Based on findings from the four areas, the study draws broader conclusions on institutional coordination and policy implementation challenges facing the country.

The post A new and important contribution to the studying of Albania’s EU integration process appeared first on Tirana Observatory.

In October, 2010, I suggested to Elez Biberaj that he republish his book Albania in Transition. Coincidentally, at that time he and other well-known scholars of Albanian matters, had been invited to the conference “20 years after the fall of communism: Reflections on the state and democracy,” jointly  organized by the Institute for International Studies and Friedrich Ebert Foundation which had the purpose of evaluating the progress of Albania’s post-communist transition– the theme of Biberaj’s book. Biberaj eagerly welcomed the idea of republication and even proposed writing a new chapter to assess the developments of the last fifteen years.

In 1998, at the time of Westview Press’ initial publication of his book on post-communist transition and Albanian politics, the Albanian economy and society, without a doubt, continued to function—if it can even be called “function”—more in a chaotic manner, rather than according to a clear political system.

While, I believe that chaos is an inevitable fragment of all transitions, including transitions from communist dictatorships to liberal, democratic regimes; in 1998, Albania experienced one of the most dangerous crossroads of its entire existence as an independent state. At the time, Albania was still in search of a way out of one of the most serious crises in its entire modern history—the crisis of 1997—that emerged after the fall of the pyramid schemes and led to the failure of the state.

A number of important reforms undertaken after the crisis of that year, essentially were the same reforms which had been interrupted by the anarchy and fall of the state; and were reasoned, at the time, to be typical of a transition period. 

Theoretical debate over the post-communist transition has been plenty, including contradiction and dilemmas over a number of cases, as well as the critical question: when, exactly, can one say that the transition, as an intermediary phase of the state’s political and economic transformation, is over?

In a unique way, these theoretical dilemmas regarding when post-communist transition can be considered complete, began to appear in the mid 1990s. Complete transitions were hinted at in Central Europe, which had enjoyed liberal traditions and states with an older history. For Albania, on the other hand, considering the chaos with which Albania was faced in 1997 and 1998, there was no doubt that it remained in a state of transition, with little, and occasionally threatened, stability.

From this perspective, Biberaj’s idea to include Albania’s political transition (rather than simply political Albania) post-1997 was natural and perhaps even necessary.

In the international conference on post-communism which took place in Tirana, there was no lack of debate over the dilemma of whether or not, after two decades, Albania’s post-communist transition can be definitively called complete.

If, even in 2010, twenty years since the fall of communism– when Albania is a member of NATO and is seeking EU membership– the issue of an uncompleted transition still exists, then it is only natural to consider that the story of transition published in 1998 may not be finished.

On the other hand, it is critical that we agree on a definition of post-communist transition. Michael Mandelbaum suggests that post-communism is a term which refers more to the past than the future. One can think that the transition in Albania is not yet finished; but what has happened in this place during the last decade has nothing to do with the past or transition. To this end, Michael Weichert states that the term transition, in fact, is not helpful in assessing the presented dilemma. Instead, the term simply marks the beginning of Albania’s endeavors in 1990. Yet, can transition assist in showing us where, or at what point, Albania wants to arrive: a functioning state  and democratic society?

If we suppose that transition is complete when a place has arrived at the metaphorical “getting to Denmark,” then I believe that Albania’s transition will not be ending anytime soon. This would similarly be true of many places with delayed state traditions and minimal democratic experiences. Any dilemmas with a liberal functioning democracy and state in Albania, as well as places similar to Albania, have to do with generational issues, not post-communist transition.

The contradictory advancement of Albania– and not only Albania– with large steps forward and accompanied by frightful steps back, can and should be understood and explained outside the transitional framework.

If we rely on this perspective, and consider that the magic, breath and also substance of Albania’s (and other places as well) post-communist transition, happened in that intermediary time, when the old regime and its suppressive system crumbled, when the centralized economy came to an end, and a new political system emerged; then Elez Biberaj’s 1998 book on the Albanian transition, and most certainly this publication inclusive of the years up until 2010, is a book which is absolutely critical to understanding, explaining, and analyzing Albania’s historical political transition from a communist dictatorship to a liberal democratic system.

