal traffic connections and infrastructure,
- Creation of positive climate and conditions conducive to joint investments in Serbia and Kosovo,
- Contribution to resolving all other pending issues that could hamper economic development.
- Further improving sectorial cooperation and understanding between representatives of both business communities, as well as performing matchmaking activities.
- As the representatives of the business communities, we are calling for long-term oriented approach on putting economic and development interests ahead and working to achieve long-lasting and comprehensive agreement that would unleash and harness the creative, economic, natural, and scientific potential of Serbia, Kosovo and the region as a whole;
- We deeply believe that having a lasting solution will make our economies stable and more attractive for foreign investments, especially for those coming from Germany and other EU countries, providing them with a bigger market, skillful workforce able to compete with the latest technological and IT challenges and strategic geographic position;
- Finally, we are committed to provide support to any businesses, institutions and individuals who share our dream of making the Western Balkans developed, prosperous and fully integrated into the European Union.
Berlin, October 21, 2019
Marko Čadež, President
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia
Berat Rukiqi, President
Kosovo Chamber of Commerce
RSS - Posts
