<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Albert Rakipi, Author at Tirana Observatory</title>
	<atom:link href="https://tiranaobservatory.com/author/albert-rakipi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://tiranaobservatory.com/author/albert-rakipi/</link>
	<description>Tirana Observatory</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 13:14:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	

 
	<item>
		<title>Albania-Serbia Relations: from Enthusiasm to Status Quo, from Status Quo to the False Promise of a Strategic Agenda</title>
		<link>https://tiranaobservatory.com/2020/01/31/albania-serbia-relations-from-enthusiasm-to-status-quo-from-status-quo-to-the-false-promise-of-a-strategic-agenda/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=albania-serbia-relations-from-enthusiasm-to-status-quo-from-status-quo-to-the-false-promise-of-a-strategic-agenda</link>
					<comments>https://tiranaobservatory.com/2020/01/31/albania-serbia-relations-from-enthusiasm-to-status-quo-from-status-quo-to-the-false-promise-of-a-strategic-agenda/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Albert Rakipi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:35:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Perspective]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tiranaobservatory.com/?p=7088</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Although Albania’s role has diminished, and with Kosovo independence technically Albania can not be the mother-country for Kosovo’s Albanians, the country nonetheless retains strategic importance in the confrontation, competition, co-operation and balance between two peoples, the Albanians and the Serbs, whose relationship historically has been antagonistic, conflictual and often hostile.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com/2020/01/31/albania-serbia-relations-from-enthusiasm-to-status-quo-from-status-quo-to-the-false-promise-of-a-strategic-agenda/">Albania-Serbia Relations: from Enthusiasm to Status Quo, from Status Quo to the False Promise of a Strategic Agenda</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com">Tirana Observatory</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p><strong>ALBERT RAKIPI, PhD</strong></p>



<p><em><strong>Abstract</strong></em></p>



<p>The increase in
political communication between Albania and Serbia, including initiatives for
economic co-operation, as well as heralding a new era in their relations has
stimulated a surge in discussion about various themes: the capacity and will of
the two states for collaboration; current and future problems in inter-state
relations between Albania and Serbia; relations between Albanians and Serbs in
the Balkans; the question of reconciliation; and, last but not least, the
potential implications of an evolving and deepening Albania-Serbia relationship
for inter-state relations between Albania and Kosovo and between Serbia and
Kosovo. </p>



<p>Efforts to
normalize inter-state relations between Albania and Serbia began immediately
after the fall of the Milošević regime, and particularly after the redrawing of
the Balkan political map after Kosovo’s independence in 2008. The recognition
of Kosovo as an independent state marks an historic step in what, for the past
century, had for Albanians represented the core of the national question.
Starting in Autumn 2014 Tirana and Belgrade sent clear signals that they wished
to inaugurate a new era in their generally conflictual &nbsp;relationship. Over the last five years Albania
and Serbia have increased their political communication and undertaken several
concrete steps to increase economic co-operation. Although progress has been
modest so far, there is every chance of a new phase in relations between the
two states. Yet the myth of the centuries-old enmity between Serbs and Albanians
in the Balkans, the war in Kosovo with the Milošević regime’s extermination
campaign there, and absent or weak economic interdependence, have meant that
support on the ground remains limited for the meaningful establishment of a new
relationship.</p>



<p>On the
geo-political level, Albania and Serbia are two key countries for the western
Balkans and beyond, bearing in mind that Albania has been a NATO member since
2009, is a candidate for EU membership, and has supported and continues
unreservedly to support EU and more generally western foreign policy including
towards the great powers outside the Balkans &#8211; above all Russia. At the same
time, in the historical context Albania is seen as the mother-country for all
those Albanians who, since the foundation of the Albanian state in 1913, have
remained outside its borders and are now citizens of other states in the
region: Kosovo since 2008, and North Macedonia and Montenegro following their
departure from the Yugoslav Federation and establishment as independent states.</p>



<p>Although
Albania’s role has diminished, and with Kosovo independence technically Albania
can not be the mother-country for Kosovo’s Albanians, the country nonetheless
retains strategic importance in the confrontation, competition, co-operation and
balance between two peoples, the Albanians and the Serbs, whose relationship
historically has been antagonistic, conflictual and often hostile.</p>



<p>On the other
hand, with an historically consistent policy focused on dominating the other
countries of the region, Serbia continues to refuse to recognize Kosovo’s
independence, sustaining a frozen conflict between them, something that does
nothing to improve relations between Albania and Serbia and indeed makes
difficult, if not impossible, lasting peace between Kosovo and Serbia and in
consequence reconciliation between the two peoples.</p>



<p>From a
geo-political perspective, Serbia &#8211; which represents the largest and most
competitive state and market in the region &#8211; pursues a policy at first glance
open towards both the West and the East, an approach that recalls Yugoslavia’s
foreign policy through the Non-Aligned Movement; but at heart, the current
policy remains at the very least controversial. Although the first country to
have opened EU membership negotiations, and having made significant progress in
that process, Serbia has never supported the foreign policy of the EU, the club
it wants to join, with regard to other powers &#8211; principally Russia. In 2007 the
Serbian Parliament declared its neutrality, but in 2015 Serbia signed a NATO
Individual Membership Action Plan, following a process of collaboration through
the Partnership for Peace with the alliance &#8211; which had in 1999 undertaken
military operations including airstrikes against the Milošević regime. While
preparations continue for the adoption of a new Individual Partnership Plan<a href="#_ftn1"><sup>[1]</sup></a>, in parallel
Serbia maintains a steady military co-operation with Russia.</p>



<p>In the context
of historically inimical relations between Albanians and Serbs in the Balkans,
and following the war in Kosovo which led to the country’s independence and a
new geo-political arrangement, it is striking that since 2014 Albania and
Serbia have strived to open a new chapter in their inter-state relationship.</p>



<p>The following study analyses current inter-state relations between Albania and Serbia, the implications that these might have for their future relationship, the potential consequences of Albania-Serbia relations for the question of reconciliation between Albanians and Serbs in the region, and last but not least the possible effects of this new engagement on state relations between Albania and Kosovo and indeed between Serbia and Kosovo.</p>



<p></p>



<p><strong>CONFLICT AS THE DOMINANT MODE OF RELATIONSHIP</strong></p>



<p>Enmity and
hostility have been a dominant theme between Serbs and Albanians, with a
persistent Serb effort to predominate, at least as far back as the creation of
modern states in the Balkans &#8211; the period for which there is a relatively
accessible factual record. Historically, Albania’s neighbours have argued,
competed and fought over how they might divide the lands of the Albanian people
and later the Albanian state, and in 1912 Serbia and Montenegro took the lion’s
share, ’40 percent of the Albanian people and more than half of the territory
occupied by Albanians’<a href="#_ftn2"><sup>[2]</sup></a>. This was seen
as a great injustice, for which Albania blamed the European Great Powers of the
time as well as her neighbours. In a manner both paradoxical and tragic, the
creation of the Albanian state did not resolve the Albanian national question,
which in 1912 represented no more and no less than the collection and
unification in one state of all the Albanian territories annexed by others &#8211;
chiefly what would become Yugoslavia &#8211; with the support of the Great Powers.
The laying of foundations for a modern Albanian state during the reign of King
Zog was accompanied by what at first glance appears a contradictory foreign
policy, especially as regards Belgrade, but Zog contrived a masterful Balkan
balance in an environment almost entirely hostile towards such a state.<a href="#_ftn3"><sup>[3]</sup></a></p>



<p>After the end of
the Second World War, Albanian-Serb relations developed in the context of the
state relationship between Albania and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. An
extraordinary change, almost incredible and unimaginable in the traditional
context, was marked immediately and for the first two or three years after the
war, with communist Albania and Yugoslavia moving quickly through a number of
agreements towards a special alliance.<a href="#_ftn4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> Yugoslavia’s
remarkable influence over Enver Hoxha’s communist government was understandable
given the role the Yugoslav Communist Party had played in the formation of the
Communist Party of Albania. Thus Albania was slipping rapidly and without fuss
into the Yugoslav orbit, ready to be transformed into one of the federal
republics. With the signing of a treaty of friendship in 1946, Albania and
Yugoslavia entered into a political and military alliance which represented, as
has been mentioned, a dramatic reversal of the whole foreign policy of the
modern Albanian state. This alliance was reinforced by the signing of a treaty
for the co-ordination of economic policy, customs co-operation and union of
currency, and in 1947 Belgrade presented a plan for the unification of Albania
and Yugoslavia on a federal basis. But in 1948, disagreements between the
Soviet Union and the Yugoslav Federation also brought an end to the honeymoon
between Albania and Yugoslavia.</p>



<p>Relations between Albanians and Serbs, within the framework of state relations between Albania and the Yugoslav Federation, were essentially frozen for more than two decades. But at the end of the sixties there was a new movement between the states, connected to a number of factors related chiefly to the dynamics of the Cold War, including the dramatic episode of Czechoslovakia’s invasion by the Soviet Union and the new alliance between Albania and China. This was the second non-conflictual phase in the period following the Second World War, and it enabled another relatively dynamic co-operation between Albania and Kosovo. At the beginning of the nineties Albania had just emerged from communism, and Milošević’s Yugoslavia was on the brink of a military conflict.</p>



<p></p>



<p><strong>TOWARDS A NEW CHAPTER</strong></p>



<p>Ever since the
fall of the Milošević regime Albania has shown herself ready to establish
dialogue and co-operation with Serbia. Even before the Serbian President’s
fall, during a very tense period in relations between Albanians and Serbs,
Albanian Prime Minister Fatos Nano had no hesitation in meeting him at the
Crete Summit, in November 1997. The war in Kosovo &#8211; the last of the wars of the
former Yugoslavia &#8211; was about to erupt and it was hard to imagine that the
summit, and in particular the meeting between the Albanian Prime Minister and
the Serbian President, could manage to prevent a new conflict between Serbs and
Albanians in Kosovo, let alone establish a new atmosphere in the regime.
Following the Crete Summit Milošević declared that Kosovo was an internal
matter for Serbia and that the solution should be found in guaranteeing the
fundamental rights of Albanians in Kosovo, not in autonomy.</p>



<p>After the fall
of Milošević, political dialogue and relations between Tirana and Belgrade
moved onto a more or less normal track, with what was in fact a rather engaged
and constructive attitude by the Albanians. Immediately after the
re-establishment of diplomatic relations, in January 2001, the two countries
committed to increasing contacts. Deputy Prime Minister Ilir Meta visited
Belgrade in 2003, and the Foreign Ministers exchanged visits.</p>



<p>Economic
relations, though modest because of the prolonged split and lack of
communication, stimulated interest in both countries, and a number of
agreements were signed. Economic transactions rose from $233,000 in 2000 to
$139,000,000 in 2010. From 2006 Albania and Serbia are both members of the
Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA), which has had a considerable
impact on trade exchanges. After CEFTA accession Serbia became one of Albania’s
largest trading partners.<a href="#_ftn5"><sup>[5]</sup></a></p>



<p>Over the last
five years trade and other exchanges have grown, and a number of Serbian
companies competing in the Balkans have shown interest in investing in the
Albanian market. In 2014 annual economic exchanges passed 173 million euros.<a href="#_ftn6"><sup>[6]</sup></a> Since 2016
there has been an increase in trade activity between the two countries, and in
2018 it reached 181 million euros.<a href="#_ftn7"><sup>[7]</sup></a> In September
2014, Air Serbia began direct flights to Tirana, which brought practical
improvement to communication, while statistics showed a growing number of Serb
tourists choosing Albania as a destination.<a href="#_ftn8"><sup>[8]</sup></a></p>



<p>The relatively
prolonged isolation between the two societies, the absence of communication
including culturally, the undoubted myth of historical enmity between the two
peoples particularly over Kosovo, the war there and then independence with
substantial western backing, do not make co-operation and integration easy. Not
a few Serbs, visiting Tirana and Albania for the first time today, are very
surprised to find an open society and a non-hostile atmosphere; on the contrary,
tourists find a friendly atmosphere and are made welcome.<a href="#_ftn9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> Their great
surprise is connected to the perception they seem to have of Albania and
Albanians. The myth of the two historically opposed nations seems to trap in
the past a significant portion of Serb society, media and unfortunately those
in power. The same myth is apparent in the minds of Albanians, though
principally among the diaspora in western countries as well as in North
Macedonia and Kosovo.</p>