The first element which makes Biberaj’s book so important is that: Albania in Transition is a story of post-communist political transition. It’s the best political story that has been written until now about one of the three most important periods– if not the most important– of the one hundred years of Albania’s modern history; a history which began with Albania’s historical establishment and consolidation, was followed by the triumph of the communist regime at the end of World War II, and then culminated in the collapse of the communist dictatorship, which brought the current regime in the early 1990s.

The second important aspect of Albania in Transition lies in the fact that the author has established this story of Albania’s political transition in a full historical and geopolitical context. The long, iron-fisted isolation of the communist period interrupted Albania’s much-needed cultural and scientific exchange with the rest of the world. As such, western communications and publications pertaining to Albania were either non-existant or were very few; and, by 1990, Albania was a place that practically did not exist. Such a situation made it necessary to develop a new story in a historical context. This approach, apart from facilitating an understanding of Albania’s historical transition, is valuable and beneficial in itself because it provides a dynamic illustration filled with the contradictions of the Albanian history, state, people, culture, and the unique way in which Albanian politics under communism consisted also of international relations throughout the duration of the regime.

The first non-communist opposition in Albania strongly supported the state’s political and economic transition, as well as foreign affairs and international relations. The break from the old regime could not begin, or be as successful, without the emergence from isolation and reestablishment of relations with the Western world. However, before analyzing, for example, the role foreign affairs and international relations played in Albania’s transition, Biberaj presents a historical context of these relations, which, in addition to providing an overall understanding of the changes, is beneficial in itself.

At the same time, Albania’s historical political transition would not be complete without a geopolitical context in which Biberaj explains the change of the regime in Albania– a state so small that as Robin Alison Remginton noted, it is only slightly larger than Maryland, but has a critical role in the future development of the Balkan region.

As the Albanian transition was taking place, the Balkans was heading unprepared toward one of its darkest periods, marked by bloody wars reminiscent of World War II– appearing evermore like a theatre of extreme violence and a field of collision/collaboration with the Great Powers of the time. Apart from the story of Albania’s transition, Biberaj’s book is a must-read for each international relations student who is interested in the modern-day relations of the Balkan region and the powers beyond.

Thirdly, it can honestly be said that Elez Biberaj’s book on Albania’s transition has, in fact, helped the transition itself. The book has served not only to clarify the Albanian transition, but also to foster international awareness of a small place like Albania, as well as the entire region– contributing to a sparking of Western interest for peace and stability in the Balkans.

Albania in Transition is a story of political transition, but it is not the only or the final one. This book was written while the transition was happening itself. Such a situation does not allow for reflection which comes only with the passing of time, and is sometimes necessary to having a neutral view of circumstances and actors.

Last but not least, I would like to underline two facts:

First, this story of Albania’s political transition is written by a person who has made a significant contribution to the transition. Elez Biberaj’s voice on the Albanian program of Voice of America– which shook the hearts and minds of Albanians and prepared them for a great change– will remain permanently in the memories of Albanian people. Furthermore, apart from other factors which led to the ousting of the dictator in Albania, Remzi Lani suggests that the “Biberaj Factor,” as exhibited by his efforts on Voice of America, should be considered as an invaluable contribution as well.

Second fact: Elez Biberaj with this book, as well as previous books, continues to remain one of the most successful  Albanian political scientists and historians; and more importantly continues the remarkable and unparalleled tradition of Albanians developing and excelling in the United States of America.

The post A Political History of Transition appeared first on Tirana Observatory.

Democracy cannot be taken for granted. Democracy is complicated, diverse and not guaranteed anywhere. Not in the United States of America, not in the United Kingdom, not in Spain, not in Italy and certainly not in Poland or Hungary. Democracy must be protected everywhere. This is the highlight of Anne Applebaum’s new book “Twilight of Democracy”.

Applebaum brings on modern authoritarian regimes her insights as historian, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Gulag: A History, whichnarrates the history of the Soviet Union concentration camps. She brings also her gravitas as acknowledged journalist who has written for the Economist, Washington Post and the Atlantic.

