This question arises as we live in a period of profound transition and geopolitical transformation, where the norms of the old order, from which we Albanians benefited, are increasingly ignored. The world has become unpredictable. The politics of force is back and security is once again at the heart of international relations. States, whatever their size, have been debating for a long time, at the political, academic and social levels, the consequences of this situation.
History teaches us that an established order lasts for a certain time. After the First World War, this order lasted for two decades. Another, established after the Second World War, lasted four decades. At the same time, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, political scientists like Francis Fukuyama spoke of the “end of history” and the adoption of liberal democracy as the ultimate form of government. Three decades after the end of the Cold War, we are experiencing the end of history. A new order is being established.
Even if the consequences are not yet felt everywhere, the disintegration of the world order is already a bitter reality. And therein lies the danger, because the effects appear slowly at first, then get worse and worse more and more quickly. Competition for energy, technology, food supply chains, industry and finance has intensified. Anyone hoping for a quick return to normal is wasting valuable time. The situation we find ourselves in resembles a tsunami, the waves of which are not immediately visible.
However, this transition period has several characteristics. The first is the rupture of the West and the transatlantic alliance. The West remains a valid normative ideal, but it no longer exists today as a political reality. The stronghold of the United States remains, although its influence is more limited than during the two decades following the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The second characteristic is China’s positioning as guarantor of the world order, which represents the greatest potential to challenge American domination. The differences between China and the United States are not only political, military and ideological, but extend to many areas, from technology to major international projects and plans.
In addition to the characteristics of the beginning of the 21st century, such as the existence of a single pole, and those of the 20th century, such as the competition between two superpowers, today we can distinguish a third characteristic, reminiscent of the 19th century, due to the partial understanding of the great powers regarding the tacit tolerance of violations of the rules of international law.
Whatever the size and importance of a state on the international scene, it must have a foreign policy strategy. This becomes all the more necessary in this period of transition. Three pillars define the character of foreign policy: values, interests and power. These three elements are essential as the balance and dynamics of the world order evolve.
In our case, only the first two statements are valid, because power is a luxury reserved for the most important players. The latter can project their military and economic force, forcing weaker actors to align with their objectives. At the same time, alliances, groupings and wise diplomacy allow a weaker actor to exert influence that exceeds the size of its economy or its army.
For Albania, one of the challenges of its foreign policy is to maintain the coherence and sustainability of its actions, in accordance with the values it defends and its interests, while preserving its strategic alliances. This is essential, particularly in this period of uncertainty where references are constantly evolving. If our interests and aspirations define the horizon of our foreign policy, their values and their sustainability must constitute the guidelines.
The transatlantic rupture does not bode well for Albania and our region, where, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the United States is seen as the guarantor of security, while the Europeans are considered resistant to the use of force. As everyone knows, the European Union is a project born from American support after the Second World War. Today, disagreements between the United States and the EU are deeper than ever. The US national security strategy reflects this reality, with the EU described as the cause of “the extinction of European civilization”.
The evolution of the new world order and the place that the transatlantic alliance will occupy will be played out in the near future. States like Albania are neither key players nor mere spectators in this story. Uncertainty is inherent in international relations, especially during transitions from one era to another. It is essential to understand and respond to the causes of change. Action based on our values and interests will allow us to navigate this new era of international relations. Our relationship with the United States is irreplaceable. It is equally important not to miss the opportunity to join the EU, offered by the current geopolitical situation.
The simultaneous wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, accompanied by fissures in the transatlantic alliance, have revealed a chameleonic side of our foreign policy. I do not know the relevance of the proposals for dialogue with Putin, given that we, co-organizers with the United States in the UN Security Council on issues relating to Ukraine, are distinguished by our critical position, beyond diplomatic discourse, in the face of Russian aggression. What impact could this proposal have on our region and on the resolution of sovereignty conflicts? What is the credibility of this proposal when the main European leaders, criticized until yesterday for their complacency towards Russia, today insist on the need to build a European security architecture in the face of Russian aggression?
Likewise, any attempt to distinguish between Albania and other European countries regarding Albania’s presence in the Peace Council is counterproductive. Our place is at our side, alongside the United States, as long as our contribution is valued. Although in a different format, temporal and geopolitical context, we participated in the coalition led by the United States during the war in Iraq, despite the hesitations and criticisms of a good part of the European allies.
The unsolicited proposal to carry out military operations against Iran from Albanian territory, in the absence of US military bases, raises questions about its credibility. It can also be interpreted as a challenge to the European allies who, despite the presence of American military bases, do not respond to the calls of the President of the United States.
What is the point of such proposals? I ask this question because interests guide the choices of countries, and this is perfectly legitimate. Our interest is in supporting the United States, but we lack the clout to make such commitments.
It is also certain that the fate of the Sino-American rivalry will not be decided in Albania. Therefore, we must avoid any rhetoric that would pit these two actors against the Albanian reality.