<p>According to an
analysis by the Institute for International Studies, the majority of Albanians
think that if there is a state that represents a threat to Albania, it is not
Serbia &#8211; as many might suppose &#8211; but Greece.<a href="#_ftn10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> In their
efforts to establish meaningful relations with Serbia, it seems that the
Albanian Government have the support of Albanian society too, the majority of
whom consider relations with Serbia important.<a href="#_ftn11"><sup>[11]</sup></a></p>



<p></p>



<p><strong>FROM ENTHUSIASM TO STATUS QUO</strong></p>



<p>In 2014, the
restoration of direct flights between Belgrade and Tirana was thought to herald
a new phase in relations between Serbia and Albania. Attending the inauguration
ceremony for the route, the Albanian Ambassador in Belgrade declared that the
Albanian Prime Minister would himself use Air Serbia to travel to Belgrade<a href="#_ftn12"><sup>[12]</sup></a> in a month’s
time.<a href="#_ftn13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> Everything
suggested a new beginning: nearly 70 years had passed since the first and last
visit by an Albanian Prime Minister to Belgrade. The JAT that had carried Enver
Hoxha towards the city in 1946 had disappeared. Yugoslavia itself had
disappeared too, after Serbia’s violent attempts to dominate the other
republics. The political map of the Balkans had changed several times, most
recently with the establishment of Kosovo as an independent state. There was
great enthusiasm and expectation.<a href="#_ftn14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> The international
press spoke of a historic visit and in the same way European diplomats
anticipated, wrongly in fact, that stronger relations between Albania and
Serbia would automatically mean reconciliation between Albanians and Serbs in
the region.<a href="#_ftn15"><sup>[15]</sup></a></p>



<p>Five years after
this enthusiastic beginning, where have relations between Albania and Serbia
got to? Unusually in international relations in the Balkans, the trajectory of
Albania-Serbia bilateral relations is an example where perceptions are not so
far from reality. Today only a third of Albanian citizens judge that relations
with Serbia are good (24%) or very good (7%).<a href="#_ftn16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> Albanians have
almost the same perception of relations between the two governments.<a href="#_ftn17"><sup>[17]</sup></a> At the same
time, there are also perceptions of relations between Albania and Serbia<a href="#_ftn18"><sup>[18]</sup></a> to indicate the
trend in these relations and their condition today.</p>



<p>The fact that a
majority of 44 percent believe that relations are neither good nor bad<a href="#_ftn19"><sup>[19]</sup></a> suggests that a
condition of status quo is a more realistic, meaningful and complete picture of
relations today. Over the last four to five years there has been high-level
communication and dialogue. The Prime Minister of Albania has visited Belgrade
twice, and likewise Aleksandar Vuçiç visited Albania for the first time as
Prime Minister and again as President of Serbia. Besides state visits, the
countries’ two figureheads have often met under the auspices of the Berlin
Process or of various regional initiatives<a href="#_ftn20"><sup>[20]</sup></a>, including the
most recent Balkan Schengen initiative<a href="#_ftn21"><sup>[21]</sup></a>.</p>



<p>But despite
bilateral contacts and communication in regional meetings, political relations
between Albania and Serbia have not advanced in any substantial manner. In
general, the optics of the meetings are excellent, and it seems clear that the
two protagonists are taking enormous care that such images, which will be seen
not only by their publics but in the global centres of decision-making in
Brussels and Washington, should be precisely composed and above all that they
transmit the message that Tirana and Belgrade are building new, collaborative
and close relations. But behind the beautiful facades and the subtle nuances of
staging there is little substance. This reflects the fact that high level
meetings and dialogue, in which only the principles and readiness for
co-operation are discussed, rarely if ever get down into the operational
aspects of co-operation. It is true that economic relations between Albania and
Serbia have improved relative to 2014, but after the initial boost in the
second half of that year the progress and deepening of those relations has
followed an ever-slower rhythm. </p>



<p>There is no
doubt that economic relations received a jolt in 2014, also through the
enthusiasm and friendly atmosphere that was created. But the vitality of trade
between the two states has come to a considerable degree from membership of
CEFTA and its instruments. In 2013, trade exchanges between the two countries
totalled 103 million euros, and just a year later they reached 173 million. But
in 2018, exchanges had only climbed to 181.4 million euros<a href="#_ftn22"><sup>[22]</sup></a>, experiencing
an increase of 2.9% over that five year trajectory. Meanwhile, Serbian trade
with Albania represents only a very small part of its general trade. In 2018,
exports to Albania were only 0.8% of Serbia’s total, and imports from Albania
only 0.2%. These figures had changed little since 2013: the Albanian element of
Serbia’s imports had grown from 0.1% in 2013 to 0.2% in 2018.<a href="#_ftn23"><sup>[23]</sup></a></p>



<p>Although there
is no doubt that economic relations between Albania and Serbia have reached a
kind of status quo, a realistic appraisal of economic relations and mutual
investment should take into consideration the weak and impoverished tradition
of their economic links, leaving aside of course the honeymoon period between
Albania and Yugoslavia in the first two years after the Second World War. This
becomes clearer in a comparison of trade exchanges between Serbia and Albania
with trade exchanges between Serbia and Kosovo<a href="#_ftn24"><sup>[24]</sup></a>, which are many
times higher despite the fact that the two states do not recognize one another
and remain in a frozen conflict. While trade exchanges between Serbia and
Albania were 181 million euros in 2018, those between Serbia and Kosovo in 2017
were around 450 million euros, of which 420 million were Serbian exports to Kosovo.<a href="#_ftn25"><sup>[25]</sup></a></p>



<p>During the past
five years several agreements have been signed, such as those for free movement
of citizens<a href="#_ftn26"><sup>[26]</sup></a>, mutual
recognition of driving licences, customs<a href="#_ftn27"><sup>[27]</sup></a>, aspects of
cultural co-operation, trans-national transportation and tourism. But most of
those agreements were signed in 2014, during the visit of the Albanian Prime
Minister to Belgrade. Most of them, indeed, are agreements in principle, which
are missing the concrete instruments that would deepen the co-operation. The
only agreement that is judged to have increased interaction between the two
countries appears to be that for free movement of citizens.</p>



<p>In practice, this agreement, signed in 2014, foresees travel by citizens of the two countries with identity card. But it is not clear how an agreement allowing their nationals to travel with identity cards instead of passports can achieve an increase in free movement. Even this agreement, though signed back in November 2014, has never been fully implemented, and five years after its signature Albania and Serbia are re-proposing the measure as part of a new initiative, the so-called Balkan Schengen.<a href="#_ftn28"><sup>[28]</sup></a></p>



<p></p>



<p><strong>FROM STATUS QUO TO A FALSE STRATEGIC AGENDA</strong></p>



<p>Since 2014, on
the agenda of political meetings and dialogue between Albania and Serbia at the
highest state and governmental level, issues of bilateral co-operation have
been replaced by a more strategic approach, which relates principally to the
future of the Western Balkans, peace-building and regional integration. From
the first official discussions in November 2014, when the Albanian Prime
Minister made his public call in Belgrade for the recognition of Kosovo, this
last theme has been included and even predominant in every meeting and public
message of Rama with Vuçiç, both ‘forgetting’ &#8211; each for his
own reasons &#8211; that the bilateral agenda includes the business of a third state
which neither had nor has the authority to represent. This inclusion ‘by force’
naturally makes the bilateral agenda between Albania and Serbia very political
and strategic, and a hot topic for local and international media.</p>



<p>During the
second half of 2019, time and space on the strategic agenda of the two
countries was devoted to the Balkan Schengen, a controversial initiative based
on the model of the EU’s Schengen arrangements, which would make possible and
applicable four major freedoms: the movement of people, services, goods and
capital among six states of the Western Balkans, three of whom &#8211; Serbia, Kosovo
and Bosnia &#8211; do not recognize one another.<a href="#_ftn29"><sup>[29]</sup></a></p>



<p>Serbian
President Vuçiç and Albanian Prime Minister Rama have begun to promote the
Balkan Schengen through three summits, first in Novi Sad, then in Ohrid and
finally in Tirana on 21st December 2019. North Macedonia has joined the
initiative, while Montenegro and Bosnia have remained more or less reluctant to
participate and Kosovo has categorically refused.</p>



<p>A commitment to
reconciliation in the Balkans, peace-building, co-operation and regional
integration is a billet-doux sent from the region to Brussels or Washington,
and certainly welcome at least in so far as it would never be refused. In this
way, there is less and less space on the Albania-Serbia bilateral agenda for
concrete issues of political co-operation, economic co-operation for trade,
investment, tourism, and energy, co-operation in the security sector or
co-operation in the fields of education and culture. </p>



<p>In the narrative
used domestically, the leaders of Albania and Serbia are careful to articulate
the message that the strategic agenda they are now pursuing either, for
Albania, has the full support of Brussels and Washington<a href="#_ftn30"><sup>[30]</sup></a>, or is
happening because the time has come for the countries of the Balkans to take
their fate in their own hands, for Serbia<a href="#_ftn31"><sup>[31]</sup></a>. In both cases,
today’s political elite in Tirana and Belgrade aim to increase support for
their authority, in Albania’s case by buying legitimacy from outside (the
European Union and the USA), and in Serbia’s case by striving to stir the
public with a nationalist/populist narrative, blaming the intervention of foreign
and principally western powers for problems old and new.<a href="#_ftn32"><sup>[32]</sup></a></p>



<p>The affectation
by Albania and Serbia of a strategic agenda, purportedly helping reconciliation
and making history<a href="#_ftn33"><sup>[33]</sup></a>, is
unsustainable and even false, for at least two reasons. Firstly, however the
political agenda of Albania-Serbia co-operation might appear from a preliminary
strategic glance, the Serbian recognition of Kosovo’s independence that would
mark the resolution of the frozen conflict between them, which remains
undoubtedly the fundamental issue in inter-state relations in the Balkans, has
not been on the agenda &#8211; setting aside the Serbian Prime Minister’s long
panegyric in Belgrade in November 2014, when he called for Belgrade to
recognize Kosovo independence.<a href="#_ftn34"><sup>[34]</sup></a> Secondly, the
resolution of this frozen conflict, which should be a sine qua non for the
establishment of peace, cannot be something agreed within Albania-Serbia
relations.</p>



<p>There can be no
doubt that &#8211; while not automatically excluding Albania’s potential role in the
issue of reconciliation between Albanians and Serbs in the region<a href="#_ftn35"><sup>[35]</sup></a> &#8211;
reconciliation in fact must involve Serbia and Kosovo.<a href="#_ftn36"><sup>[36]</sup></a></p>



<p>If, five years
after the first burst of enthusiasm and similarly great expectations, relations
between Albania and Serbia are ‘suffering’ under the
’tyranny of the status quo’, the fundamental question is: what are the causes
and factors obstructing an emergence from this status quo, and then forward
movement and the deepening of relations between these two states crucial to
stability and regional balance? The answer to this question starts to become
clear if we look at of the agreements proposed by Tirana over many years and
consistently refused by Belgrade: an agreement in the field of education and
the recognition of diplomas. This would be one of the agreements that would
automatically bring Kosovo into the relationship between Albania and Serbia:
the signing of such an accord and mutual recognition of diplomas between them
would mean the recognition of diplomas earned by students from Kosovo, and also
students from&nbsp; the Preshevo Valley in
southern Serbia, who have studied or are studying in the University of Tirana.
But the ‘road’ to the signing of this agreement between Serbia and Albania
‘goes through Prishtina’, in Albin Kurti’s metaphorical description of the
importance and conditionality that Kosovo represents for the future of
Serbia-Albania relations.<a href="#_ftn37"><sup>[37]</sup></a></p>



<p>But it is not
only the leader of the Vetëvendosja Movement &#8211; in all likelihood Kosovo’s next
Prime Minister &#8211; who insists that Kosovo must also be included in the equation
for the future relationship between Albania and Serbia. Albanian citizens
identify that one of the chief obstacles for the development and deepening of
the relationship, in light of the historical enmity between the peoples, is
Serbia’s non-recognition of Kosovo and current policy towards the country.<a href="#_ftn38"><sup>[38]</sup></a></p>