Differently from most of Applebaum’s previously published work, “Twilight of Democracy” it is a natural blend of political analysis, philosophy and personal stories. What makes the book special is the fact that Anne Applebaum speaks her mind as much as her heart.

The book opens up with Anne and her husband, Radosław Sikorski, throwing a party for their Polish guests and friends who were part of the Polish “intelligentsia”[1], in December 1999, in a village in rural Poland. The book closes with another party hosted by Anne and Radosław in the same village in 2019 but definitely with different guests. In the timeframe of two decades not only politics had changed but also their friends. Many of Anne’s guests and friends in the 1999 party, had shifted their political views from liberalism towards authoritarianism. She is not afraid to name and shame every one of her guests who once were partying with her and now they were ashamed of even admitting the participation in her party. On the other side, Anne admits that “I would now cross the street to avoid some of the people who were at my New Year’s Eve party”. What led Anne’s friends to change their political views from liberalism to authoritarianism? What caused their unpredicted transformation into vocal sympathizer of autocratic regimes?

Applebaum dares to state that “when given the right conditions any society can turn against democracy. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, all of our societies eventually will”. The recent rise of the far-right rhetoric and illiberalism, not only in the “East” but “West” and globally, demonstrates that authoritarianism can easily replace democracy everywhere.

Initially, “Twilight of Democracy” takes place in Poland where the current government of Law and Justice party is known for their conservative ideology, the homophobic agenda and the destruction of media freedom especially in the case of the national television station.

Applebaum discusses the case of Hungary where nepotism, state capture and corruption are clearly visible. In both countries, citizens are being served and fed with conspiracy theories and “Medium size lies”. In Poland, Kaczynski has used the Smolensk tragedy to electrify its followers. Meanwhile, in Hungary, Orban is using “Medium-size lies” such as George Soros and the Muslim migrants and blames them for the problems that the country is having. In the 90s Muslim immigrants coming from former Yugoslavia and Chechnya settled in Hungary and Poland and such settlements have never caused any distress or tension within the societies. Truth is that immigration is an imaginary problem in Hungary and Poland.

Applebaum believes that the promotion of the conspiracy theories and “Medium size lies” by governments has an extraordinary impact on societies beliefs and morale. She dares to question what was the role of Polish state television in the assassination of the Mayor of Gdansk, Pawel Adamowicz? Jo Cox, a member of the British parliament was also murdered by a man who believed that England would be destroyed by brown foreigners. Needless to say, what is happening in Poland or United Kingdom might be some sort of “conspiracy” problem connected with the propaganda apparatus.

Applebaum turns her attention toward the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The British are dealing with Brexit and since the 1960s, as Dean Acheson, United States Secretary of State under President Truman said, “has not yet found a role”. The Brexit campaign revived the idea that a world where the UK could make the rules does exits. The British people are to believe they are special, so special that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has suggested that the coronavirus infection rate is higher in the United Kingdom than in Germany or Italy because Britons love freedom more[2].

The political situation is similar in the United States. Trump’s victory in November 2016 gave end to the common morale of the American people. Americans are more divided than ever thanks to “Medium size lies” that the Trump campaign and then later administration has been fueling into the society. Trump and his advisors have introduced into the political spectrum “another version” of events which are being used to furthermore brainwash the conservative followers into engaging “at least part of the time, with an alternative reality”. Applebaum argues that people have always had different opinions but now it seems that they have different facts.

The ideas of “alternative facts”, “alternative reality” were used by U.S. Counselor to President Trump, Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 2017. Conway totally fits the description of what Applebaum calls “clercs”. Steve Banon, executive chairman of Breitbart News and former White House’s chief strategist in the administration of President Donald Trump is also a “clerc”. The Brits have their “clercs” such as Neil Farage, leader of the Brexit Party and previously leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Dominic Cummings, chief spin doctor of the Leave campaign and now Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister Johnson. Poles, Hungarians, Spaniards they also have their “clercs” but of course less famous.

