Brussels Media Hub
MODERATOR: Good afternoon from the State Department’s Brussels Media Hub. Welcome to everyone joining us today for this short-notice virtual press briefing. We are very honored to be joined by both the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Ambassador James O’Brien, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the same bureau, Gabriel Escobar.
Finally, a quick reminder that today’s session is on the record, and we’ll get to as many questions as possible in the 30 minutes that we have allotted today. And with that, Ambassador and Assistant Secretary, I’ll turn it over to you for opening remarks.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Thanks very much, John. Thanks, everyone, for joining today. This is an opportunity for us to talk about a number of events recently and upcoming, including Gabe’s trip to the region, the meetings we’ve had with our Quint colleagues, and of course events over the next week.
In the questions I see many of you are asking about most of those items, so I’m not going to comment on them in the opening. But what I will do is start with something someone – a topic no one asked about in the questions that came to me, and that is that the U.S. welcomes the decision of the European Council to open negotiations on membership with Bosnia and Herzegovina. We think this is a restatement that the future of the region lies in Europe. We know there is a lot of very hard work ahead. The reforms that are required by the European Union will go to many of the issues that citizens of Bosnia have wanted to see changed in their country, and we’ll call on the leaders to operate in a way that they’ve been reluctant to do recently. So, we think this is a very good step, and we look forward to working very closely with our colleagues in the EU on moving the entire region forward toward its European path, both in the growth plan if that is finally adopted and in the accession process.
For those of you not following, the growth plan that’s been proposed would give early access to the single market – this is very important for economies – and the accession process, of course, would lead eventually to membership of the European Union.
This – as we are looking at a week of anniversaries, this is a really important follow-through on commitments made when the wars of the ‘90s ended, and then from the early 2000s, that the region should be encouraged to reform and really cement its place in Europe, and it’s a great step that we are willing to work in support of.
And so with that, John, why don’t we gather up some questions? And maybe it’s more efficient if we take two or three at a time. I’ll try to answer them. Gabe is here just off camera, so I may – occasionally I may turn it over to another voice. But that’s – you’ll know who’s talking.
MODERATOR: Yes, sir. Will do. Why don’t we do – I’ll do one of the – two of the pre-submitted questions, and then we have a couple of hands raised. So first from Jelica Tapušković from Tanjug News Agency in Serbia: “Will the United States take additional pressure or measures to force Pristina to implement the agreement and form the Association of Serbian Municipalities but also withdraw the controversial decree of the Central Bank of Kosovo?”
The second question, this time from Kosovo, from Ridvan Hamza from RTV: “Last night,” he notes, “Prime Minister Kurti was alarmed once again about the approach of Serbian army units that are close to the Kosovo border. Such a move comes just a few days after President Vučić opened – had threatened Kosovo and the position of the international community on Kosovo-Serbia issues. Is the United States aware of such actions, and have you had a chance to clarify the situation with Serbian authorities?”
And then, Ambassador, if you don’t mind, I’ll take a live question in addition.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Great.
MODERATOR: Tatiana from north Mitrovica, Kosovo. Tatiana, please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Question for Ambassador O’Brien. Professor of constitutional law Vladan Kutlešić, a member of the delegation in Rambouillet, on several occasions (inaudible) in 2020 when he passed away, spoke very highly of you and your mutual work, testified about the de facto secret process in the first part of 1998 as a task entrusted to him by Milošević, to the progress that you both jointly achieved. However, he also said that all that was abruptly stopped, although you went on vacation back to the United States during the summer and had family obligations and did not see each other again until the next meeting in Rambouillet, about which he also provided details. Would the —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Could I – sorry, there’s something – it’s like water on the line. I heard you say something about Vladan Kutlešić.
QUESTION: Yes.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: But maybe a little bit slower and louder, or maybe, John, you can paraphrase.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you hear me now, sir?
MODERATOR: That’s better.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: I can – of course we can always hear when you ask if we can hear you.
QUESTION: Okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: That’s like one of the rules of Zoom. But yeah, if you can just sort of more slowly and —
QUESTION: Okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: — to the point. Yeah, sorry.