<p>Those two
issues, which are seen as the chief obstacles to the development and
strengthening of relations between Albania and Serbia, are at heart to do with
Kosovo. Kosovo seems to have been and to remain fundamental and in no small
measure decisive for the future of the relationship. A substantial majority &#8211;
88 per cent &#8211; of Albanian citizens think that Kosovo is important (51%) or very
important (37%).<a href="#_ftn39"><sup>[39]</sup></a></p>



<p>Accordingly, the explanation for the status quo should be sought in fully answering the following questions. Firstly, is &#8211; or to what extent is &#8211; the development and strengthening of Albania-Serbia relations possible bearing in mind that Serbia not only does not recognize Kosovo but, as has been demonstrated in recent years, accompanies this frozen conflict with aggressive diplomacy aimed at the retraction of international recognitions?<a href="#_ftn40"><sup>[40]</sup></a> Secondly, are Serbia-Albania relations influencing Albania-Kosovo relations, and if so how?</p>



<p></p>



<p><strong>ALBANIA-SERBIA: KOSOVO AS A PROXY WAR</strong></p>



<p>When the
Albanian Prime Minister made his first visit to Belgrade in November 2014, the
first visit by an Albanian Prime Minister since Enver Hoxha’s in 1946, it was
more or less taken for granted that Kosovo would be on the agenda. It was
understandable that the significance of the visit was less the agenda to be
discussed and more that it was being made at all. More than the subjects under
consideration, the attention of regional and international media, and of
European diplomats, was concentrated simply on the notion that a Prime Minister
of Albania was visiting Serbia after many decades of hostility. The symbolism
of transformation was clear: ‘The two great Balkan rivals’ were putting the
past behind them and moving towards peace.</p>



<p>But by the same
token, besides agreements-in-principle to co-operate, the frailty of the
relationship between Albania and Serbia did not encourage an agenda of
immediate bilateral interactions, much less top-level meetings between the two
governments. Meanwhile, at least three factors suggested that Kosovo would not
be on the agenda of the two Prime Ministers. </p>



<p>First of all,
Kosovo has been an independent state since 2008, recognized by more than one
hundred states including Albania. Although Serbia has yet to recognize Kosovo,
the two have been in a dialogue process for the past three years and have
signed a number of agreements, thanks to the mediation of a third party, the
European Union. The inclusion of Kosovo on the bilateral agenda between Albania
and Serbia &#8211; in practice the inclusion of a third state &#8211; would be wholly
inappropriate, raising the risk of a perception or interpretation that Kosovo
is an issue to be decided between those two. This had not even happened before
2008, when after the fall of Milošević Kosovo’s status had still been under
discussion. From the democratic changes of that period through to Kosovo’s
independence, Albania had never attached conditions to the relationship with
Serbia. Throughout the period, in an effort to stimulate dialogue and
co-operation with Serbia, Albania adopted the formulation of agreeing to
disagree when it came to the future of Kosovo.</p>



<p>Secondly,
although the possibility of Albania successfully influencing and encouraging
states who have not recognized Kosovo to do so cannot be ruled out, this has to
date never happened and there seems little chance that it will<a href="#_ftn41"><sup>[41]</sup></a> &#8211; among other
factors because Albania is herself a small and weak state where the
international community continues to a considerable extent to intervene in
domestic and foreign affairs. Much less might Albania be expected to be able to
influence Serbia to recognize independence.</p>



<p>Thirdly, the
inclusion of an issue such as the independence of Kosovo, about which Albania
and Serbia have diametrically opposed views, in a meeting happening after
several decades of antipathy, would not improve the meeting or the likelihood
of a new spirit in relations between the two, still overshadowed by the myth of
historical enmity.</p>



<p>A further
circumstantial factor excluding Kosovo from the high-level agenda was the
infamous incident in the Belgrade football stadium, when a drone was flown
carrying a flag interpreted as showing a Greater Albania. Only one week before
the Albanian Prime Minister’s visit to the city, the two countries nearly
slipped back into a hostility redolent of the past. Within twenty-four hours
the two governments had exchanged protest notes.<a href="#_ftn42"><sup>[42]</sup></a> The Ambassadors
of the two countries were summoned urgently to the respective diplomatic
headquarters. Senior officials of the two countries became involved in
declarations, polemics and even long-distance accusations.</p>



<p>These and other
details bore a terrible resemblance to the atmosphere of the Cold War seventy
years earlier, when Albania and the Yugoslavia of Tito put an end to their
honeymoon (1948). The myth of historical enmity between Albanians and Serbs in
the Balkans reappeared in inter-state relations between Albania and Serbia
unexpectedly and in the most absurd fashion.</p>



<p>Nevertheless,
however irrational and unnecessary it was to include Kosovo in the first
meeting of the Prime Ministers of Albania and Serbia after seventy years, it
was included, and public discussion of the two Prime Ministers’ differing
attitudes to the Kosovo state almost eclipsed the importance and symbolism of
the whole visit. The Albanian Prime Minister’s disproportionate speech in
Belgrade about ‘the Kosovo issue’ was welcomed by Albanian political leaders<a href="#_ftn43"><sup>[43]</sup></a>, especially in
Albanian patriotic circles outside Albania, and even by some political leaders
in Kosovo.</p>



<p>In a similar
fashion in Serbia too, Kosovo served as a ‘proxy war’ for nationalists,
populists and even Prime Minister Vuçiç himself, who expressed his regret at
what he called ‘the Albanian Prime Minister’s provocation’, while local media
unanimously exalted his ‘decisiveness in confronting provocations and defending
Kosovo, the independence of which will never be recognized’.<a href="#_ftn44"><sup>[44]</sup></a></p>



<p>On the other
hand, the government and officials in Kosovo were more restrained in describing
this ‘patriotic act by the Prime Minister of Albania in the middle of
Belgrade’, and among almost neutral comments underlined the fact that Kosovo
and Serbia were at that moment in a process of dialogue with each other. The then-Prime
Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, while ‘congratulating Rama for his resilience
about the necessity of a recognition of the reality of an independent Kosovo’,
emphasized the matter of the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo.<a href="#_ftn45"><sup>[45]</sup></a> Meanwhile,
independent analysts in Tirana and Prishtina highlighted the efforts of Rama
and Vuçiç to project an image of co-operativeness, to Brussels and other
western centres of decision-making, as an important factor of the meeting.<a href="#_ftn46"><sup>[46]</sup></a></p>



<p>But efforts at a
new rapprochement between Albania and Serbia were not well-received in Kosovo.
From their initial lack of enthusiasm and neutral attitude, political leaders
there became increasingly critical of what was happening between Tirana and
Belgrade. They judged that the former was being rushed into deepening its
relations with the latter.</p>



<p>Why this reserve
in Prishtina about Tirana’s rapprochement with Belgrade? From the political
perspective, engaged in a process of dialogue with EU mediation, Kosovo and
Serbia had managed to resolve or at least to set on the path to resolution a
number of practical issues between their countries, with impact on the daily
lives of citizens, regardless of Serbia’s non-recognition. From the economic
perspective, there was more substance in Kosovo’s relationship with Serbia than
in that with Albania.</p>



<p>However, it seems clear that Kosovo’s irritation and opposition was related neither to the development and deepening of the economic relationship between Albania and Serbia, nor to the fostering of inter-state relations or proximity per se. The initially guarded and eventually hostile attitude of the Kosovo government is related to the fact that Albania as well as Serbia continue to hold Kosovo on their bilateral agenda, when de facto Serbia has no sovereignty in Kosovo and de jure Albania has recognized the country’s independence, as have more than one hundred other states, the majority of the UN Security Council, most of the world’s great powers and almost all democracies.</p>



<p></p>



<p><strong>ALBANIA AS KOSOVO’S MOTHER-COUNTRY IN ALBANIA-SERBIA DIPLOMACY</strong></p>



<p>When in 1913 the
European powers moved towards the recognition of an Albanian state, while
dividing the Albanian lands, the Albanian state that they created became the
mother-country for Kosovo and other states with Albanian populations, which
would come to represent distinct communities in the Kingdom &#8211; and, after the
Second World War, the Federation &#8211; of Yugoslavia. For most of her first one
hundred years, Albania could not play this role, who remained outside her state
borders with minority status. Even after the fall of the communist regime and
the end of the Cold War, a weakened and even vulnerable Albania lacked the
strength for the role, relative to Kosovo and to other Albanian minorities in a
Yugoslav Federation that was starting to collapse in violence.</p>



<p>Albania was
explicitly supportive of western policy in the Balkans, and her attitude to
Kosovo independence was no different to that of the USA and various European
powers. Although political leaders in Albania frequently declared that they
supported Kosovo independence, Tirana’s official policy could not develop a
distinct, autonomous view or option regarding the future there, at least until
the Kosovo War. It would seem more than merely paradoxical or ironic that,
having for well-established historical reasons never played the role of
mother-country for Kosovo, Albania is now trying to do so, a hundred years on
and when Kosovo is an independent state. There can be no doubt that since 2008
Albania can no longer be Kosovo’s mother-country, but the possibility of
playing the role for the Albanians of the Preshevo Valley &#8211; a minority within
Serbia &#8211; is still open to debate. It is entirely natural that the
mother-country for the Albanians of the Valley should be Kosovo and not
Albania, bearing in mind that they are in an economic and cultural network
linking them to the former before it links them to the latter.<a href="#_ftn47"><sup>[47]</sup></a></p>



<p>But if Albania
cannot play the role of mother-country to Kosovo even in theory, is Albania’s
insistence on including Kosovo on the agenda of talks with Serbia a proxy war?
Albania has consistently aspired to be ‘rewarded’ for her moderate policy in a
Balkans bedevilled by bloody conflicts, disagreements and tensions that
continue to this day. The international community has often spoken of Albania’s
constructive role, and Albania has expected something in return for her
constructiveness, the kind of reward that in the Balkans is usually linked with
western support for individuals, for leaders and not for the states they lead.
Today, this role for Albania in the Balkans has come to be diminished, for at
least three reasons. Firstly, the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state
with her own state institutions and government has naturally reduced Tirana’s
potential scope. Secondly, Albania’s efforts to influence developments in
Kosovo (and also North Macedonia) are increasingly seen as a paternalistic
approach, which would also explain the increasing ambivalence of the political
elite in Kosovo. Thirdly, Tirana’s attempts at political influence over Kosovo
have become clientelism, in favour of particular parties or, worse,
individuals. Additionally, and no less important, intermittent crises in
Albania almost to the point of state failure have eroded her legitimacy,
reputation and capacity to play a leading role as a model for Albanians in the
Balkans.<a href="#_ftn48"><sup>[48]</sup></a></p>



<p>Efforts to
establish a new atmosphere in relations between Albania and Serbia are in fact
efforts for the normalization of bilateral relations. At first glance it
appears paradoxical that two states which have no fundamental issue of
disagreement between them should find the normalization of relations difficult
&#8211; provided that neither of them puts their attitude to Kosovo on the agenda.
And the inclusion of a third state on a bilateral agenda is itself a paradox.<a href="#_ftn49"><sup>[49]</sup></a></p>



<p>Given that the
European Union was playing the role of third-party mediator in the
normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo, what was the point of the
same role being attempted by Albania, a small and weak state, not to mention
the mother-country at least in theory of Kosovo until 2008? Furthermore,
Albania has no mandate to negotiate with Serbia on Kosovo’s behalf, and there
is no expectation &#8211; neither in Belgrade nor in Tirana &#8211; that Albania could
influence Kosovo-Serbia relations.<a href="#_ftn50"><sup>[50]</sup></a> Kosovo herself
is against a mediating role for Albania, and because ‘Albania is not a global
player like the USA or the EU’ it is rather they, who also have instruments of
influence, whose support Kosovo seeks in her engagement with Serbia.<a href="#_ftn51"><sup>[51]</sup></a></p>