The term “clercs” was coined by the French philosopher Julien Benda in the short book “La Trahison des Clercs” from 1927. The “clercs” are intellectuals, writers, television producers, people of influence, spin doctors who help the spread and rise of authoritarianism. The “clercs” are “restorative” nostalgic about the past. According to Applebaum they want the world to be as it has been in the past. They want to behave like their predecessors did and they want to do it now and that is why restorative nostalgia “goes hand in hand with conspiracy theories and “Medium size lies”.

Applebaum observes that “clercs” are in every society and that authoritarianism can cross cultures and borders easily. She is troubled and worried about the future. In the meantime, Applebaum wonders and hopes that the pandemic that we are going through will wake up in us the sense of lost solidarity, but she is also skeptical that the situation might also enforce autocrats in power. In the end, will democracies will be able to defeat authoritarianism and prevail? The answer to the question relies on the future but “we must accept that both futures are possible. No political victory is ever permanent. …”

Ogerta Lala is a communication expert at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw. Previously, she has worked as an anti-money laundering and compliance consultant for Deloitte Warsaw. Ogerta is a graduate of College of Europe and SUNY New Paltz, New York. Her research is mainly focused on anti-money laundering, anti-corruption and transatlantic relations.

[1] Intelligentsia. —Informed intellectual people; the educated or professional group, class, or party; —often derisive.” The Oxford Dictionary defines the term as “That part of a nation that aspires to independent thinking.”

[2] https://www.thelocal.de/20200922/coronavirus-boris-johnson-contrasts-germanys-lower-infection-rate-with-freedom-loving-uk

The post Anne Applebaum’s New Book “Twilight of Democracy” appeared first on Tirana Observatory.

Although a common phenomenon in international politics, the bilateral unequal alliance has not been the subject of extensive study from the perspective of a Small Power. In the scholarly literature, this type of an alliance has generally been treated only peripherally,[1] and has been considered as the least desirable alliance for a Small Power. The prevailing view among scholars is that the Small Power in a bilateral unequal alliance is likely to be dominated by the Great Power, that it cannot expect to play a significant role in alliance decision-making, and as a result, its sovereignty and independence are likely to suffer. A Small Power in an alliance with a Great Power is thus considered a satellite, rather than a freely functioning ally.[2]

In general, Small Powers are faced with political, economic and military constraints, and limited alternatives. Their subordinate position in the international system is a fact of everyday life under which they must function. Often a Small Power may have no alternative but to ally with a Great Power, on terms generally dictated by the latter. But while the bilateral unequal alliance may not be the ideal alliance for a Small Power, its disadvantages have been exaggerated. A Small Power can play a role out of proportion with its status, capabilities, and contribution to the alliance.

Under certain international conditions and especially during times of acute Great Power competition, a Small Power with a potentially significant ideological, political and strategic contribution to the competition may be able to extract considerable concessions from a prospective Great Power ally. Despite the discrepancy in power and resources between a Small Power and a Great Power, the former may actually be able to manipulate the latter more effectively than vice versa.[3] The Small Power may also profit from what Robert L. Rothstein has called reverse potentiality. Because of “the propaganda and political losses attendant on admitting failure,” a Great Power may continue to support its Small Power ally even if the alliance “seems to perform very few functions.”[4]

The subject of this book is a bilateral unequal alliance between the smallest and one of the largest communist states: the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania (PSRA) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). It examines, primarily from the Albanian viewpoint, the interaction between the two countries, which were characterized by a basic incongruity of interests and were separated by great geographical distance, profound historical and cultural differences, and significant disparities in economic and military capabilities. It analyzes the rationale behind Albania’s use of a bilateral unequal alliance as a strategy to pursue and secure its national objectives, and the factors which led to the creation, maintenance, and disintegration of the Tirana ­ Beijing alliance. The focus will be on the multifaceted relations between Albania and China as they developed over a 17-year period (1962-1978), on how these relations were affected by domestic and international developments, and how Tirana’s relations with Beijing evolved in the context of overall Albanian foreign and domestic policies. Through a cost-benefit analysis, focusing on the relationship between Tirana’s political allegiance to Beijing and the latter’s economic, military and political assistance to the PSRA, an attempt will be made to demonstrate that Albania extracted considerable concessions from China and that the benefits of the alliance for Albania outweighed the costs.

One of the most striking features of international politics, the bilateral unequal alliance often leaves the Small Power at a disadvantage. Domination in the alliance by the Great Power reduces the Small Power to the status of a satellite, rather than an ally. The Small Power thereby suffers a loss of sovereignty.

Such was not the case with the unequal alliance between the smallest and one of the largest communist states: Albania and China.    

For seventeen years (1962-1978), Albania used this alliance as a strategy to pursue and secure its national objectives. This interaction, examined here from the Albanian viewpoint, was made all the more unique by a basic incongruity of interests, a great geographical distance, profound historical and cultural differences, and significant disparities in economic and military capabilities.

The author uses a cost-benefit analysis to emphasize the relationship between Tirana’s political allegiance to Beijing and China’s economic, military, and political assistance to Albania and to demonstrate how Albania extracted considerable concessions from China. The performance of the alliance s evaluated, focusing on both how these relations were affected by domestic and international developments and how Tirana’s relations with Beijing evolved in the context of overall Albanian foreign and domestic policies.

Based on primary sources, this book recounts the emergence of political, ideological, and economic differences between these two countries and examines the national and international developments that produced their estrangement.

Albania and China is the first book to focus on the relations of these two communist nations and, as such, offers insights, both practical and theoretical, into problems of inter­ communist party and state relations.

[1] An exception to this general rule is George T. Yu’s study, China’s African Policy: A Study of Tanzania (New York; Praeger Publishers, 1975)

[2] Robert L. Rothstein. Alliances and Small Powers (New York: Columba University Press, 1968), pp. 116-24).

[3] Christopher c. Shoemaker and John Spanier. Patron­Client state Relationships: Multilateral Crises in the Nuclear Age (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1984), p. 8

[4] Rothstein. Alliances and Small Powers, p. 119.

The post Biberaj’s “Albania and China”: A study of an Unequal Alliance appeared first on Tirana Observatory.

In the summer of 2010, while doing research at the U.S. National Archives in College Park, Maryland, I came across a large file with a wealth of information about the occupation of Albania by Italy on April 7, 1939. It contained a long report by Hugh G. Grant, Chief of the American Mission in Tirana and a firsthand witness to that fateful event.

Wandering through the treasure trove, I quickly realized that the account qualified as an important addition to the numerous books and articles written about the subject over many years. Adding to my surprise, I soon discovered a long follow up report, in which Minister Grant documented the meltdown of the Albanian independence in the weeks and months following the occupation.

The Albanian Institute of International Studies has published Grant’s account of the Italian invasion in their entirety in 2016. We opted to divide them in smaller sections for the benefit of the general reader.

In the trying days of 1939, when the rise of Hitler and Mussolini as two brigands seeking to conquer Europe and the world was sounding alarms everywhere, Mr. Grant believed his reports had little value to the officers of the State Department who were shaping policies on a grander scale to cope with the international tension.

He nevertheless realized the great importance of archives and was convinced that his reports could in the future help shed more light on the history of this part of Europe. Perhaps, he modestly wrote, his account will one day provide a few sidelights for some old foggy historian digging into the story of the rise and fall of a Kingdom.

Minister Grant had arrived in Albania in 1935, when the small Balkan nation was enjoying a period of relative peace under a ruler who was seeking modernization chiefly with Italy’s assistance. Grant represented the U.S. government in a nation that had won its independence a little more than two decades ago during which period was faced with problems that were very different from its neighbors. One was the lack of internal cohesion, marked by three competing religions and strong regionalism. The other was the looming danger of partition amongst its neighbors, who tried to take advantage of the chronic weaknesses displayed by the Albanians in organizing themselves as a nation.

On the eve of the 1939 occupation, Albania was head over heels in debt to Italy and Mussolini employed that circumstance to impose on King Zog humiliating conditions that were impossible for him to accept. As a frequent visitor of the King, Grant had firsthand knowledge of the workings inside Zog’s monarchy and profoundly understood the root causes that led to the tightening of Italy’s stranglehold on the country.

In vivid detail, Grant depicts a long audience he had with the King the day preceding the invasion, in which Albania’s ruler asked him to convey the following message to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt: “the great democracies should either decide to strengthen themselves to the point where they may successfully meet the aggressors of the totalitarian powers or else be prepared to see the smaller nations swallowed up one by one.”

The occupation drama that unfolded was initiated by Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister and Mussolini’s son in law, who had visited Albania the year before as a witness to the King’s wedding. It was subsequently revealed in the infamous Ciano’s Diaries that his visit was merely an occasion to draft Italy’s sinister plans of overrunning Albania and turning it into a bridgehead for other Italian forays in the Balkans.

King Zog was acutely aware of the great risks for his policy of indebtedness to Italy. According to Grant, he always predicted a world war, hoping that the day of liquidation would never arrive as the result of general war in which Italy would be defeated. The King’s dream never materialized. The Italians were quicker to throw him out and put the country under their fascist rule, which didn’t last very long anyway.

Minister Grant speaks from the unique perspective of a U.S. diplomat who, unlike most of his European colleagues accredited in Tirana at that time, was not engaged in a particularly active role in the tiny country. As such, he can be considered a fairly objective and impartial observer of the happenings that brought about the occupation and the subsequent events. Therefore it is fair to say that his compelling account is a must read for history scholars and politicians.

The post Hugh G. Grant – “I saw it all” appeared first on Tirana Observatory.

Swiss born historian Oliver Jens Schmitt, currently working as a professor of the History of Southeastern Europe in the Vienna University comes thus to the Albanian reader with an impressive, well-researched scholarly work. The book examines the history of Albanian lands in the late medieval period covering sources reporting on places as far as Tivar in the north and Epirus in the south. Schmitt’s work tries to follow the path on neutral scholars who challenge nationalistic historiography such as Sufflay, Jirecek, Ippen, etc. Preparatory work for the book has included archive research as well as a comprehensive literature review of Albanian, Slavic, French and German sources.

Oliver Schmitt was born in Basel in 1973. He started his work on Albanian history as a dissertation tutored by the well known scholar of albanology, Peter Bartl in Munich. His work developed into a 700 page transcript of diverse aspects of life in Albanian territories at the time. The German edition of the book came out in 2001.
Currently the department for which Schmitt is working has in its possession the archive called “Albanien-Bibliothek”, which automatically makes it a center for studies related to Albanian history. The author is researching his new project for a monograph of the Albanian national hero, Gjergj Kastriot – Sk쯤erbeu. He visited Albania last week in order to promote his book in the cities of Tirana and Shkodra. He was interviewed about his books and plans for upcoming ones by his translator Ardian Klosi. In his interview Schmitt reveals interesting information about the work needed to complete his book and tells about plans regarding his future works.

The author claims it took him three years of work, mainly in the state archives in Venice. He started in 1997 with the cursory examination of all published works he could lay his hands on. This took one complete year. He started writing in July 1999. One of the hardest parts, as with every historio-graphical work, was to compile the index.
Asked about the interest he took about such a specific topic, Schmitt recollects a similar interest since his high school times when he read the works of Milan von Sufflay and Konstantin Jirecek. In his first semester in the University of Vienna he attended a seminar by Max Demeter Peyfuss, who had previously researched and published material about the area of Voskopoja and its rich historical account. Another foundation of his work was to study Byzantine history with Johannes Koder, a co-author of a book on medieval southern Arberia. Schmitt was lucky to have unlimited access to the library of Bavaria and other unique sources made available after the publication of the Shkodra statuses in collaboration with Lucia Nadin, Gherardo Ortalli and Pellumb Xhufi.

Scmitt used also many Albanian works such as Luan Malltezi’s 1988 edition of an extensive history of urban centers under the Venetian rule. He looked for material in the archives of Dubrovnik and Kotor. The real factual basis of the book is the 25 volumes of Acta Albaniae Veneta, from the Jesuit father Giuseppe Valentini. The thousands documents and manuscripts had to be classified thematically.

Schmitt argues that such work needs passion. The first book is very crucial. He realized the fact when he started working on his second book on Istanbul and Izmir of the nineteenth century.

Schmitt does not claim that he has extinguished all the material regarding the history of the Venetian rule in Albania. Historical work is always subject to interpretation, criticism and there is always room for elaboration and improvement. New material becomes available with time and more work is needed especially for the period just before the siege of Shkodra in 1479. Other archives also are said to contain important information as the author discovered later with the documents belonging to Gjergj Strazimirovic Balsha (end of 14th century) which he found in Zadar in 2006. While extensive research has been made in the north Italian archives more work is needed in the small parochial sources in the south of the Apennines. Sometimes casual discoveries of documents are the most interesting ones. Schmitt brings the example of finding by chance a document that proved Skenderbej had a house in the Croatian island of Hvar. Other new material becomes available also with archeological discoveries. In this context the work being done in Lezha is very systematic and thus promising.

According to Schmitt it is important that young scholars of history undertake projects of research. He mentions in this context a program of research grants near the University of Vienna which usually employs historians from Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia.
Asked about the novelties that his work on Skenderbej might bring given the vast existing scholarship on the issue, Schmitt reveals that he is trying to go beyond the narrative chronological structure that is overwhelming in the previous work. He is trying to continue his work based on the examination of multiple sources and especially archive materials from Italian and Austrian fonts. The book tries to bring in a new topical analysis of features such as the accompanying group of the hero, the importance of social aspects such as loyalty and treason, the projected image of the leader, etc. It will pose serious questions over the importance of the Lezha Agreement; taken for granted up until now to be the foundation of Skenderbej’s political power. The book will also concentrate on economic issues, the financial transactions and deals made by Skenderbej, the customs policies, the import of war technology form the West, the help received form the papal power and the Venetians in their anti-Ottoman alliance.

Sometimes one can ask very simple yet unanswered questions such as what was the real value of one dukat (Venetian coin) for an ordinary Albanian mountaineer living by animal farming in the highlands. Even if primary data is not available one can get an educated guess by comparative analysis with areas that displayed a similar economic and social composure such as the Dalmatian cost in that period. Data from there show that one shepherd could earn as much as one ducat in his entire work year. Thus if Skenderbej received 1400 dukats to pay his army this meant a considerable assistance. It would cover the annual salary for a lot of his soldiers.

Another interesting topic to explore is the account of Marin Barleti which has proven to be quite reliable as he used narrative models without many exaggeration patterns, relying thus on 15th century Italian renaissance literary tradition. However, he does combine some heroic idealized images from the Epirus epical tradition. All these combined factors shed some light on the popularity that Skenderbej had throughout the Balkans.

Finally Klosi asks an opinion about contemporary Albanian historians and overcoming settled patterns of nationalistic history. It is a very relevant topic in the discussions of academia and its role in perpetuating given models of historical analysis. According to Schmitt, the tradition of nationalistic history in communist scholarship is similar in several countries and by no means unique to Albania.

Contemporary conditions for academic work are not that easy. An important dialogue series is being coordinated by the History Institution of Tirana, the Science and Arts academy in Prishtina, the Balkans commissions of Austria and the University of Vienna, regarding proper historical investigation and scholarship. A preparatory conference preceded the series in Vienna in December of last year where famous foreign scholars of Albanian history such as Nathalie Clayer, Peter Bartl, Noel Malcolm, Conrad Clewing, Bernd Fischer summarized the actual situation of studies and gave a list of topics to be kept under the limelight of upcoming projects. Their contribution was recently made available in Albanian and given to Albanian scholars so that as a second phase they get a chance to respond. A large congress of historians will dwell upon the summary of the results. For that Schmitt expressed his gratitude to the supportive representative of the History Institution of Tirana Marenglen Verli and the Science and Arts academy of Kosova representative Rexhep Ismajli.
Schmitt’s book on Albanian medieval history is available to students of history and all Albanian readers curious to shed some light into one of the least researched and definitely most interesting periods.

“Albania Veneta 1392-1479″ (Alb. Arberia venedike 1392-1479) was translated into Albanian by the well-known scholar, Ardian Klosi

The post Albania Veneta-Swiss Historian Dwells upon Albanian Medieval History appeared first on Tirana Observatory.

The post The Albanian Struggle in the Old World and New appeared first on Tirana Observatory.