QUESTION: Okay. So, Mr. Vladan Kutlešić spoke very highly of you and your mutual work. He testified on several occasions about the de facto secret process negotiations in the first part of 1998 as a task that was entrusted to him by Milošević, to the progress that you both jointly achieved during those months. However, he also said that all that was at some point abruptly stopped around summer 1998. Although you went on vacation back to the United States, you did not see each other again until the next meeting in Rambouillet, about which Mr. Popovic also provided details with the emphasis that even then, at one minute to 12:00, both you and him tried to prevent war, followed by his replacement. He testified that he never found out which partly – which party and why interrupted the useful work of the two of you during 1998, as he estimated. What can you say us about that? Why everything was stopped? Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: We might need to have a full history lesson, but why don’t I – I’ll take the questions in a couple orders. So yeah, he was a very talented lawyer, and I was sorry to hear when he passed. The – we had a number of peace talks with both representatives of Kosovo and in then Serbia-Montenegro, the – now Serbia. The – over the course of ’98 to ’99, the goal was to stop the violence and to provide full rights for citizens in Kosovo. That work happened in a number of venues. Some of it was in small groups of lawyers; much of it was with a set of diplomats, led at various times by Secretary Albright on our side, Ambassador Holbrooke, Ambassador Hill, who was then working in a regional capacity from his base. Those talks were very intensive throughout that entire period.
So, it’s probably true; I haven’t thought about my travel schedule. I mean, I came to Belgrade often through the second half of ’98, so I’m not quite sure what this lull is. And believe me, I have no memory of a vacation. But the – there were talks all the way through that period. And if you remember in this fall of 1998, then really Serbia – it was with interior ministry police and the – a little bit of help from the army – mounted a major operation that moved a number of Kosovo civilians into a very dangerous situation where they were at risk of freezing and starving. So in the middle of that period, we found ourselves having to deal with an urgent crisis involving the use of force.
And that is the problem with talks like this, that although I think we could see our way toward some situation where people in Kosovo would have had control of their own lives, the ability to govern themselves, the decision to use force lay in hands other than the two of us. And that is ultimately what led to the failure of the peace talks in the spring of 1999.
And so with that, you didn’t ask specifically, but I know we are coming on the 25th anniversary of the start of the NATO campaign. And we are issuing a statement with our European partners, because we think it is very important that we all stand together on this day. I’ll highlight a couple of the themes. So the – a commemoration of any use of force is a very sober and difficult event, because I acknowledge that the decision to use force and the way in which it is used always brings with it a number of difficult decisions and has real consequences for human beings. It was made necessary in that case because the government at that time decided to go forward with the use of force rather than to continue talks.
I was meeting with many others – including with Mr. Kutlešić – in France twice, and we were in Belgrade in the days as that military operation started. We felt it was the only option to stop what looked like an enormous humanitarian consequence with more than a million people forced to flee their homes and go across borders, often in unsafe situations. That was why we did what we did.
Now, it brought with it a lot of very difficult situations, but we were pleased when finally peace could be achieved and people could return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives. That’s what we were trying to do. It was a process of connections from the top, from presidents in the U.S. and prime ministers in Europe, with presidents in Belgrade, all the way up to and in fact after the military operation began.
So there was no break, no walking away from the issues; it was just that the decision to resort to force was what led to the situation we’re now commemorating this week. And with that, I don’t think we should focus on when two people were sitting alone in a room. It was about all governments working with all the tools they had at their disposal to try to avoid a collapse of governance, a humanitarian crisis, and put an end to what was some pretty horrific violence.
The positive side of this story is what I began the call with. We are now in a situation where the six countries in the Western Balkans say that they want to be a part of Europe. Europe has now acknowledged this and is engaging with each, and they’re in different phases of this process. And we strongly support the integration of these countries into European structures, and when they choose to, into transatlantic structures such as NATO. So three of the countries now are full NATO Allies, and we welcome that. This is a sign of how we rebuild and re-equip our relations post-war for the kind of future that we all want, and that’s the work that we do here most every day.
That’s that question. To the specific tensions between Serbia and Kosovo and the way forward, I’ll address it in a couple of terms. So, we know that the future for both countries, as they have said, is that they want to be a part of Europe and a global economy rather than to be not aligned or autarchic, trying to deal with different allies on specific issues. We are working with each government to see that that is possible.
In Serbia, President Vučić knows well that any use of force against Kosovo would be unacceptable, would be regarded as putting in danger the NATO troops, which are there in order to protect the population – so whether ethnically Serb or Albanian. He has said that there will be no use of force.
So these exercises, yes, we are tracking them, but the key point here is that both sides need to reduce the tensions around the region, and that involves actions that aren’t directly related to the exercises. So, on the Serb side we’ve made clear that the individuals who were involved in the acts in September need to be held accountable for their actions. And we expect that that will happen, and happen soon. The Serbian Government already has taken a number of steps since September 24th, and we welcome those, including firing the head of the intelligence agency, moving the basing of troops back, and offering some assurances about activity in the north. But we want to see those tensions remain low, and so some of these activities are ones we would prefer not happen.