<p>But if Albania
is a small and weak state, with a high degree of international intervention in
her domestic and foreign affairs, and if Kosovo herself does not want Albanian
intermediation in her relations with Serbia, and if an international force of
the power of the EU has taken the role, why does Tirana insist on keeping the
‘Kosovo issue’ &#8211; a term that in essence symbolizes a mythical concept for
political post-communist Albania &#8211; on the bilateral agenda with Serbia?<a href="#_ftn52"><sup>[52]</sup></a> </p>



<p><strong>THE RISKS OF KEEPING AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM</strong></p>



<p>For the last
thirty years, right from the dissolution of Yugoslavia, there has been a proxy
element to Albania’s ‘battle’ over the ‘Kosovo issue’. Before and after
independence, the Kosovo issue was used by Albania’s political leaders, firstly
to advance their short-term domestic political interests, and secondly and
perhaps more importantly to win legitimacy in the eyes of the international
community for their moderate and constructive policy in the region. On the
other hand, political leaders in Kosovo have well understood the proxy element
within Albania’s support and contribution &#8211; and at the same time have used
their connections and influence in Albania for their own domestic political
interests. There have been ample disagreements and polemics in the complex
relationship between Tirana and Prishtina, but for the first time there has
also been a perceptible tension between the ‘two brothers’. The ‘battle’ that
Tirana is currently waging with Belgrade over Kosovo gives the impression that
Kosovo, actually a third state, is merely an issue to be resolved between
Albania and Serbia.<a href="#_ftn53"><sup>[53]</sup></a></p>



<p>Tensions between
Kosovo and Albania rose more significantly after the Albania Prime Minister’s
visit to Belgrade in October 2016. Initially, independent voices in Prishtina
compared Albania’s attitude to Kosovo with Serbia’s to the Republika Srpska,
and regarded this approach as entirely unacceptable.<a href="#_ftn54"><sup>[54]</sup></a> These very
critical voices towards Tirana’s approach were joined by the Kosovo Government,
in the form of comments by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who warned Tirana
that ‘as regards the normalization of Kosovo-Serbia relations, Kosovo herself
is a political actor, and Albania should be clear about this arrangement now
and in the future’.<a href="#_ftn55"><sup>[55]</sup></a></p>



<p>Kosovo and the
issue of her relations with Serbia have increasingly featured on the agenda of
bilateral relations between Albania and Serbia, something that would normally
be seen as the business of the third state and within the purview of the
government of that state &#8211; in this case Kosovo.<a href="#_ftn56"><sup>[56]</sup></a> Albania and
Serbia have produced proposals for projects in the sector of road
infrastructure, but the implementation of these projects &#8211; for example the
highway between Durrës and Nish &#8211; implies the involvement of the third state
geographically between them: Kosovo. The signing of bilateral protocols between
the two for such projects caused discontent in Prishtina, alarmed that the
protocols acknowledged Serbia’s sovereignty over
Kosovo.<a href="#_ftn57"><sup>[57]</sup></a></p>



<p>It was not only
the existence of the elephant in the room, and the elephant’s escape in 2008,
that made Albania’s &#8211; and Serbia’s &#8211; proxy war for Kosovo dangerous as well as
unnecessary. With the new rapprochement between Albania and Serbia, the former
did not hide her ambition to lead &#8211; together with the latter &#8211; reconciliation
between Albanians and Serbs in the Balkans.</p>



<p>According to the
Albanian Prime Minister, ’Serbia and Albania must look forwards, doing together
for the Balkans what Germany and France did for Europe after the Second World
War.’<a href="#_ftn58"><sup>[58]</sup></a> But could the
Franco-German model be implemented in the case of Albania and Serbia? Enmity
between the Serbs and Albanians is a myth, not so similar to Franco-German
rivalry and past hostilities. And above all, in the modern contest between
Albanians and Serbs, the issue of Kosovo has been central. Besides a
conflictual atmosphere &#8211; and forgetting the efforts of Serbia, Montenegro,
Greece and the European powers to divide up the Albanian lands on the eve of
the creation and recognition of independence, Albania and Serbia have never
fought one other as two independent states, as Germany and France did until the
end of the Second World War. War, genocide, mass killings and wholesale
evictions have occurred in Kosovo, not in Albania. In these circumstances, is
it possible for Albania to lead efforts at reconciliation between Albanians and
Serbs in the Balkans?<a href="#_ftn59"><sup>[59]</sup></a> Kosovo
President Hashim Thaçi has a clear and unequivocal answer to the question:
‘Full normalization of Albanian-Serb relations doesn’t pass from Belgrade
through Tirana, but from Prishtina.’<a href="#_ftn60"><sup>[60]</sup></a></p>



<p>It is now
becoming ever more clear that relations between Albania and Kosovo are not
without tensions and clashes, sometimes accompanied by harsh rhetoric. At the
same time, the sources of these tensions and disagreements are various. The
first is economic, and related chiefly to trade exchanges. The border between
Albania and Kosovo, in fact a border dividing one people, intermittently flares
up in a minuscule war over honey, potatoes or milk. Behind the facade of
excellent relations, it appears that the two countries are reluctant to step
back from the factors obstructing an easing of trade, let alone to implement
new more favourable arrangements.<a href="#_ftn61"><sup>[61]</sup></a> In any case,
tensions arising from economic issues are lower profile, and rarely attract the
attention and engagement of Kosovo’s government or political institutions.</p>



<p>Rising tensions
and serious disagreements between Albania and Kosovo are in fact political in
character, and related to Albania’s relations with Serbia, which reflect
Albania’s consistently and increasingly paternalistic attitude to Kosovo.</p>



<p>After the
political tensions that accompanied Albania’s 2016 initiative with Serbia to
lead reconciliation between Albanians and Serbs in the region, tensions and
disagreements recurred during 2018 and then particularly in the second half of
2019. In both periods, the root of the trouble was once again the ‘strategic
agenda’ in relations, in which Kosovo was once again included. In 2018 it
appeared that the Albanian Prime Minister was actively supporting the
achievement of an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo<a href="#_ftn62"><sup>[62]</sup></a>, an agreement
that &#8211; as presented by Aleksandar Vuçiç and Hashim Thaçi &#8211; foresaw a
territorial exchange or ‘correction of borders’. Such an agreement, the terms
of which have never been made public, was not supported by other political
leaders in Kosovo, fostering disagreement between them and the President and
reviving tension with Tirana. It appeared that Prishtina was not willing to
accept the Albanian Prime Minister’s political lead in an issue belonging
exclusively to Kosovo and her institutions, especially bearing in mind the fact
that the Kosovo President had not shared and was not ready to share with
Kosovo’s parliament or government the concept or core of an agreement that the
Albanian Prime Minister was aware of.<a href="#_ftn63"><sup>[63]</sup></a></p>



<p>With the other
European powers taking different positions, Germany did not support a
Serbia-Kosovo agreement based on land-swap/border correction in the Balkans<a href="#_ftn64"><sup>[64]</sup></a>, while it
appeared that Washington was ready to back the resolution of the frozen
conflict between Serbia and Kosovo even if it involved an agreement based on a
correction of borders<a href="#_ftn65"><sup>[65]</sup></a>, provided that
it was accepted by both states.<a href="#_ftn66"><sup>[66]</sup></a> The western
supporters &#8211; the USA but also others &#8211; of a reconciliation agreement between
Serbia and Kosovo even involving change of borders<a href="#_ftn67"><sup>[67]</sup></a> seemed to
over-estimate the role that Albania and especially her Prime Minister could
play in convincing Kosovo to accept the agreement. At the same time, although
Prishtina had consistently refused to accept Tirana’s paternalism and activism
in fundamental issues for Kosovo, especially in relations with Serbia and
similar issues, the Albanian Prime Minister involved himself as a supporter of
the Serbia-Kosovo agreement, almost to the extent of becoming an active player
in the process, striving persistently to appear as a leader with influence
among all of the region’s Albanians. Two proposals from the Prime Minister seemed
to serve to reinforce his claim to leadership in the Albanian lands regardless
of the fact that those lands are now divided into independent states: the first
in 2018, when he suggested to the Kosovo Parliament that Albania and Kosovo
should have a joint President, as a symbol of national unity<a href="#_ftn68"><sup>[68]</sup></a>, and second
when he named as Foreign Minister of Albania<a href="#_ftn69"><sup>[69]</sup></a> a young man
from Kosovo<a href="#_ftn70"><sup>[70]</sup></a>.</p>



<p>Political tensions rose again in the second half of 2019, because of the joint initiative of Belgrade and Tirana for a Balkan Schengen<a href="#_ftn71"><sup>[71]</sup></a>, Kosovo having refused participation categorically and with full consensus among government, President and all political parties, including the Vetëvendosja Movement which would go on to lead the government after the parliamentary elections of 6 October 2019.</p>



<p></p>



<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS</strong></p>



<p>Albania and
Serbia are essential for Balkan security, stability and development. These
relationships are strategic and as such they demand, above all, ownership and
support on the ground rather than just from European diplomacy. The new
rapprochement between Albania and Serbia seems to have support and expectations
from the European powers. EU and in particular German backing for a new era in
inter-state relations between them is linked to the idea of a wider reconciliation
between Albanians and Serbs as ‘the great rival peoples’ of the Balkans. The
deepening and broadening of their relationship could also assist the
establishment of a new spirit between the peoples, but reconciliation between
Albanians and Serbs should happen between Serbia and Kosovo.</p>



<p>For established
historical reasons, Albania cannot play the role of mother-country for Kosovo
or for Albanian minorities elsewhere in the Balkans, and of course any attempt
to do so in the post-independence context would be absurd and damaging. Instead
of clashing, Kosovo and Albania must as two distinct independent states reach
harmony in their regional policies, especially as regards Albanian minorities
in neighbouring states.</p>



<p>In the relationship between Albania and Serbia since 2008, Kosovo has not been and cannot be the elephant in the room any more. The failure to move on from this approach ignores the fact that Kosovo is an independent state, and that could have serious implications for her relations with Serbia. On the other hand, if Albania manages not to undermine Kosovo she could adapt her role to that of international player, a third party between Serbia and Kosovo, as is the European Union. Lastly, but not less important, Tirana’s proxy war has heralded tension and clashes between Albania and Kosovo. In the best case, populist tendencies in Belgrade and Tirana might maintain the status quo in their inter-state relations without allowing fundamental progress, whereas they could damage inter-state relations between Albania and Kosovo.</p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-css-opacity"/>