When it comes to foreign policy, stability is an essential element of credibility. Let’s be clear: Albania is a small country that does not have the means to resolve complex international problems. But acting seriously and demonstrating strategic clarity is our duty. These questions require a balance between the interests and values that we have promoted over the years, because the maturity and continuity of the State, its ability to orient itself judiciously in a constantly evolving world, are at stake.
What is also worrying is the loss of a major asset of our foreign policy: the weight and influence that we exercise among the Albanians in the region. Organizing national meetings in Tirana cannot compensate for this loss.
The personal relationships and friendships aimed at maintaining a network fossilized by a long period in power, the instrumentalization of national interest for the purposes of current politics, the sterile competition, in the absence of interaction, between Tirana and Pristina for influence among the Albanians of the region, have considerably weakened the decision-making power of Albanians and, at the same time, slowed down the progression of the rights they should enjoy.
The concentration of efforts on normalizing relations with Serbia has been accompanied by a weakening of Albania’s leading role in the region. I have always been and remain in favor of the normalization of relations between Albania and Serbia. However, these relationships cannot be built without regard for the history, geography and realities of our region.
I never understood the position of Albania, which, on the one hand, publicly asked the EU “not to put pressure on Serbia to join the sanctions against Russia”, and on the other hand, suspended joint government meetings with Kosovo due to the restrictive measures that the EU had unfairly imposed on Kosovo.
It remains inexplicable that the positions of the Prime Minister in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Peace Council, regarding the Kosovo Special Chambers in The Hague, as well as the resolutions and declarations of the Albanian Parliament, do not agree with the positions and actions of our foreign policy. Albania has repeatedly joined the EU statement to the UN Security Council on “the importance and need to support the work of the Kosovo Special Chambers”, even though it is not a matter of common security and politics foreign, which the EU considers within the framework of the alignment of candidate countries. Who do these illusions serve when not only is domestic policy not reflected in foreign policy, but declarations made in international bodies do not translate into concrete positions and actions in terms of foreign policy?
The unacceptable language used towards Albanians in North Macedonia is a symptom of a policy characterized sometimes by paternalism, sometimes by indifference, coupled with a lack of sensitivity for the sacrifices made by Albanians for be treated as equals to the Macedonians.
The 2017 platform of the Albanian political parties in North Macedonia, supported by Albania, was based on the principle of promoting the rights of Albanians and equality with Macedonians. This platform achieved some success precisely because our foreign policy was focused on achieving goals linked to national interest and not on the political destiny of certain parties or individuals.
The gratuitous involvement in a cycle of retaliation with Bulgaria, regarding its differences with North Macedonia, has repercussions on Bulgaria’s demands towards Albania in the framework of the enlargement process. This should not be surprising, because states and diplomacy often act in a cold and calculated manner.
History and geography are two essential components of foreign policy. No one chooses their neighbors. This is why it is essential to do everything possible to coexist harmoniously with them. Albania must adopt an ambitious and long-term strategy to manage its relations with Greece, its most developed neighbor in the Balkans. This strategy must be based on the values and interests of the country and understand bilateral issues in their entirety.
With each change of Minister of Foreign Affairs, it has become customary to speak of a “new start” in relations with Greece. The harsh reality is that no steps have been taken in this direction since 2018. Albania made the mistake of overestimating the short-term benefits without measuring the long-term consequences.
After several years of discussions and negotiations, in 2018, we were close to a historic compromise with Greece. I say historic because it would have made it possible to settle definitively and fairly the differences between us. Perhaps neither Albania nor Greece was ready for such a compromise. Today, the conditions may be ripe. It is therefore necessary to find just and lasting solutions as a whole, and not to address problems selectively.
From this perspective, it would be wrong to dissociate the maritime question from all the unresolved disputes with Greece. The announcement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to seize an international jurisdiction within a year, if it is made without conditions or prior preparation, risks reproducing the errors of 2009. For a country, seizing an international jurisdiction does not come down to hiring foreign law firms. He must have adequate preparation in matters of international jurisprudence, have carried out an in-depth study of the file and learned the lessons from the errors of 2009 and the achievements of 2018. Because it is not a simple transfer of responsibility as to the way of handling this problem, but rather the expression of the will of the parties to accept the sentence of the international jurisdiction.
In other words, the country must be able to accomplish three tasks: a complete understanding of the precedents set by international law of the sea, the thorough elaboration of alternative solutions under constitutional jurisprudence, and the formulation of a strategy to implement the most advantageous of them. them.
Solving complex foreign policy problems requires strategy, time and patience. This is not about fatalism or avoiding difficult choices, but about determining what can be accomplished at an acceptable cost in relation to other priorities, both foreign and domestic. Perfection is rarely the goal in diplomacy, especially these days.
To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, the statesman cannot afford the luxury of a foreign policy analyst, because the problem is imposed on him, there is always no time to find the right solution, and a bad solution is irremediable. Furthermore, the success of his decisions is subject to the judgment of history.
(This text is a publication of the “Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Tirana” foundation. Extract from the author’s Facebook profile.)
Â
