[ad_1]
Miroslav Lajcak ended this week’s visit, during which, as announced, he was supposed to unlock the continuation of the dialogue by convincing Pristina to have the Union of Serbian Municipalities at the negotiating table. Under the provisions of the Brussels Agreement, the community should have been formed seven years ago. The European Union Special Envoy for Dialogue spoke to RTS about how he sees the results of his stay in Pristina, then in Belgrade.
Are we really closer to forming the Union of Serbian Municipalities now?
I suppose so because this is part of the comprehensive agreement that we are negotiating and it is clear that the JCC should be formed, in accordance with the agreements reached in 2013 and 2015. I had numerous meetings in Pristina, and the message from all of them is that what signed must be implemented so that the JCC is on the agenda according to plan.
Do you care that the EU was a mediator to reach a peace agreement and after seven years there are provisions that have not been fulfilled?
Absolutely. The dialogue has been going on for ten years, it has brought numerous results and concrete agreements, but at the same time there are agreements that have been signed but never implemented. That is why this time we have changed our approach and we are negotiating a comprehensive agreement that should end the process and address issues that have not been considered until now and apply what is not, such as the JCC. We do not want this to continue indefinitely. We believe that after ten years we should reach the end.
Initially, the provision on the Union of Serbian Municipalities was to be applied immediately and is now still part of a comprehensive agreement. That is a big change.
We cannot change the past, but we can be sure that what has not been done will be implemented now. The agreements are there, the next step is the adoption of the Statute that defines the parameters of the Community.
On Thursday, the President of Serbia recalled that the Statute already exists.
According to the Brussels Agreement, the JCC Statute must be accepted by both parties and the European Union. The document must be presented in Brussels to the delegations of both sides and the EU, and that has not happened yet.
How is it possible to form a JCC when there are obviously two views on what kind of authority it should have? For Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs, are those executive powers, for Pristina, supervisory powers like those of non-governmental organizations?
When there is no application, it has comments. Instead of carrying out what was agreed, people talk about it. That doesn’t help and that’s why we need to move on to implementation. The statute will define what the JCC is, and that is two-sided, it is not for the EU to decide and impose. It is important for us that this is in line with international law and the acquis communautaire.
The agreement says that the JCC should have “complete supervision”, in English “exercise of complete overview”? Do you know what that means?
It is not. There is a term of constructive ambiguity in diplomacy and international negotiations. What I have learned is that it does not exist, you have to be clear about it. There is a phrase in Belgrade and Pristina that you interpret differently, and now we are trying to avoid any ambiguity and have complete clarity about how it will be applied, who will implement it and when.
You said everyone faces emotional decisions that include changes to the constitution. He also said that no one in Pristina objects to that. Are we talking about the formation of the JCC and will the constitution of the government of Pristina change in that context?
The message to my interlocutors in Pristina is that the constitution is not the Bible, and if you have entered this far-reaching process, you must be ready to change the constitution. When and how: it will be more visible at the end of the process. We cannot accept the letter of the constitution as a red line. If Belgrade sticks to its constitution and Pristina sticks to its constitution, then there is no room for dialogue.
Hashim Thaci says that there will be no technical negotiations on constitutional changes as far as the Community is concerned, while Prime Minister Avdulah Hoti claims that he did not discuss the JCC’s powers with you at all. In the end, who are you negotiating with in Pristina?
The partner in the negotiations is the Prime Minister, it is the government that is responsible for the processes. I have already learned not to pay too much attention to the region’s statements regarding the EU because they are very often for local use. What is being discussed in Brussels is important and is part of the dialogue.
What were the messages in Pristina that the Community must be formed for the negotiations to continue?
I said there is no normalization without agreement, that is, agreement without ZSO.
Yesterday, he reiterated that dialogue is important for Serbia’s European path. What does that mean exactly?
The EU mediates dialogue based on the 2010 UN General Assembly Resolution, which clearly connects this process with the European perspective of Serbia and Kosovo. There are a number of European Council conclusions that clearly link this process to the future of European integration. In one of the negotiating chapters, Chapter 35, the normalization of relationships is clearly discussed. There are so many formal connections that I want to see and believe that progress in dialogue automatically means, or should mean, visible progress on Serbia’s European path.
Did the signing of the agreement in Washington help the dialogue in Brussels or perhaps accelerate it?
We support any activity that helps mediate dialogue. It is important to respect that the EU has a mandate from the United Nations to lead a process that has two main objectives. One is the normalization of relations and the other is progress on the European path. Nobody else can do that except the EU.
We measure each third-party activity by whether progress has been made in both objectives. The meeting in Washington and the signed document produced a mixed picture. There have been advances such as that the Serbian side agreed to move to a new premises at the Merdare crossing built by the EU, and on the other hand individual commitments have been made that are contrary to the common position of the EU as in the case of Jerusalem.
In this region, you are considered a person who deals with open issues, you were here in 2006. Do you think you can make tangible progress that many have not achieved so far?
I had several tasks in the region and never of my own free will. They always asked me to do that, and that’s the case now. If I didn’t believe progress is possible, I would never take this job. At the same time, I want to emphasize that I am here to help, not to impose. The process must be fair, the two parties will sign only the agreement that suits them.