<p><a href="#_ftnref1"><sup>[1]</sup></a>
See Serbia Vows to Adopt New NATO Plan Soon, Maja Zivanovic, BIRN, October 30,
2019 at https://balkaninsight.com/2019/10/30/serbia-voës-to-adopt-neë-nato-plan-soon/</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref2"><sup>[2]</sup></a>
See Elez Biberaj, Shqipëria në marrëdhëniet ndërkombëtare, ed. Albert Rakipi,
(AIIS, Tiranë, 2013)</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref3"><sup>[3]</sup></a>
For the best account of Albanian Foreign Policy during the Zog era see Bernd
Fischer ‘King Zog and the struggle for stability’ ,AIIS 2012.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref4"><sup>[4]</sup></a>
For a full summary of Albania’s relations with the Yugoslav Federation, see
Elez Biberaj, &#8220;Shqipëria: një fuqi e vogël në kërkim të sigurisë&#8221; në
‘Shqipëria dhe Kina &#8211; një aleancë e pabarabartë’ (AIIS, Tiranë 2011).</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref6"><sup>[6]</sup></a>
See: ‘Albania, Serbia take further steps to normalize relations’, in Tirana
Times, May 2014 at
http://ëëë.tiranatimes.com/?s=Albanian+Serbia+Relations&amp;paged=2.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref7"><sup>[7]</sup></a>
Privredna Komore Srbije, Sproljnotrgovinska razmena Republike Srbije i
Republike Albanije, Beograd, February 2019</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref8"><sup>[8]</sup></a>
According to BIRN data, 3-5,000 Serbian tourists visit Albania every year,
while the number of tourists from Albania visiting Serbia is too small to
register. According to data from Serbia’s Ministry of Tourism, Albania is not
one of the 40 countries of origin with the highest number of visitors to
Serbia.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref9"><sup>[9]</sup></a>
According to the most recent study in September 2019 by the Institute for
International Studies and the Hans Seidel Foundation, the majority of Albanians
(80 percent) declare that Serbian citizens are welcome as tourists in Albania,
whereas only 10 percent think the opposite.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref10"><sup>[10]</sup></a>
See ‘Albanian Serbian Relations in the eyes of the Albanian public opinion’,
2015, Alba Cela, Albanian Institute for International Studies, Tirana,&nbsp; 2015, p. 22.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref11"><sup>[11]</sup></a>
The majority of Albanian citizens, 69 percent, consider relations with Serbia
important or very important. See the survey by AIIS and HSS, Tirana Times,
December 20, 2019 at www.tiranatimes.com/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref12"><sup>[12]</sup></a>
Rama to Belgrade with Air Serbia &#8211; see http://illyriapress.com/rama-ne-beograd-air-serbia-perurohet-linja-e-re-e-fluturimit/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref13"><sup>[13]</sup></a>
In the event, the Albanian Prime Ministerial visit to Belgrade planned for
October was delayed to November because of developments surrounding the flight
by a flag-carrying drone in Belgrade’s stadium. See
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/europe/albania-edi-rama-belgrade-trip-soccer-match-drone.html</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref14"><sup>[14]</sup></a>
See ‘Albania PM Makes Historic Visit to Serbia’ at
https://balkaninsight.com/2014/11/07/albania-pm-to-hold-historic-visit-to-serbia/,
‘Serbia-Albania row over Kosovo mars historic Rama visit’
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29985048 ‘Albania&#8217;s premier makes
historic visit to Belgrade’.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref15"><sup>[15]</sup></a>
Italian Foreign Minister and incoming EU High Representation for Foreign
Affairs Federica Mogherini again arranged a series of joint Tirana-Belgrade
meetings under Rome’s patronage. See Albert Rakipi, ‘Albania-Serbia &#8211; What is
Italy mediating?: a strategic idea that should supported; does Italy have a
concrete plan?’ Europa journal Nr.&nbsp; 2014
at http://europa.com.al/index.php/2015/02/05/shqiperi-serbi-cfare-ndermjeteson-italia/</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref16"><sup>[16]</sup></a>
According to a survey by AIIS and the Hans Seidel Foundation only a minority of
around 20% of Albanians think that relations are bad or very bad.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref17"><sup>[17]</sup></a>
Survey by AIIS and the Hans Seidel Foundation</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref18"><sup>[18]</sup></a>
Meaning the perceptions of Albanian citizens</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref19"><sup>[19]</sup></a>
Survey by AIIS and the Hans Seidel Foundation</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref20"><sup>[20]</sup></a>
On May 8th 2019 Serbian President Vuçiç visited Tirana in the context of the
Brdo-Brijuni Summit.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref21"><sup>[21]</sup></a>
In the framework of the Balkan Mini-Schengen initiative, Albanian Prime
Minister Rama and Serbian President Vuçiç have met three times: first in Novi
Sad, in November 2019 in Ohrid and then on 21st December in Tirana.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref22"><sup>[22]</sup></a>
Privredna Komore Srbije, Sproljnotrgovinska razmena Republike Srbije i
Republike Albanije, Belgrade, February 2019.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref23"><sup>[23]</sup></a>
Privredna Komore Srbije, Sproljnotrgovinska razmena Republike Srbije i
Republike Albanije, Belgrade, February 2019.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref24"><sup>[24]</sup></a>
Meaning economic relations and trade exchange Serbia-Kosovo before the
imposition of 100% duty by the Haradinaj Government.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref25"><sup>[25]</sup></a>
Stevan Rapaić, Ekonomski aspekti srpsko-kosovskog pitanja, p. 5.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref26"><sup>[26]</sup></a>
The core of this agreement is that citizens can travel using their identity
cards.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref27"><sup>[27]</sup></a>
According to the goals of this agreement, the contracting parties, represented
by their customs authorities and consistent with the provisions specified in
the Agreement, will offer one another mutual assistance with the aim of
ensuring that customs legislation is implemented in the correct manner, and
that breaches of customs legislation are prevented, investigated and/or
combatted. All assistance in the context of the Agreement in question will be
given by each Contracting Party in conformity with national legislation and
within the competences and capabilities of the respective Customs Authority.
This Agreement refers only to mutual administrative assistance by the
Contracting Parties.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref28"><sup>[28]</sup></a>
For a fuller analysis of the Mini-Schengen see Agon Deahaja, Tirana
Observatory, vol. I, nr. 2 or at www.tiranaobservatory.com.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref29"><sup>[29]</sup></a>
For a clear representation of the Balkan Schengen, see: Frans Lothar Altman,
Tirana Observatory, Tirana Times, Veton Surroi in Tirana Times, January 7,
2020.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref30"><sup>[30]</sup></a>
‘Shengeni i vogël, Rama: Kemi vullnet për ta bërë, është kapërcim historik’,
dosja.al 10 October 2019 https://dosja.al/shengeni-i-vogel-rama-kemi-vullnet-per-ta-bere-eshte-kapercim-historik/</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref31"><sup>[31]</sup></a>
‘The Balkans are a chessboard of Great Powers’ Vuçiç declared in the Belgrade
Security Forum in October 2018, referring to the lack of German support for an
agreement between Serbia and Kosovo involving border correction. See Vessela
Tcherneva, ‘The Price of normalisation: Serbia Kosovo and a risky border deal’
ECFR. Eu 13 November 2018, në
https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_price_of_normalisation_serbia_kosovo_and_a_risky_border_deal</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref32"><sup>[32]</sup></a>
The well-known fairytale of ‘the Balkans for the people of the Balkans’.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref33"><sup>[33]</sup></a>
‘Shengeni i vogël, Rama: Kemi vullnet për ta bërë, është kapërcim historik’,
dosja.al 10 October 2019 <a href="https://dosja.al/shengeni-i-vogel-rama-kemi-vullnet-per-ta-bere-eshte-kapercim-historik/">https://dosja.al/shengeni-i-vogel-rama-kemi-vullnet-per-ta-bere-eshte-kapercim-historik/</a>.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref34"><sup>[34]</sup></a>
Kosovo has featured in meetings and debates, especially those in public
regarding generally technical issues (discussions about the Trepça mines,
movement of vehicles in the north of Kosovo with number plates from Serbia or
Kosovo, Serbian release of the Mitrovica Director of Police, and similar
matters) which ought to be addressed by Serbia and Kosovo, but not by Serbia
and Albania.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref35"><sup>[35]</sup></a>
According to the survey by AIIS and HSS, only 10 per cent think that
reconciliation between the peoples depends on relations between Albania and
Serbia. See Tirana Times.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref36"><sup>[36]</sup></a>
Indeed, by a substantial majority &#8211; 77 per cent &#8211; Albania’s citizens judge that
it depends on reconciliation between Kosovo and Serbia.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref37"><sup>[37]</sup></a>
‘Shengeni Ballkanik/ Kurti: Rruga nga Beogradi për në Tiranë kalon nga
Prishtina! Bashkëpunim jo konfrontim’, Shqiptarja.com 23 December 2019,
https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/rruga-nga-beogradi-per-ne-tirane-kalon-nga-prishtina-albin-kurti-reagon-per-shengenin-ballkanik-kemi-nevoje-per-bashkepunim-jo-konfrontim.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref38"><sup>[38]</sup></a>
Survey by AIIS and Hans Seidel Foundation, September 2019.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref39"><sup>[39]</sup></a>
Survey by AIIS and Hans Seidel Foundation, September 2019.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref40"><sup>[40]</sup></a>
‘15 countries, and counting, revoke recognition of Kosovo, Serbia says’
Euractiv&nbsp;
https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/15-countries-and-counting-revoke-recognition-of-kosovo-serbia-says/</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref41"><sup>[41]</sup></a>
In 2015 Albania played a leading role in Kosovo’s efforts to join UNESCO, but
the efforts thanks to the abstentions of several states that had already
recognized independence.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref42"><sup>[42]</sup></a>
The Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs presented a protest note to Serbian
Government on 16th October 2014, in which it emphasized that the Albanian Government
‘decisively rejected the political mud-slinging by the leaders of Serbia
against the Albanian people and state’. See Voice of America,
http://www.zeriamerikes.com/a/deklarat-e-ditmir-bushatit/2486075.html. The
Albanian Government’s protest note was in fact a reply to the protest note from
the Serbian Government.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref43"><sup>[43]</sup></a>
http://infoalbania.al/adem-demaci-dhe-menduh-thaci-vleresojne-deklaratat-e-rames-ne-beograd/.
The According to the activist Adem Demaçi, the Albanian Prime Minister’s speech
in Belgrade was a courageous act. For him, Rama had shown the world that the
Serbs continued to play a hypocritical role. ‘By his visit to Belgrade, Rama
put an end to the centuries-old illusion of Serb politics that Albania should
not speak for Kosovo. Albania showed Serbia that she is independent of Europe
and Edi Rama showed them how they should act. He showed them that Serbs should
be seen from Europe and that when it comes to Kosovo they should not dream with
their eyes open.’ Demaçi declared.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref44"><sup>[44]</sup></a>
‘Serbia-Albania row over Kosovo mars historic Rama visit’, BBC NEWS 10 November
2014, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29985048</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref45"><sup>[45]</sup></a>
See Maja Ponatov ‘“Historic” Albanian visit to Serbia leaves bitter aftertaste’
at https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/neës/historic-albanian-visit-to-serbia-leaves-bitter-aftertaste/&nbsp; November 13, 2014.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref46"><sup>[46]</sup></a> See Enver Robelli ‘Vizita e Edi Ramës në
Beograd dhe Selamet e panevojshme nga Kosova.’ Koha, net 12 October 2014</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref47"><sup>[47]</sup></a>
‘Rama Takohet me Vuçiç, Të bëjmë atë që Franca dhe Gjermania bënë pas Luftës së
Dytë Botërore’; see Gazeta Dita, 21 April 2015.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref48"><sup>[48]</sup></a>
See ‘Talking Albanian Foreign Policy’, Tirana Times, May 27, 2016
http://www.tiranatimes.com/?p=127767.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref49"><sup>[49]</sup></a>
Almost as paradoxical was the Italian offer in summer 2014 to serve as an
intermediary between Albania and Serbia, when there was no disagreement between
them that needed intermediation by a third party, especially if a third state &#8211;
Kosovo &#8211; was not brought into the matter of their relationship.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref50"><sup>[50]</sup></a>
See: ‘Serbia-Albania Relations: A Fragile Work in Progress As Albania’s PM
visits Serbia, experts argue that improving Belgrade-Tirana relations are a
result of their leaders’ hope of pleasing the EU rather than a real
breakthrough between the two countries’, Natalia Zaba. See also at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbia-albania-relations-a-fragile-work-in-progress-10-13-2016#sthash.cTXRwJYa.dpuf.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref51"><sup>[51]</sup></a>
Comment by Foreign Minister Hoxhaj; see
http://www.gazetadita.al/hoxhaj-nuk-na-duhet-ndihma-e-shqiperise-per-dialogun-me-serbine/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref52"><sup>[52]</sup></a>
Ever since the break-up of Yugoslavia and throughout the past 25 years, it has
been on the agenda for any meeting with a third-party by the President, the
Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and even local Mayors.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref53"><sup>[53]</sup></a>
During the most recent meeting in Belgrade between the Prime Ministers of
Albania and Serbia, in October 2016, Kosovo was the issue that dominated a
public debate between the two in front of an audience of students and
journalists. For more, see Belgrade Security Forum, October 2016.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref54"><sup>[54]</sup></a>
See Dastid Pallaska ‘Pallaska: Shqipëria nuk mund të sillet me Kosovën si
Serbia me Republikën Srpska. Sipas analistit dhe Juristit Pallaska “Republikën
Srpska e ka krijuar Serbia, ndërsa Kosovën e kanë krijuar njerëzit e saj me
luftë dhe me ndihmën e bashkësisë ndërkombëtare.”’
http://telegrafi.com/pallaska-shqiperia-nuk-mund-te-sillet-kosoven-si-serbia-republiken-srpska-video/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref55"><sup>[55]</sup></a>
http://www.gazetadita.al/hoxhaj-nuk-na-duhet-ndihma-e-shqiperise-per-dialogun-me-serbine/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref56"><sup>[56]</sup></a>
In an informal yet public meeting of the Albanian and Serbian Prime Ministers
in Belgrade, on 12th October 2016, the issues dominating the discussion were
the Kosovo government’s decision to nationalize Trepça, the arrest of the
Director of Police of Mitrovica, and the like.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref57"><sup>[57]</sup></a>
For the signing of a co-operation protocol between Serbia and Albania see
regarding infrastructure projects see Laura Hasani, ‘Shqipëria dhe Serbia
&#8216;zhbëjnë&#8217; Kosovën’.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref58"><sup>[58]</sup></a>
Ibid.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref59"><sup>[59]</sup></a>
‘Pajtimi shqiptaro-serb: Këpucët e mëdha për Ramën dhe Vuçiçin’, Enver Robelli,
Koha Jonë, 24.10. 2016</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref60"><sup>[60]</sup></a>
Remarks by Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi on Klan Kosova TV.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref61"><sup>[61]</sup></a>
‘Pas Serbisë, Kosova kërcënon edhe Shqipërinë me taksë 100%’, Gazeta Express 22
May 2019
https://www.gazetaexpress.com/pas-serbise-kosova-kercenon-edhe-shqiperine-me-takse-100/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref62"><sup>[62]</sup></a>
See Marcus Tanner, ‘Correcting Kosovo’s Border Would Shake Postwar Europe’s
Foundations’ at
https://balkaninsight.com/2018/08/24/correcting-kosovo-s-border-would-shake-postwar-europe-s-foundations-08-24-2018/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref63"><sup>[63]</sup></a>
Interview with a senior official in the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of
Kosovo.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref64"><sup>[64]</sup></a>
Nenad Kreizer, Darko Janjevic, A Cold War solution for Serbia and Kosovo?, DW
29.04.2019
https://www.dw.com/en/a-cold-war-solution-for-serbia-and-kosovo/a-48527182.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref65"><sup>[65]</sup></a>
‘Bolton Says U.S. Won&#8217;t Oppose Kosovo-Serbia Land Swap Deal’, Radio Free Europe
August 24, 2018
https://www.rferl.org/a/bolton-says-u-s-won-t-oppose-kosovo-serbia-land-swap-deal/29451395.html</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref66"><sup>[66]</sup></a>
Special Representative for the Western Balkans Matthew Palmer – Speech in
Pristina, November 1, 2019. U.S Embassy in Kosovo,
https://xk.usembassy.gov/special-representative-for-the-western-balkans-matthew-palmer/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref67"><sup>[67]</sup></a>
It was never made clear how the border could be changed without priori
recognition by both states of the existing border.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref68"><sup>[68]</sup></a>
‘Edi Rama: Kosova dhe Shqipëria do ta kenë një president të përbashkët, të
unitetit kombëtar!’, Bota Sot, 18 February 2018
https://www.botasot.info/lajme/837341/edi-rama-kosova-dhe-shqiperia-do-ta-kene-nje-president-te-perbashket-te-unitetit-kombetar/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref69"><sup>[69]</sup></a>
A young woman from Kosovo was likewise appointed as Minister of Education</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref70"><sup>[70]</sup></a>
The two gestures were greeted with surprise, and though there was no public
statement, Prishtina let it be known that it did not agree with the idea of a
common President. When the President of Albania refused to approve by decree
the nominee for Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister reacted by publicly
apologizing to Kosovo, reinforcing the impression that the Kosovan nominee as
Minister would represent Kosovo in the Albanian government. Meanwhile, Kosovo
Prime Minister Haradinaj fought fire with fire by emphasizing that nominations
to the government of Albania were a matter for Albania and the Albanian Prime
Minister, and not for the Republic of Kosovo &#8211; http://rtv21.tv/haradinaj-nuk-komentoi-mosdekretimin-e-gent-cakajt/.</p>



