The election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States disrupted the established order in international relations, including the conflict resolution dynamics of the Western Balkans. His presidency ushered in a new form of diplomacy characterized by transactionalism and a lesser role for multilateralism. This shift had immense consequences for the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, a long-drawn, high-stakes negotiation process for the normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. Deciphering Trump’s influence on this dialogue calls for an in-depth look at the policies of his administration, the Washington Agreement, geopolitical implications on the region as a whole, and possible future developments.
The Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, initiated under the mediation of the European Union in 2011, aims at resolving the lingering disputes after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence in 2008. Although Kosovo has been recognized by most Western countries, including the United States, Serbia refuses to acknowledge its independence, supported by Russia and China. While the dialogue has helped both sides reach agreement on technical issues such as freedom of movement and trade, it has not yet yielded a comprehensive political settlement.
The stakes are high-normalizing relations is critical for regional stability, and for European integration perspectives for both Serbia and Kosovo. Consistently, the EU has framed dispute resolution as a condition for the advancement of accession talks. The historical complementarity that the United States’ involvement displays with the European Union’s adds diplomatic weight to negotiations.
Trump’s foreign policy marked a significant departure from that of his predecessors. The Trump administration focused on bilateral engagements rather than multilateral diplomacy, often at the expense of traditional allies and international institutions. This “America First” doctrine reduced the strategic focus on the Western Balkans, a region that had been a significant concern for U.S. administrations in the post-Yugoslav era.
Yet, when the Trump administration did reach out to the Balkans, it did so with high-profile deals that could be paraded and touted as diplomatic successes. The Belgrade-Pristina dialogue was thus the ideal case for the administration to claim a victory.
The most significant result of Trump’s engagement in the region was signing the Washington Agreement in September 2020. The agreement, brokered by the Trump administration, was framed mainly as a deal to bring about economic normalization between Serbia and Kosovo. It included commitments to infrastructure projects, energy cooperation, and establishing direct transportation links.
But the deal was not constrained to economic questions only. The parties agreed on opening embassies in Jerusalem, a movement for the great Middle East plan of Trump. The items concerning 5G network security and the recognition of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization had to do with U.S. geopolitical interests, not local ones.
While the Trump administration hailed the Washington Agreement as a diplomatic achievement, its impact on the core political issues of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue was limited. The agreement bypassed fundamental questions about Kosovo’s sovereignty and Serbia’s refusal to recognize its independence.
The Trump administration’s unilateral approach to brokering the Washington Agreement underlined one important twist in the dynamics of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue: for the first time, the EU-long the primary mediator-was being pushed to one side. A resultant concern about the coherence and effectiveness of the mediation process ensued.
This exclusion of the EU was problematic on several grounds: the leverage the EU can exercise comes partly from the reward of membership offered in return for reform and cooperation; its extensive involvement in the region over years meant that the EU had the institutional knowledge and contacts to engage in the nuances of the dialogue. In excluding the EU, the Trump administration risked losing these benefits.
Serbia and Kosovo Implications
Serbia’s Perspective
The transactional approach of the Trump administration benefited Serbia. In the Washington Agreement, President Aleksandar Vu ić managed to gain economic benefits without yielding to politically sensitive concessions, like the recognition of Kosovo’s independence. This way, Vu ić could sustain his nationalist credentials at home and, at the same time, show a face of international diplomacy.
The economic orientation of the agreement also fell within the strategic interests of Serbia. Infrastructure projects and economic development are crucial to Serbia in both regional influence and aspirations for European integration.
Kosovo’s Perspective
The Trump administration’s approach to Kosovo was less favorable. The focus on economic normalization diverted attention from its primary objective: securing international recognition and UN membership. The agreement’s provision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital also created tensions with the EU, which opposed such a move.
Criticism rose as Kosovo’s leadership accepted the agreement that did little to address its core political concerns, while some viewed the emphasis on economic issues as diluting the purpose of the dialogue. The Washington Agreement, and the broader approach by the Trump administration in the Western Balkans, carried with it significant implications for regional stability and geopolitics.
The Trump administration introduced fragmentation into the mediation process by sidelining the EU and instead focused on bilateral deals. This might undermine the coherence of conflict resolution efforts and further complicate the region’s path toward European integration.
Added to this complexity were the active interests of outside powers, notably Russia and China. Serbia’s traditional relationship with Russia and its expanding ties with China made Western efforts to promote a coordinated approach to the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue difficult. The transactional diplomacy of the Trump administration offered little to counter these influences.
Possible Future Developments
Indeed, the return to a more classical, multilateral approach to foreign policy under the Biden administration opens the possibility for restoring EU primacy over the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. The European Union will reboot, together with the advantage of membership perspectives, its central mediating function. This involves more coordination within the United States and between them and the EU in order for coherence and consistency to come out fully. One of the key challenges that lies ahead is indeed the path toward a comprehensive political settlement that must address such sensitive issues as Kosovo’s sovereignty, Serbia’s position on recognition, and mechanisms for minority rights protection. Confidence-building measures and piecemeal agreements might thus be required in order to build an environment conducive to the final settlement
On the back of the economic foundations provided by the Washington Agreement, regional economic integration has enormous potential. Common Regional Market projects, encouraged through the Berlin Process, would make economic growth interdependent and long-lasting. The Western Balkans will continue to be a geopolitical playing field for the competing influences emanating from the West, Russia, and China. With firmer democratic institutions, more transparency, and more resilience against foreign interference, Serbia and Kosovo could remain on a Euro-Atlantic track.
Empowerment of civil society organizations and grassroots initiatives may be important for community trust. Inclusive dialogue processes with a variety of stakeholders will enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of whatever agreements are reached.
The legacy of Trump’s engagement in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue is complex. Though the Washington Agreement demonstrated what the U.S. influence can do in the region, it avoided the core political issues that made up the substance of the dispute. The side-lining of the EU and the preoccupation with transactional deals created ambiguity as to the future direction of the dialogue. As the international community takes this next step, there is an opportunity to build on past efforts and further down the path of a comprehensive and enduring resolution. This will require sustained engagement, U.S.-EU coordination, and a commitment to addressing economic and political dimensions of the dispute. The future of the dialogue will depend on the will of the two parties and the international community to make peace, stability, and European integration a priority for the Western Balkans.