The result of Serbia’s parliamentary election on October 25, in which Aleksandar Vučić suffered a defeat and the list backed by the student movement emerged victorious, has prompted international reactions. The development has sparked debate about Serbia’s future direction and its impact on the region, including relations with Kosovo and Albania.
Attention has also focused on Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama’s failure to comment on the defeat of Vučić, his political ally in Belgrade. The silence stands out because Rama has taken strong positions on domestic Albanian affairs and protests against his government.
Të lidhura
None found
Bota sot newspaper discussed the reasons behind Rama’s stance, the consequences of political change in Serbia and the impact on Kosovo’s position with international relations professor Enver Bytyçi.
Bytyçi says Rama and Vučić have had close political ties, which, he says, have influenced regional developments and relations between Albania and Kosovo. He sees Vučić’s defeat as a blow to Rama as well and links the Albanian prime minister’s silence to their shared interests and agreements.
The professor describes the students’ victory in Serbia as a historic development. In his view, for the first time, parties he considers responsible for the genocide in Bosnia and crimes against Albanians have been sidelined.
“Three days have passed since Aleksandar Vučić lost power in Serbia. The students defeated him in the October 25 election, sending Serbia’s former president into opposition. It was a historic event. For the first time, the parties responsible for the Bosnian genocide and crimes against Albanians—the Šešelj party, renamed by Vučić, as well as Milošević’s and Dačić’s parties—have been sidelined. Dačić could not even get into parliament,” Bytyçi says.
However, he warns that a change of government does not automatically mean Serbia will change its foreign policy. That, he says, will depend on the new government’s program and actions.
Bytyçi says Rama has not commented on Vučić’s defeat, even though, in his view, European politicians and international media have given the event extensive coverage. He contrasts this silence with Rama’s reactions to protesters in Tirana.
“Although all European politicians and the world’s media have spoken about this historic event, Albania’s Prime Minister Edi Rama has clammed up. He has hurled insults and threats at protesters in Tirana, students and Albanian youth, but has not said a word about the defeat of his friend in Belgrade, Aleksandar Vučić. Why did Edi Rama remain silent, and why is he continuing to do so?” he says.
According to the professor, the relationship between the two leaders is also linked to their coming to power at roughly the same time, around 14 years ago. He claims their cooperation was supported by international actors, particularly the European Union and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with the aim of preserving peace, security and stability in the Balkans.
“It should be said that Edi Rama and Aleksandar Vučić came to power almost at the same time, 14 years ago. Vučić was initially prime minister and later president. But he was always the leading figure in Serbia’s leadership. Everyone knows what kind of rule Rama built in Albania. They came to power after agreeing to assure the European Union, and especially Angela Merkel, that they would both guarantee peace, security and stability in the Balkans. This was in Europe’s interest, as it was in Ms. Merkel’s. That is why they never paid attention to the corruption of the two autocrats or to their violations of citizens’ fundamental freedoms and rights,” Bytyçi says.
He claims that instead of the promised stability, both countries have faced serious political and institutional problems. In his assessment, corruption and the concentration of power have led to instability, while Vučić’s departure could also have consequences for Rama.
“The reason they came to power has now become its opposite. The criminal, mafia-like states in Serbia and Albania, and rampant corruption beyond all imagination, have created a situation of instability in both countries. That is why Aleksandar Vučić’s departure automatically means Edi Rama’s departure too. Both will face justice, even though they have negotiated and continue to negotiate amnesty. Both have abandoned the idea of regional stability,” he says, predicting that political change in Serbia could mark the end of cooperation between the two leaders and affect the Albanian prime minister’s political future.
Another criticism Bytyçi raises concerns Kosovo. He claims Rama and Vučić coordinated their actions against Kosovo’s government and Prime Minister Albin Kurti, and opposed efforts to extend state sovereignty in the north.
The professor considers their cooperation harmful to Kosovo’s interests and cites the Open Balkan initiative as an example, describing it as a project serving Belgrade’s interests.
“They made deals together. They conspired against Kosovo and Albania. They worked together to dismantle the state of Kosovo, divide it, or at the very least subjugate it to Belgrade’s demands and force it to become part of a New Yugoslavia. They both plotted against Kosovo. They spoke with European leaders against Albin Kurti’s government in Kosovo. In unison, they criticized Mr. Kurti’s actions to extend state sovereignty in northern Kosovo,” Bytyçi says.
He adds that, according to his claims, their cooperation was not limited to statements but also involved efforts to block new recognitions of Kosovo and its membership in international organizations.
Bytyçi also raises questions about what Rama may have gained from relations with Belgrade and mentions the possibility of secret agreements. However, he provides no concrete evidence for these claims.
“Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama carried all this out in return for a reward. The reward may even have taken the form discussed by Nikola Pašić at the beginning of the last century: a wagonload of money. Or it may have taken other forms. In any case, Rama remains forever beholden to his secret and open relations with former Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić,” Bytyçi says.
He presents Open Balkan as one of the most harmful initiatives for Kosovo and rejects the idea that it was designed to benefit all countries in the region equally.
“Open Balkan was Edi Rama’s most anti-Kosovo initiative. He even claimed authorship of its creation, although everyone knows the project was devised by Belgrade. There are many aspects that will be discussed in the future on the basis of archival documents, which will show Edi Rama to have been the Albanian prime minister most favorable to Serbia in the history of the Albanian state,” he says.
In conclusion, Bytyçi predicts that, following Vučić’s defeat, Rama may change the way he speaks about Kosovo in an effort to distance himself from their past cooperation. However, he says, statements alone will not be enough without concrete political and institutional steps.
As evidence of Rama’s position on Kosovo, the professor cites the possibility that Albania’s parliament could pass a resolution proposed by the opposition condemning Serbian genocide against Albanians.
“I have the impression that, rhetorically, Albania’s prime minister will try to appear pro-Kosovo. Now that his brother is no longer in power, he will change his discourse on Kosovo. But his initiatives for Kosovo will be lacking. If he were pro-Kosovo, he would have to pass the opposition’s resolution in parliament condemning Serbian genocide against Albanians. That would be an action, not just words,” Enver Bytyçi concludes in comments to Bota sot newspaper.