<p><a href="#_ftnref71"><sup>[71]</sup></a>
For a fuller analysis of this theme, see Agon Demjaha ‘Balkan Mini-Schengen: A
Well Thought Regional Initiative or a Political Stunt?’ Tirana Observatory,
Winter 2019, Vol 2.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com/2020/01/31/albania-serbia-relations-from-enthusiasm-to-status-quo-from-status-quo-to-the-false-promise-of-a-strategic-agenda/">Albania-Serbia Relations: from Enthusiasm to Status Quo, from Status Quo to the False Promise of a Strategic Agenda</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com">Tirana Observatory</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://tiranaobservatory.com/2020/01/31/albania-serbia-relations-from-enthusiasm-to-status-quo-from-status-quo-to-the-false-promise-of-a-strategic-agenda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding Albanian-Greek Relations: Deconstructing Paradoxes and Myths</title>
		<link>https://tiranaobservatory.com/2019/09/19/understanding-albanian-greek-relations-deconstructing-paradoxes-and-myths/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=understanding-albanian-greek-relations-deconstructing-paradoxes-and-myths</link>
					<comments>https://tiranaobservatory.com/2019/09/19/understanding-albanian-greek-relations-deconstructing-paradoxes-and-myths/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Albert Rakipi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Perspective]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gutenberg.wpmasters.org/wilco/a-great-thing-made-of-gold</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Two main issues have dominated Albanian-Greek relations during the last over-one hundred years, also coinciding with the modern history of the Albanian state: the issue of territorial/border disputes and the issue of ethnic minorities - both typical for two neighboring nations and states.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com/2019/09/19/understanding-albanian-greek-relations-deconstructing-paradoxes-and-myths/">Understanding Albanian-Greek Relations: Deconstructing Paradoxes and Myths</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com">Tirana Observatory</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="362" class="elementor elementor-362">
						<section class="elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-60d4b9af elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default" data-id="60d4b9af" data-element_type="section" data-e-type="section">
						<div class="elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default">
					<div class="elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-45447200" data-id="45447200" data-element_type="column" data-e-type="column">
			<div class="elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated">
						<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-43c5007f elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="43c5007f" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<p></p>
<p><strong>ALBERT RAKIPI, PhD</strong></p>
<p>Territorial, border and minority issues have historically been, and continue to be, the main source of tension in bilateral relations. They have fed a cyclical relation of crises with frequent ups and downs, interrupted by periods of cooperation only to return to a state of tension but never leading to conflict, in the classical sense of the word.</p>
<p>At first glance, territorial/border and ethnic disputes seem to be a mediocre story between two neighboring nations, the states of which were established in context of the vacuum created from the withdrawal or fall of empires, as was the case of the Ottoman Empire’s withdrawal from the Balkans.</p>
<p>In the following paper, I will discuss how and why territorial/border disputes and minority issues going back as far as the beginning of the twentieth century still serve as the main source of tension and instability. Another element to be discussed which makes the case of Albania and Greece unique, as much as paradoxical, is simultaneously being at war and in peace for territory/borders and minorities for which neither Greece nor Albania is currently contesting.</p>
<h4><strong>Revisiting history</strong></h4>
<p>Three main historical periods have defined the nature and problematic of Albanian-Greek relations during the last century. <em>First, it was the period of national movements in the Balkans,</em> and the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire in the turn of the nineteenth century, and until the start of the twentieth century. These national movements led to the establishment of Balkan states, the territories and borders of which did not necessarily comply with ethnic lines. Albania’s case, in particular, was the most critical and significant. The creation and recognition by European powers of an Albanian state led to the fraction of Albanian territories among its neighbors, including Greece. Thus, the political map of the Balkans was finally complete, but the territories which, according to this map, were recognized as states and the borders that separated them would become the main source of future conflicts and tensions. The two Balkan Wars and World War I questioned, in the worst case, the future of an Albanian state and, in the best case, Albanian territories not only in the country’s north, but also in its south, due to Greek claims.</p>
<p><em>Secondly, it was World War II,</em> at the start of which Albania and Greece, accidentally in fact, were in opposing fronts due to third countries’ commitments. Italy attacked Greece in October 1940 using Albanian territory, which it had invaded since April, 1939. Two of the most important issues of Albanian-Greek relations are tied to this period, issues that are intertwined and still present on the negotiations’ table even after seventy years: <em>the law on the state of  war</em>, which is paradoxically still in power, and the Cham issue. Through a royal decree on November 10, 1940, Albania was declared an enemy state, along Italy. As paradoxical as this law may seem, it remains in power to this day. In addition, although the trajectory of the Cham issue began in 1913<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup>[1]</sup></a>, with the end of the Balkan Wars and the placement of the Cham population under Greek jurisdiction, due to the dramatic developments of World War II the Cham issue is relevant to this day and part of the negotiations’ historical problems.</p>
<p>Similarly, Albanian intervention in the Greek Civil War during and immediately after the end of World War II not only created tension in bilateral relations, but also threatened Albania’s territorial integrity and influenced relations for a long period to come.</p>
<p><em>Thirdly, the Cold War,</em> with its East-West divide, placed the old Balkan neighbors in opposing blocks again. Albanian-Greek relations were highly influenced by the Cold War climate during the long period it lasted and, at least until 1970, the only relation between the two countries was a state of conflict and almost frozen relations.</p>
<p>Although Greece was one of the few Western states with which the Albanian communist regime managed to establish, other than diplomatic relations, a very modest economic cooperation, the two countries remained overall isolated from each other for decades. Communication between the two populations, which are the oldest neighbors in the Balkans, was interrupted immediately after World War II. State relations remained tense especially until the beginning of the seventies. In addition to the ideological divide that belonged to opposing blocks, the permanent political tensions between the countries were mainly fed by a historically conflicting heritage and historically founded disputes, stemming from the process of state creation and independence and, more specifically, directly related with the establishment of an independent Albanian state at the beginning of the twentieth century.</p>
<p>With the end of the Cold War and fall of the communist regime in Albania, another factor influenced, and continues to do so, Albanian-Greek relations: Albanian emigrants or, the emigration of Albanians to Greece.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> The massive migration of Albanians to Greece served to establish a lively and intense communication between the two societies. This massive presence of Albanians in Greece revolutionized political, economic and social relations between two people who were separated for a long time due to the Cold War and Albania’s extreme self-isolation during the communist regime.</p>
<p>The migration of more than one sixth of the Albanian population to Greece simultaneously created other problems related to the integration of Albanian emigrants, their economic and social status and their human rights.</p>
<p><em>The nature of the international system and the nature of regimes</em> which governed both states during this century have been two important factors to influence the unique dynamic of Albanian-Greek relations, but in any case, it has not yet been possible for both states to conclusively reach final agreements on the contested issues.</p>
<p>Last but not least, <em>the populist approaches</em> used by both administrations have mined the opportunity to solve the disputes mainly created during the first half of the twentieth century.</p>
<h4><strong>The big paradox: Two states at war living in peace</strong></h4>
<p>Paradoxes and myths in Albanian-Greek relations, like in the history of other nations, are tied generally to the past, and exclusively  to times of war, but in the case of Albania and Greece the degree of influence paradoxes and myths have in contemporary bilateral relations is unique.</p>
<p>In 1996, Albania and Greece signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation &#8211; the most wholesome diplomatic tool possible to formalizing a state of peace and full cooperation between the two countries. But in the most paradoxical way possible, the State of War Law between the two states persists, approved by the Greek parliament in 1940.</p>
<p>Albania and Greece have been united by their common NATO membership since 2009. However, despite their membership to an alliance where member states have agreed to engage in a common defense in case of an attack by a third party<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><sup>[3]</sup></a>, Greece withholds its 1940 royal decree.</p>
<p>Here lies the paradox of all paradoxes: in 1949, Greece supersedes the respective law that makes Italy an enemy state, but leaves the same War Law with Albania in power, thus officially continuing to regard Albania an enemy state although it was Italy that attacked Greece using Albanian territory, also invaded by Italians.</p>
<p>After almost two centuries, the “Northern Epirus” narrative, which in geographical terms consists of half of modern day Albania, has actually ended up being a myth, just like the Big Idea (Megali Idea) itself. On the other hand, the Cham issue, which constitutes the biggest problem in Albanian-Greek relations for 70 percent of Albanians<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><sup>[4]</sup></a>, continues to feed the political narrative of political parties’ institutions, the media and specific groups in Albania without anyone daring, as it usually happens in the case of myths, to crack the myth and see what lies inside it.</p>
<p>But paradoxes and myths are not just tied to history: Greece is Albania’s main economic partner and during the last 25 years, since the fall of communism, at least 700 thousand Albanians have migrated and are currently living and working in Albania. Also from a strategic point of view, the majority of Albanians believe that Greece is an important country for Albania and that the government should pay great attention to bilateral relations between the countries. <a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a></p>
<p>Paradoxically enough, the majority of Albanians who believe the country is  under  a foreign threat also think this threat  comes from Greece, and that Greece represents the biggest threat to  Albania’s national security.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><sup>[6]</sup></a></p>
<p>Albania and Greece, although are NATO members, differ in addition in their various foreign policy orientations in the Balkans. Greek traditional alliances have been historically regarded with doubt and distrust in Albania. This particularly happened with the alteration of the Balkan political map, after the creation and recognition of a new state, the state of Kosovo. Greece is one of the two Balkan states, and one of the five European states, which has not recognized Kosovo as an independent state. The degree to which not recognizing Kosovo has affected bilateral Albanian-Greek relations is debatable but, at the end of the day, it is a factor which, if not affecting the real sphere of relations, definitely affects the virtual sphere of relations, which remains a prisoner of myth and paradoxes.</p>
<h4><strong>Territorial/border disputes and the issue of continuity</strong></h4>
<p>When student Eleftherios Venizelos gathered his friend around a map and imagined Greek borders, he sought half of today’s modern day Albania and a big part of modern day Turkey<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"><sup>[7]</sup></a>, while Albania did not yet exist as an independent state. But only a few decades later, in 1919, excellent former law student Venizelos, now holding the Prime Minister’s mandate in Greece, presented on behalf of the Greek delegation at the Paris Peace Conference all the arguments why Greece should have Southern Albania, or “Northern Epirus,” as he liked to call it.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><sup>[8]</sup></a></p>
<p>Although the Paris Peace Conference did not recognize Greek claims in “Northern Epirus,” the Council of Foreign Ministers of the four big powers &#8211; the USA, Great Britain, the USSR and France &#8211; was anyway introduced to the Greek request and arguments concerning its claims in South Albania in 1946.</p>
