The Panel was expectedly the most tense discussion of the conference so far, including the forceful exchange of views by the panellists. Despite many disagreements, the point of agreement was that the dialogue is not working. However, the panellists had different explanations on why the dialogue is failing.

The panellists also agreed that the EU mediation was ineffective and that the EU has limited leverage, with the Ohrid agreement coming up short. The panellists agreed that tolerance has to be the basis for the dialogue, but that the incumbent political leaders have low chances of achieving this objective.

 

 

Surroi, writer, politician and civil society activist, opened the discussion with his lament that the EU envoys did not help enough, and have instead created of process of constructive ambiguity. Surroi further explained that both the dialogue and the Ohrid agreement are perceived differently by two sides. While for Kosovo it is a de facto recognition, for Serbia it is a menu of options from which to choose what it wants, and for the EU it is a document that a part of Serbia’s accession conditions. Surroi stressed the need for a paradigm change, but warned that Russia does not want normality in this part of the world, making the region a line of friction between the Western and Eastern world. As a solution he suggested that the countries of the region create a shared space taking in account their differences, including a shared security space.

 

 

Isak Vorgučić, director of Radio Kim, focused on the position of Kosovo Serbs, who are caught in a crossfire between Serbia and Kosovo. There is a notion in Kosovo that the Serbs do not want to integrate, but they are adjusting to the new reality, as almost all of them have Kosovo citizenship. However, Vorgučić noted that most Serbs emigrated rather than staying and integrating, as there is a sentiment among Albanian nationalists that it is necessary to hate Serbia. Vorgučić also stressed that Kosovo’s institutions need to provide adequate services for Serbs, to make them feel secure and to treat them as equal citizens, rather than acting in an arbitrary and aggressive way. In that context, Vorgučić proposed the long-awaited creation of the Association of Serb municipalities.

 

 

Jeta Xharra, founder and director of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) in Kosovo, started off forcefully by highlighting that the dialogue is being conducted between two equal countries, not two cities. Xharra explained that no Kosovo government can establish the Association of Serb municipalities before all the other agreements signed are implemented as well, due to public pressure. Xharra highlighted that in Kosovo there is a fear that such an Association would create another Republika Srpska, making Kosovo dysfunctional, and noted that there is the perception that Serbia wants to remove Northern Kosovo from the rest. Xharra shared her view that the EU is trying to appease Serbia even it is the most pro-Russian country in the Balkans, levelling strong accusations against Serbia. Xharra added that Serbia will not recognise Kosovo whichever party is in power, adding that Serbia needs to face the crimes of the past and to contribute to transitional justice.

 

 

Borko Stefanović, deputy president of the Party of Freedom and Justice (SSP), focused on the point that there will never be a peace agreement between the two current leaders, which are strongly nationalistic. Stefanović complained that the Serb minority in Kosovo are treated like enemies of the state, with the negative policies of the Kurti nationalist government pushing them out. Instead Stefanović suggested for the Serbs to go back into the Kosovo institutions and participate in the elections, using the rights they have. At the same time, Stefanović suggested that for a solution it is necessary for the Serb minority to be treated better by the Albanian majority. Stefanović took issue with Jeta’s criticism of Serbia, noting that such rhetoric is making it impossible for the two sides to have a dialogue, asking for more tolerance and the avoidance of false comparisons.