But that is on that side. Also I had a question about Kosovo’s policies, and I think here I’d begin by noting the U.S. is a very strong supporter of Kosovo’s involvement in international organizations, and we want to see it be a member of the international community in full. That means living up to the highest standards that those international organizations require. So in that context, what we are hoping to see in coming days is that the government in Pristina takes actions that are called for and that it has agreed to with the international community.
Now, on the central bank decree having to do with the dinar, Miroslav Lajčák, the EU special representative, has come up with a number of very specific ideas. The fundamental point here for me is that no government should seek to impoverish its citizens, and we see in the north of Kosovo that it is very difficult for a number of individuals to buy the things they need for their daily lives. Gabe Escobar just traveled there in large part to see for himself – but to see for us in the U.S. Government – the situation. And what we came back with was a sense that this decree is being implemented in a way that makes it difficult for Kosovo’s own citizens to go about their daily lives. That’s not a competent or effective government in operation.
So, Kosovo’s friends are saying that we would like to see this decree now revised, implemented in a way that allows people to pay for the goods they need in their daily life. That probably means taking a step back, letting in currency of some kind – euro, dinar – that’s something that that Minister Lajčák is discussing – but that – so that people are able to live their lives with some assurance that they will be able to wake up in the morning and buy what they need.
Now, I’ll note that this particular policy was rolled out at a really inopportune time, because there had been a series of agreements last fall, including that citizens in the north would begin to pay their electricity bills. And it’s sort of an odd thing to deny them the banking and currency facilities they need to pay Kosovo’s own utility. So what we’d like to see is practical progress so that Kosovo’s communities in the north know that they are able to pay for the functioning of their basic institutions and their daily lives. That’s what Miroslav Lajčák is working toward.
We understand that a government wants to understand what currency is coming into its country. There are ways to provide for that kind of transparency and the legitimate use of the currency without going through this exercise. That increases tensions and it inflames the kind of unhelpful nationalist rhetoric that we would prefer everyone pull down. So, we’d like to see that proceed.
Kosovo faces a few really important votes on its progress toward international organizations in the next few weeks. There’s a very talented rapporteur for the Council of Europe, who has laid out some conditions Kosovo has either agreed to meet or must meet in order to move forward in that organization. So, one of them was good progress on resolving the property disputes around the Dečani Monastery, and we have welcomed publicly the steps that the government has taken in that regard. It took a long time, and we wish it hadn’t taken the sort of time and focused effort because this, again, is just about preserving a part of Kosovo’s history and a vibrant community inside Kosovo. We’d like to see a government regard that as its normal work.
But that’s happened – but the rapporteur has also said that Kosovo needs to be able to – needs to move forward with the Association of Serb Municipalities before the council of ministers takes the issue up in the Council of Europe, and certainly – and have it implemented before the council of ministers votes on membership. So, we support Kosovo on its path forward. It’s agreed to move forward with the Association of Serb Municipalities. That is the critical element for it to get what it says it wants, which is membership in an international body. And so they need to just go ahead and do it.
And those are the kinds of hard decisions governments need to make, and we will support them as they make the hard decisions needed in order to join European and international communities in the way that Kosovo says it wants.
I think I got through all three questions with that. So John, why don’t we take some more?
MODERATOR: Yes, sir, will do. We’ll take another couple of submitted and then we’ll go to another raised hand. First one from Iva Gajic from RFE/RL: “Do you perceive recent events such as the visit of Serbia’s Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić to Moscow amidst his current role as acting prime minister as a signal of strengthened ties between Serbia and Russia? Have you discussed this matter with Belgrade, and what is the response that you have received?”
The second question would be from Milan Nesic from VOA Serbian Service: “Can it be said from a quarter-century distance that NATO intervention in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has fulfilled its purpose? During the past couple of years, it seems like Serbia has been overwhelmed by an anti-Western attitude, while Russian influence is easily disseminated and accepted. Do you think there would be any difference if the intervention was avoided, and how would the U.S. define relations between Serbia and Kosovo 25 years after the intervention?”
And finally, why don’t we go to Ekrem Krasniqi. Ekrem, please go ahead and ask your question. Ekrem, can you hear us?
No? Why don’t we go to Sitel TV, then. Sitel, please? You’re still muted, Sitel.