<p>During the Cold War, territorial claims were a factor of tension between the two countries and an unspoken public barrier in establishing diplomatic relations for at least a few decades since the end of World War II. The reasons why the two countries did not escalate towards conflict can be explained with the Cold War and the rivalry between big powers, as well as Balkan rivalries, which have been historically present when it came to accepting an independent Albanian state and its territories.</p>
<p>With the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1971, a positive step was made in eliminating one of the biggest sources of tension between the two countries, the “Greek territorial claims, per the Northern Epirus platform. A gradual withdrawal from the Greek side is noticed since then, but also an effort from official Tirana not to identify Greek official policy with the so-called Northern Epirus thesis, supported “by reactionary Greek circles, including the Greek Church, which through chauvinist points of view seek to hamper the approximation of Greece with Albania.”<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"><sup>[9]</sup></a></p>
<p>It can be said without hesitation that, with the end of the Cold War and fall of the communist regime, the territorial claims according to the Northern Epirus ideological platform were finally archived. Further developments such as the mutual signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and Albania’s NATO<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> membership finally ultimately concluded every territorial claim created and carried throughout history.</p>
<p>Despite this new reality, peripheral segments within Greece, and especially those belonging to the Greek Diaspora, continue to feed the born and dead Northern Epirus thesis and keep the populist-fed discourse of the virtual sphere alive.</p>
<p>Parallel to territorial disputes, issues of defining borders between the two states &#8211; the same international borders recognized by the Big Powers &#8211; have been a source of tension.</p>
<p>In 2010, Albania’s Constitutional Court devalued the continental shelf agreement. After several years of negotiations and the eventual acceptance of a maritime border agreement &#8211; the only border left undetermined &#8211; it seemed like Albania and Greece were on the track of closing the open chapter of border disputes. However, Albania’s Constitutional Court devalued this agreement because it “stepped on constitutional principles and did not respect international right principles in determining maritime borders.”<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"><sup>[11]</sup></a></p>
<p>The failure to approve a maritime border agreement, for which negotiations had begun immediately after World War II ended, prove another constant characteristic of Albanian-Greek relations: border issues and disputes surrounding it continue to be an essential source of political tension, no matter the democratic changes, common membership in the North-Atlantic Alliance and the consistent Greek support towards Albania’s EU integration. The issues of defining the borders between Albania and Greece appeared immediately after European powers recognized the Albanian state. Initially, more than an issue of defining the countries’ borders, it was related with the territorial claims towards Southern Albania or Northern Epirus. Although the Conference of Ambassadors of the European powers did not recognize Greek claims that wanted to include Albanian territories, these claims persisted to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"><sup>[12]</sup></a> In 1921, the Ambassadors Conference, which immediately followed the Peace Conference, recognized the borders of 1913. From this period on, border disputes can be regarded separately from territorial disputes. For several decades during the Cold War, the issue of defining borders was one of the obstacles to establishing diplomatic relations.<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> Actually even after the establishment of diplomatic relations, occasional tensions arising were tied to undefined borders and to the Greek hesitation to define its land border.</p>
<p>However, it is important to state that more than the minority issues per se, the way the governments of both countries accommodated and behaved towards the Greek minority was a source of tension. Primarily, the presence of the Greek minority and dispute concerning its numbers has served to feed territorial claims and, later, border claims, but &#8211; gradually &#8211; the policies followed by Tirana and Athens towards the Greek minority were a source of tension on their own. During the Cold War, including the period diplomatic relations were established, the issue of the Greek minority in Albania was a constant source of tension which persisted even after the fall of communism.</p>
<h4><strong>The populist account: Don&#8217;t open the box</strong></h4>
<p>One of the most disputed issues in Albanian-Greek relations, in fact also related to other historical disputes, is the Cham issue.</p>
<p>After the Balkan Wars, the Cham population was placed under Greek jurisdiction while with the Firenze Protocol of 1913 the territories in North-West Greece, inhabited by Cham population, remained outside Albanian borders. Nonetheless, the beginning of 1923 marks the origin of the Cham issue, when Greece and Turkey started negotiations on population exchange. Greece announced it did not intend to include the Cham population in the population exchange convention with Turkey. Although the exchange programs were to only include the region’s Muslims, without touching the Cham population, at least 500,000 Chams were involved in these programs.<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> The Albanian government did not regard the expulsion of the Cham population in the exchange programs as a privilege.</p>
<p>Either way, the biggest part of the Cham population remained expelled from the Greek-Turkish 1923 Treaty of Lausanne’s population exchange and was thus supposed to enjoy the same status as Greek citizens.</p>
<p>However, regardless of official policies announced by the Greek government, the Cham population did not enjoy equal rights with Greek citizens during the period between two wars. The social and economic heritage gained during the Ottoman Empire’s rule started eroding under local and central policies backed by the government and, in an increasingly hostile political and social environment, the first clashes between the Cham and Greek populations began. The situation for the Cham population got even harder under the Ioannis Metaxas dictatorship of 1936. In addition to the arbitrary use of violence, the Metaxas government prohibited both the use of the Albanian language in both the public and private spheres of life and the publication of Albanian language books and newspapers.</p>
<p>Yet, it was the developments of War World II that were really decisive for the Cham population’s future. Italy, at first, and Germany, after Italy capitulated, announced the national union of Albanians, including, among others, the Cham population living in Greece. It seems the Chams sought the return of the economic and social status, and their future in general, in cooperating with the Italians first and the Germans later. During Fascist occupation, the communities were involved in a cycle of violence that took bigger dimensions once Germany withdrew from Greece in 1944. The Greek resistance forces, in particular, under the command of General Zervas, undertook hostile operations towards the Cham population, causing many victims.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15"><sup>[15]</sup></a></p>
<p>Collective violence and massacres persisted with the massive movement of the Cham population to Albania.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> In 1940, in the Chameria region, precisely at the South of the Albanian-Greek border, 25,000 Chams were gathered.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17"><sup>[17]</sup></a> A decade later, during the Greek population census of 1951, only 127 Albanian-speaking Muslims were registered in the entire country.<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18"><sup>[18]</sup></a></p>
<p>The Cham issue, which both countries interpret differently, was the first clash and dispute between Albania and Greece.</p>
<p>The most essential question is how the historical trajectory of the Chams, which, in the words of Stathis N. Kalyvas “couldn’t be more emblematic of the dark continent &#8211; the European 20th century,” has influenced and continues to influence Albanian-Greek relations.</p>
<p>The Cham issue has been source of tension between the two countries since the Greek-Turkish population exchange of 1926.</p>
<p>Other than the demarches undertaken directly towards official Athens, the Albanian government expressed its worries concerning the population’s situation at the League of Nations.  During this time, Athens was also closely following the deepening of Albanian-Italian relations, also in the context of the Cham population within its territory, worrying Albanians might have the support of a power like Italy in their claims and potential shares of their brothers in Greece.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19"><sup>[19]</sup></a></p>
<p>Until the start of World War II, Albania was engaged with the Cham issue in one way or another. Developments during the war were dramatic for the Cham population in Greece. At first Italy, and then Germany, announced the creation of Greater Albania, which included Northern territories on the border with Kosovo as well as those in the South, also with the Chameri region, in addition to Albania according to the 1913 borders.</p>
<p>With Albania’s liberation and the establishment of the communist regime in Albania, the Hoxha communist government was attentive to the Cham issue at first.</p>
<p>Hoxha presented the Cham issue at the Paris Peace Conference of 1946. The Communist government asked for the repatriation of Chams in Greece and the restitution of their assets.<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> This was the period when relations between the two countries worsened due to official Greek requests on territorial claims at Northern Epirus.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21"><sup>[21]</sup></a> Meanwhile, the ideological positioning and division among the big powers &#8211; the USSR on the one hand and the USA and Great Britain on the other &#8211; also influenced relations. Along the interstate disputes of the Balkans, clashes between global superpowers had their impact on a considerable scale.</p>
<p>Similarly, the Albanian communist regime, although not directly and openly, supported the efforts of the Cham population placed in Albania to internationalize their case. Two Cham congresses were organized in Albania in 1945 and 1947 and a series of efforts were undertaken by European powers and the United Nations.</p>
<p>During the Greek Civil War, the Cham issue starts to resurface: the Greek communists saw Chams placed in Albania as a good way to strengthen the Democratic Party. Greek communist leaders asked Tirana, the Albanian communist leadership, help in recruiting them in the army.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"><sup>[22]</sup></a></p>
<p>This was the last time the Albanian government engaged with the Cham issue, and that was entirely in an ideological context, as it aimed to help the Greek communists in the civil war.</p>
<p>Finally, the communist regime put a lid on the Cham issue in 1953, when it gave the Cham population Albanian citizenship through a special decree.</p>
<p>During the entire Cold War and until the fall of the communist regime the Cham issue was not part of the frequently tense and troubled relations. The Cold War and division in two opposing blocks are not enough to explain why the Cham issue was no longer a concern of the government. Regardless of Albania’s isolation, a closed border with Greece, the lack of diplomatic relations for three decades and despite the fact both countries belonged to opposing military and ideological blocs, Albania and Greece had tense relations, but it was never due to the Cham issue. The Hoxha government had also given up the requests presented at the Paris Peace Conference of 1946 and, until the end of the Cold War and the fall of the communist regime, kept quite regarding the Cham issue. The Chaim issue was not even part of the negotiations during the re-establishment of diplomatic relations at the beginning of the 1970s.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"><sup>[23]</sup></a></p>
<p>The complete silence regarding the Cham issue becomes even less understandable if we compare it to the communist government’s attention towards the Greek minority in Albania. The regime consecutively tried to point out the Greek minority in Albania, “a smart, hard-working and patriotic people,”<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24"><sup>[24]</sup></a> “enjoyed the same rights as every citizen of the republic.” The government took care and propagandized how the minority had its own newspaper; a lively militant tribune to the Greek minority’s working masses. The Populist Republic’s Constitution ensures them the same rights as all other citizens of the republic. <a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25"><sup>[25]</sup></a></p>
<p>The only comparison between the Cham issue and that of the Greek minority in Albania is that of 1945, when Enver Hoxha himself tried to stress a big difference between Greek reactionaries,</p>
<p>Greek chauvinists and his regime. “We don’t act on the minority,” Hoxha writes, “like the bands of Zervas and Plastiras do with the Cham population, which they’ve massacred and violently killed. Our stand towards the Greek minority is one of the most progressive. The Greek minority in Albania enjoys all rights, it has its schools, its teachers, its press and its representatives in power and the military.”<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26"><sup>[26]</sup></a></p>
