QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANSWERS PROVED EVERYTHING Escobar and Chollet do not give up support for Vučić: The Kosovo issue is a priority for Washington

Written by: Armin Sijamić

---

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing with State Department Special Advisor Derek Chollet and U.S. Special Envoy for the Western Balkans Gabriel Escobar on Washington's policy towards a part of Europe where, it seems, the rules do not apply as in the rest of the continent. On this occasion, we will focus only on the part concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Serbia.

Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, a Democrat, at the beginning of the hearing asked Chollet and Escobar to explain the U.S. plan for the region, since he can see pressure on official Pristina to form the Community of Serb Municipalities (CSM) for which there is „no plan nor guarantees“ that it will not become „another Republika Srpska“, but he does not see pressure on official Belgrade. The well-informed senator asked a question that seems very simple, but essentially it is the question of all questions at the mentioned hearing. Subsequent questions and statements made by Menendez and other senators only reinforced the impression that Chollet and Escobar are making wrong assessments in their policy towards the Balkans.

Menendez asked Chollet whether the allegations from a New York Times article that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić is connected to organized crime are accurate, and Chollet responded that the reporting of that newspaper is „credible“, without disputing the allegations. Before that, Menendez stated that Vučić does not want to recognize Kosovo's independence and that this is part of his policy of telling Western leaders one thing, and the residents of Serbia, through controlled media while oppressing civil society, something completely different, and that he is fueling nationalist passions as Vladimir Putin does, with whom he maintains good relations and does not impose sanctions on Russia like other European countries.

(Un)clear answers

Chollet began his answer with the remark that the „future of the Western Balkans is a priority for the Biden administration“ and that for many in the administration it is „personal“, emphasizing their earlier engagement in this part of the world, adding that the „peace there is in the national interest“ of the U.S. He reiterated that Kosovo is a „sovereign, independent, and democratic state“ and one of Washington's closest partners and friends. After that, following a series of general and everyday formulations we hear in U.S. statements, he moved on to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which he said faces various challenges, inflammatory rhetoric, corruption, and democratic backsliding that threaten the Dayton Agreement. Corruption, according to Chollet, is one of the more important causes of the country's dysfunction. He emphasized that the U.S. is committed to the „territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Euro-Atlantic integration, and full implementation of the Dayton Agreement.“

This formulation, that the U.S. supports Kosovo as a „sovereign, independent, and democratic state“, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina „territorial integrity and sovereignty“, underscores the importance of the introduction made by Senator Menendez speaking about parallels between the CSM and RS. Namely, this difference in the way of supporting BiH and Kosovo is reflected in the word „democratic“ which is not intended for the former, because Chollet and Escobar have repeatedly emphasized that there will be no new RS in Kosovo. Kosovo Serbs, i.e., Vučić, could rightly ask why the CSM would not be an RS when that is a good solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially if the community were managed by people not prone to corruption. If the entity arrangement from Dayton does not hinder the Euro-Atlantic integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, why would the CSM hinder Kosovo on that same path?

Escobar emphasized that the central issue for establishing stability in the Balkans is resolving the Kosovo issue. Speaking about Bosnia and Herzegovina, Escobar said that there is a divided society, undermined Euro-Atlantic aspirations and the future of citizens, and ethnonational leaders of all three peoples are playing political games and not working for the public good.

„We are dealing with the issue of strengthening the role of the international community to maintain the peace agreement,“ Escobar said, adding that the use of Bonn Powers in October and during the formation of the new FBiH Government, in order to end the „four-year blockade“ in its establishment, without specifying who was the one blocking. He then referred to Milorad Dodik and his policy, stating that together with „European partners“ they will work on deterring the secession he is carrying out. Here again we come to the importance of the introduction made by Menendez, asking about the lack of pressure on Belgrade and the correlation between RS and CSM, because Escobar's presentation necessarily opened several questions in this regard.

If the OHR had to impose the election law and a new FBiH government in the interest of citizens and the state, how is it possible that the same tools are not used against someone who undermines the Dayton Agreement and leads the country towards disintegration, or why were they not used against those who, by Escobar's admission, carried out a four-year blockade of government formation? Why were laws guaranteeing equal rights to every citizen not imposed?

There were no answers to these questions, but it can be concluded that the Kosovo issue is the most important Balkan issue for the Biden administration and that, similar to when the Dayton Agreement was being negotiated, it must be a foreign policy success achieved before the presidential elections.

(Un)credible partner

The description of Vučić made by Menendez, citing the NYT claims, would under normal circumstances be an alarm for the U.S. administration. But not for Chollet and Escobar. Moreover, Chollet, after many years of experience in the Balkans, says that Vučić should be „tested“, adding that corruption exists in other countries as well. Due to corruption allegations, Milo Đukanović was forced to leave power under Western pressure, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that was one of the explanations for why the election law was changed, which Senator Menendez says contributes to strengthening ethnic tensions, not calming them.

The two U.S. envoys claim that all Balkan countries can join the European Union. However, the truth is that these countries will not be in the EU as long as conditions are set before them, which Brussels has said many times. How can Bosnia and Herzegovina become an EU member if its election law does not allow Jews and Roma to participate in elections for the Presidency, or in entities where members of constituent peoples are a minority cannot enter that same race?

How can a country meet the criteria for EU membership if it faces secession on half of its territory? Does the state of the media in Serbia, or the attitude towards the opposition, qualify this country for the EU? Does the work of the courts in these two countries meet EU standards?

Hence Vučić's initiative on the Open Balkan, which worries some U.S. senators, but which Chollet and Escobar support. This „backup“ integration process is just another mechanism of pandering to Vučić, whom the West wants to separate from China and Russia, counting on Belgrade to give in on the Kosovo issue in that process. One should not waste too much time on the illusion that pro-Western forces with majority support will emerge in Serbia in the foreseeable future.

However, what is more important for Bosnia and Herzegovina is the fact that Vučić would probably not politically survive accepting Kosovo's independence, which the U.S. demands of him. This means that Bosnia and Herzegovina would once again be left aside, waiting for some new government in Belgrade and some new envoys from the U.S. who would begin to free the country from Dayton's shackles. Why Kosovo is a Balkan priority for Washington, and not Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the world's greatest power is struggling to maintain the existing peace agreement (according to Escobar's words), is a question for all past, current, and future governments in Sarajevo.