European Western Balkans
Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue

Veseli’s negotiation platform criticized by Thaçi and the opposition

PRISTINA – Last week, Speaker of Kosovo’s Assembly Kadri Veseli presented a platform for the new round of negotiations with Belgrade. However, the document, the definitive version of which is not yet finalised, has since been criticized by both President of Kosovo Hashim Thaçi and parliamentary opposition.

According to Tanjug, Thaçi is not satisfied with Veseli’s proposal because it limits his space for manoeuvring in negotiations, especially when it comes to change of boundaries.

The document contains several “red lines”, which mark the areas where compromise is off limits.

“Kosovo will not negotiate on its statehood, sovereignty and integrity; Kosovo does not accept the outcomes of the dialogue which endanger functioning of state and institutions, as well as outcomes which violate individual rights and freedoms of any group, community or ethnic identity; Kosovo does not accept a third level of government, which would question the inner functioning of the institutions; Kosovo does not accept the outcomes that can create precedents negative for peace and stability in the state and in the region”, states the part of the document released by Lajmi.net, reports KoSSev.

Opposition in Kosovo’s Assembly has also criticized the document. It continues to see President Thaçi as unacceptable for chief negotiator, emphasising the need for state consensus and requesting not to enter the process with such a one-sided platform.

At the negotiations on Wednesday Kosovo will, apart from Thaçi, be represented by Veseli, PM Ramush Haradinaj and Deputy PMs Pacolli, Limaj and Gashi. They will be present at the meeting with High Representative Federica Mogherini, while the negotiating round itself is reserved for Presidents of Kosovo and Serbia, concludes N1.

Related posts

Kosovo MPs adopt resolution on suspension of Belgrade-Pristina dialogue

EWB Archives

Vučić-Thaçi meeting ends without real progress


Countryman: Border changes not an answer in the 21st century