<p>The finalization of the Cold War and the fall of the communist regime in Albania marked the return of the Cham issue. Since 1991, the Cham community created its own political organization and, later on, its own political party, which achieved parliamentary representation. The organization initially made its claims public &#8211; claims that were not so different from those presented to the UN, foreign missions to Tirana and the Greek government only half a century ago. Like in the post-World War II memorandums, the organization sought the repatriation of the Chams to their lands, the restitution of their properties and wealth, compensation of income and respect towards their human rights. The Cameria Organization, the second political organization founded after 1991, when the first opposition party was also established in Albania, hoped to have the non-communist government’s support in solving the Cham issue and believed the Cham issue should re-enter the Albanian-Greek relations agenda. The Cham population in Albania and their political organization put its hopes in the Democratic Party &#8211; Albania’s first non-communist government. During the communist regime, the Cham population was regarded with disbelief and no rights for assembly were granted to them, while the idea that the regime had betrayed the Cham issue was quite popular. This not only explained the Chams’ big hopes after the fall of communism, but also a sort of mistrust towards the Socialist Party (and its allies), which, at least during the first decade, was seen as the Communist Party’s heir, responsible for the long silence towards the Cham issue. Starting from 1991 and onwards, the Cham issue would be a permanent part of Albanian-Greek relations. From 1992, the requests of the Albanian side were related to the financial compensation of confiscated properties and the repatriation of expelled Chams in their land. It seemed that the Greek government accepted the return of the Cham issue in the countries’ bilateral relations agenda.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27"><sup>[27]</sup></a> Despite this acceptance, further stands of the Greek government have ranged from completely refusing to recognize a Cham issue to refusing to discuss compensation for the confiscated properties, arguing the Cham population cooperated with the occupants and court orders had declared its people war criminals,<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> although they had principally agreed to the request since 1992. The stand of Albanian governments, similarly, since the return of the Cham issue in 1991, has marked a dynamic of ups and downs. The 1994-1995 crisis of Albanian-Greek relations radicalized the Albanian government’s stand towards the Cham issue. On the other hand, the 1997 crisis, which had the country close to anarchy, left the Cham issue aside.</p>
<p>The reason behind this radical stand is related to the weak, almost failed, state of the government due to the crisis, but also to the fact the socialists came into power, for which the popular conception remains that they “support the national Albanian issue a little or not at all,” and have reflected weak policies in relations with Greece and a level of dependence towards Athens.<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29"><sup>[29]</sup></a> Meanwhile, the Cham issue becomes increasingly part of the internal conflict between Albanian political parties.<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30"><sup>[30]</sup></a> The drift towards a totalitarian narrative becomes apparent at the end of the 1990s and a myth begins surrounding the Cham issue. It is no longer spoken of the specific requests that make up the Cham issue &#8211; requests that were clearly articulated after the end of World War II, the Cold War and the fall of communism. Although it is being increasingly discussed, the political parties and other (not necessarily political) groups’ narrative speaks more of a myth rather than of the elements that make the Cham issue and the ways to solve it. The Cham issue narrative, at least since the 1997 crisis, is similar to the narrative of myths. The creation of the Party for Justice and Unity, its dissolution and creation of the Party for Justice, Integration and Unity (PDIU) was not a small influence towards the totalitarian rhetoric of the Cham issue and creation of its myth, as it almost privatized the Cham issue and its myth.</p>
<p>The PDIU declares itself “Party of the national causes, of the Cham issue, the inclusion of patriotism in the country’s governance,”<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31"><sup>[31]</sup></a> claiming exclusiveness of the national issue. The Cham issue is nothing more but “part of the unresolved national issue.” <a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32"><sup>[32]</sup></a></p>
<h4><strong>Liberation from paradoxes and myths </strong></h4>
<p>Albanian-Greek relations, after the end of the Cold War, the fall of communism and Albania’s re-exposure to the West, develop in two different spheres: one is the sphere of peace, in which actual relations develop in the fields of economy, trade, investments, parallel to exchanges in the social aspect &#8211; the communications of the two societies in the fields of art and culture; while the other sphere is the “sphere of war,” which is in fact virtual: it operates the political discourse, the political elites, the media and different interest groups. Within this sphere the discourse is almost totalitarian and centers on mainly contested issues stemming from history, such as the Cham issue, the so-called “North Epirus issue” and the minorities’ issue. The first is the real sphere, the second is fictive.</p>
<p>Although it seems these two spheres develop and function parallel and simultaneously, there is a degree of influence and interdependence between them. The almost cyclical crises in the Greek-Albanian relations after the end of the Cold War have been defined by the interdependence of these two spheres. The first is a real world that is related to economic interests, communication and societal cooperation, while the second was built and functions on myths and paradoxes, creating in fact one big paradox which, in the best case scenario, maintains the status quo in these relations without allowing their development and strengthening and, in the worst case scenario, produces cyclical crises which have damaged, or have the potential to damage the future of these relations.</p>
<p>It is not possible to explain Albanian-Greek relations in the post-Cold War context without understanding and explaining the paradoxes and myths created by history. Undoubtedly, the strengthening of these relations is not possible without liberation from these myths and paradoxes.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> For a detailed understanding of the Cham issue, see Eleftheria K. Manta, <em>Muslim Albanians in Greece, the Cham Epirus</em> (1923-2000), Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki 2008.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> Since 1991, several hundred thousand Albanians have migrated to and settled in Greece. The big migration wave that followed shortly after the reopening of Albania&#8217;s borders, was directed towards Greece as a destination country. Although exact data is lacking, comparable to the case of Italy where 540,000 Albanian emigrants were registered, it is reckoned that at least 700,000 Albanians have settled in Greece in the last 25 years.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> Article 5 of the NATO Treaty</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> See <em>Greece and Albania</em>, Albanian Institute for International Studies, Tirana, 2013</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><em><strong>[5]</strong></em></a><em>  Twenty years later: People on state and democracy</em>, AIIS 2011.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><sup>[6]</sup></a> See <em>European Perspective for Albania</em>, Albanian Institute for International Studies, Tirana, 2016. Also see <em>Twenty Years After: People on State and Democracy</em>, AIIS, Tirana, 2014.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"><sup>[7]</sup></a> Margaret  Macmillan Paris, 1919, <em>Six Months that Changed the World</em>, Random House, p. 348</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"><sup>[8]</sup></a> Ibid, 351</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> Enver Hoxha, <em>Dy Popuj Miq</em>, Tirana, 1985, Publishing House 8 Nentori, pg 415.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> Albanian got invited to become a NATO member at the Bucharest Summit of 2008 and, a year later, in 2009 it became a full member of the Alliance</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"><sup>[11]</sup></a> See Constitutional Court ruling, 15 April 2010 </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"><sup>[12]</sup></a> See <em>The Albanian Problem in the Paris Peace Conference</em>, AIIS, Tirana, 2018</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> See Enver Hoxha, <em>Dy Popuj, Dy Miq </em></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> The UN Commission, unable to determine the Muslim origins of the Chams, decided to compromise by applying the Chams free will to go to Turkey. According to Greek authorities, out of the 10,000 that wanted to leave, only 5,000 were accepted by Turkey. See Eleftheria K. Manta, <em>Albanian Muslims in Greece, the Chams of Epirus (1923-2000)</em>, The Institute of Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki, 2008</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15"><sup>[15]</sup></a> The most violent massacre of Muslim Albanians was made by Greek soldiers who did not belong in military formations, on June 27,1944, in the Paramithis area, where the forces of the Republican Greek League (EDES) of General Zervas entered the city and killed about 600 Muslim Albanians, men, women, and children &#8211; many of whom were raped and tortured before death. According to eyewitnesses, the following day, another EDES battalion entered Parga, where 52 other Albanians were killed. On September 23, 1944, Spatar was robbed and 157 people were killed. Young women and girls were raped and those men who remained alive were gat27/06/18hered and sent to the Aegean islands.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> For an objective account of the Cham issue, see Miranda Vickers, James Pettifer, <em>The Cham Issue: the Next Stage</em>, Naimi publishing house, 2014</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17"><sup>[17]</sup></a> Within the controversial Cham issue, the numbers are also disputed.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18"><sup>[18]</sup></a> Stathis  N.Kalyvas at Eleftheria K. Manta <em>Muslim  Albanians in Greece, The Cham Epirus ( 1923- 2000), </em>Institute  for Ballkan Studies, Thessaloniki 2008</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19"><sup>[19]</sup></a> Miranda Vickers</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> See Beqir Meta, Greek-Albanian Tension, 1939-1949, The Cham Tragedy, 111-167, Academy of Science of Albania, Tirana, 2006.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21"><sup>[21]</sup></a> Ibid, Meta.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22"><sup>[22]</sup></a> Out of approximately 2000 Chams that Greek leaders aimed to recruit among Cham communists based in Greece, they only managed to recruit 150.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23"><sup>[23]</sup></a> One possible explanation is the fact that the Cold War and the East-West ideological clash served, among other things, as a backbone to maintain national issues and nationalist ideas all over the world, including the Balkans, frozen.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24"><sup>[24]</sup></a> See Enver Hoxha,<em> Dy Popuj, Dy Miq  8 Nentori </em>,Tirana, 1985</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25"><sup>[25]</sup></a> Ibid</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26"><sup>[26]</sup></a> Ibid</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27"><sup>[27]</sup></a> During a visit to Albania in 1991, Foreign Minister Karolos Papoulias said the demands for property restitution and financial compensation,  “should be resolved by a bilateral commission.” See Miranda Vicker. Likewise, at the first meeting of the two prime ministers Simitis-Berisha in 1992, concerning the two requests presented by the Albanian side: financial compensation for confiscated property and return of their land to the Chams, Greek authorities expressed a willingness concerning financial compensation. &#8220;For the properties that were seized from Chams who were not denounced as conspirators of the Axis’ invading forces but who had fled from fear, abandoning their property.&#8221; See Eleftheria K.Manda, Muslim Albanians in Greece, The Cham Epirus (1923-2000), Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki, 2008.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> Ibid, pg. 232</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29"><sup>[29]</sup></a> In November 1997, Prime Minister Fatos Nano met Milosevic in Cretes, giving Prishtina a mediating role in solving the Kosovo problem, while ignoring the Cham issue which was no longer part of the bilateral agenda.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30"><sup>[30]</sup></a> Ordinary debates when an Albanian minister visits Greece or when a Greek minister visits Tirana are summed up in the questions &#8220;Did he mention the Cham issue?&#8221; “Why was the Cham issue left out of the talks?” “Who is betraying it and why?”</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31"><sup>[31]</sup></a> See PDIU’s mission, Official website</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32"><sup>[32]</sup></a> See Sh. Idrizi Speech, 27-year-anniversary of the Chameria Organization founding, January 2018</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"></a></p>
<p></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
		</div>
					</div>
		</section>
				</div>
		<p>The post <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com/2019/09/19/understanding-albanian-greek-relations-deconstructing-paradoxes-and-myths/">Understanding Albanian-Greek Relations: Deconstructing Paradoxes and Myths</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tiranaobservatory.com">Tirana Observatory</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://tiranaobservatory.com/2019/09/19/understanding-albanian-greek-relations-deconstructing-paradoxes-and-myths/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