Well, Ambassador, why don’t we start with those questions and then we can go to a live question in a moment.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Okay. Wait, sorry, something odd has just happened with my screen. They – I think I’ll group the two questions and note a few things. So President Vučić has been clear that he sees Serbia’s future being in Europe, starting with the single market. He has made also clear that he understands that this brings with it the need for certain reforms. Already there are discussions about changing the way some payments are made and about the way that customs responsibilities are handled so that cargo can move more quickly. It’s all in the way of implementing the four freedoms that underlie the entire European project. That will take some changes in the way in which Serbia engages in Europe. That’ll be for them to sort out. That to me is one example of the relationship we are building today, and what – I think it’s on the whole a very strong relationship that – where we approach a number of difficult issues together.
At the same time, we have the people of Kosovo who now are an independent state recognized by a hundred-odd countries around the world, and this was not predicted when the intervention happened many years ago. The goal was to prevent people from starving and freezing and being subjected to violence when they had to walk through mountain passes, and that was accomplished. A million people moved home very quickly after the war. For all the problems, there has been peace between the states since, and now we are dealing with the remnants of a very difficult period. But with both countries committed to being part of a wider European space, they will find a way forward, just as virtually every other country in Europe has had to do with its neighbors in order to build this incredibly successful project of the European single market and European Union.
I’ll just say I spent many hours over the last week with visitors from Ireland. When I was first negotiating peace in what was at first in Bosnia and Herzegovina then later in Kosovo, many participants in those wars – whether they were in the military or in the relevant governments – would point towards Ireland, particularly during the talks in 1995, ’94, and say: I can’t imagine that we’ll ever have a war that goes as long as theirs; those people are dedicated to continuing violence in a way that we’re not.
And within a few years, we saw a generation in Ireland say that they didn’t want to pass this conflict on to their children. And I just met this last week with the leaders of the government and opposition in the Republic of Ireland, but also to the co-ministers in Northern Ireland and the heads of political parties there, all of whom said that they are committed to their children having different opportunities than they were faced with. And these are the next generation of people who grew up, often with parents deeply involved in the conflict.
And to hear them talk about the possibility of peace, how even though they disagree on some fundamental issues and disagree on history, they agree that what they need in their societies is better childcare, better education, especially for special needs kids, and higher value investment – those are things politicians get together and work on. And I’ve seen it happen in a place where many people in the Balkans said – was for them a worse case. Now, it’s a very good case of the way forward, and all it took was courage among some of the leaders of the communities involved.
So that’s the choice that’s in front of the leadership now in the region. We try to make very clear specific steps that need to be taken along the way, but the fundamental choice is a choice of character and courage. And that’s what we are working with the leaders to see that they feel able to express so that they’re able to move forward very quickly.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Ambassador. Do you have time for one or two more?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Yes.
MODERATOR: Great. Why don’t we try to go back to a live question. Ekrem Krasniqi. Ekrem, can you hear us now?
QUESTION: Hello?
MODERATOR: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Can you hear me now?
MODERATOR: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: Yes. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien, for this. If I can go back to last year agreements – that means the base agreement of February and then the implementation annex of March, and then the proposal for the stated association. Will the United States Government agree with putting all these agreements (inaudible) in Kosovo?
MODERATOR: Oh, you’re still – Ambassador, you’re still muted. I think – Ekrem, can you repeat that last part of your question? It wasn’t very clear.
QUESTION: Yes. The question is will the – would the United States Government agree to put the basic agreement, the implementation annex, and the statement of the (inaudible) association in the – in a referendum in Kosovo for a public, direct consultation?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: I haven’t heard this idea before, and I don’t think it’s necessarily our decision. I mean, what was good about the agreement last March was that Pristina agreed that it would carry out certain actions with Brussels, Belgrade agreed on certain actions also with Brussels, and now it is up to the parties to follow through on what they have agreed to do.
And again, the current step for Kosovo to take is to advance in its course with the Council of Europe. For it to do that, the Council of Europe rapporteur has made clear that substantial progress and then the implementation of the association must be done. Now, if some governing body or a referendum or some step in Kosovo wants to make a different decision, that’s of course your right. But the consequence would be turning away from the path that Kosovo has said it wants to take for the last 15 to 20 years.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Ambassador. Unfortunately, that is all the time we have for today. We really appreciate everyone joining on such short notice. We hope you found it useful. Ambassador O’Brien and DAS Escobar, thank you so much for joining us.
Shortly, we will send the audio recording of the briefing to all the participating journalists and provide a transcript as soon as it is available. Please always feel free to send us your feedback at TheBrusselsHub@state.gov. Thanks again, everyone, for your participation. We hope you can join us again for another press briefing in the future. This ends today’s briefing.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment