Supporters of the history of EU mediation between Belgrade and Pristina will recognize this ambiguity as a Brussels style: encouraging the parties to publicly commit to an agreement whose content will then be put in the spotlight, often by EU officials. The advantage of this approach is to allow agreements that would be politically lethal if formulated in black and white. However, the costs are high. Both sides may feel betrayed and Belgrade tends to squeak when implementation begins with terms that have only been mentioned in the text itself. During participation in the negotiations with the United States on economic issues, Kosovo and Serbia continued to participate in a parallel dialogue led by the European Union, focusing on political differences between the two sides. [10] As part of the agreements, Serbia and Kosovo agreed to join the mini-Schengen zone. [11] The implementation of the agreement requires both countries to amend the applicable legislation. One or the other may have to change its constitutions. Issues must be dealt with publicly, Members will have to take a stand. Early signs are not encouraging. The Kosovo Assembly approved the agreement after a stormy late-night session with furious denunciations from the opposition “Self-determination” party, whose supporters rallied outside the legislative branch. The Serbian parliament refused to vote on the agreement itself, saying it would be recognition of Kosovo; Instead, he approved the government`s report on the negotiations.

Previous technical agreements between the two parties are being appealed to the Constitutional Court of Serbia on the grounds that the government has improperly amended regulatory issues that must be governed by law. Do you think that the signing of these agreements will help Miroslav Lajak, the European Union`s special representative for dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina and the Western Balkans, in his mission? Let`s unpack the chords a little bit. Let me ask this question, starting from the point of view of the United States – apart from the obvious advances before the presidential elections, what was achieved in Washington? And what about the prospects of Kosovo and Serbia? On 4 September, Serbia and Kosovo signed agreements with the United States in Washington on the future of their mutual economic relations. How important is this Serbia-Kosovo agreement for the future? There are several clauses of the agreement that have absolutely nothing to do with the normalization of economic relations between Kosovo and Serbia, and therefore ridiculously included. These are the clauses under which the two countries have agreed to cooperate with the 69 countries that criminalize homosexuality “to push for decriminalization”; pledged to characterize Hezbollah “in its entirety” as a terrorist organization and to fully implement the necessary measures to limit Hezbollah`s legal operations and financial activities; and finally the clause in which Kosovo and Israel agreed to recognize each other and Serbia agreed to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem by 1 July 2021. The mutual recognition clause between Kosovo and Israel is only contained in the document signed by the Kosovar Prime Minister, Mr Hoti, while the clause under which Serbia agrees to move its embassy to Jerusalem is only contained in the documentary document signed by Serbian President Vucic, and this is in fact the only difference between the texts of the two agreements signed separately by Hoti and Vucic. In accordance with the signed agreements, Serbia will suspend its official and unofficial efforts for a period of one year and will encourage other states not to recognize Kosovo or to revoke existing recognition.