Brussels, September 11, 2025
The Acting First Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration, Development and Dialogue of the Republic of Kosovo, Besnik Bislimi, took part in the latest round of talks held in Brussels within the dialogue process. Below are his statements and answers at the press conference following the meetings, regarding the details of the discussions:
Question: Mr. Bislimi, this was again a meeting where nothing happened, as is usually the case when you meet with your counterpart from Belgrade.
Answer: The idea today was first to make progress on the establishment of the Joint Commission for Missing Persons and then, in the second part, to hold a meeting where both parties, Kosovo and Serbia, would present concrete proposals, so that the 10th version of the sequencing plan could become acceptable to both sides. Unfortunately, on the first point, we did not achieve our mission, namely the establishment of the Commission for Missing Persons, because apparently Serbia has withdrawn from the agreement on the terms of reference that we finalized at the end of December last year, saying they want to intervene once more in the document. This was not accepted either by Brussels or by us. We also noticed a certain lack of harmony within the Serbian team itself — it seems someone wanted the Commission established today, but the others blocked it.
Meanwhile, in the second part, where the parties were supposed to give concrete proposals on how the 10th sequencing plan could be made acceptable, so that we can move forward with the implementation of the Basic Agreement, Kosovo presented its three proposals. We prepared them ensuring that Articles 1–4 of the Basic Agreement are included, because this guarantees compliance with an annex provision stating that the parties agree and commit to full implementation of the Basic Agreement. We have requested that Serbia’s obligation not to block Kosovo’s membership in international organizations be moved from the end of the plan to the beginning, and we have also requested that, through more precise language, any possibility of ambiguity or double interpretation by the parties be eliminated. Meanwhile, Serbia refused to give concrete proposals. Their position can be translated quite simply: first the Association (as a precondition), and then Serbia’s red lines — which in practice means that Serbia has withdrawn from, or refuses to discuss, the Basic Agreement.
After this, we moved to the second agenda item, where both parties were asked to raise three issues they believe should be addressed. We started with the issue of the Presheva Valley, where funds for farmers are being blocked. At this point the Serbian side interrupted the discussion, arguing that we should not be concerned with farmers in the Valley nor ensure they receive these funds.
Question: Has there been any progress on the issue of the missing persons, after the recent start of excavations near Novi Pazar?
Answer: In fact, the parties agreed already in 2024 on obligations that both Kosovo and Serbia would undertake. While Kosovo has fulfilled almost all of its obligations, Serbia made zero progress in 2024. Their entire “compromise” was to move their list of 2024 obligations into 2025, but even in this regard, there has been no progress. What has happened, however, is that in July and August this year there were significant activities precisely in the area where excavations were supposed to take place. We suspect these were intended to destroy evidence. Only two or three days ago did they show willingness to begin excavations in Kozhle in the Novi Pazar region. Beyond that, there has been no progress.
Question: Some political parties in Kosovo are questioning the legitimacy of your participation in these talks. How do you respond?
Answer: It is a bit surprising that this nonsense has reached Brussels as well. I am the Acting Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo, tasked, among other things, with the dialogue. My mandate was given by the government and can be taken away by the government. It was not given by the Democratic League of Kosovo, nor can it be taken away by them. Therefore, everything else is illogical — just like most of the positions we’ve been hearing recently from this party and others over the past few months.
Question: Mr. Bislimi, the issue of the statute of the Commission on Missing Persons was seen as a light at the end of the tunnel for the dialogue process. Today this also failed, which means Serbia is abandoning it as well. Based on Mr. Petković’s statements, Serbia seems to be formally abandoning the Ohrid Agreement of 2023. So, where does this marathon process called dialogue stand, and is it still worth coming to Brussels for meetings?
Answer: What is important is that today, more clearly than ever before, Serbia exposed its positions — both regarding the Basic Agreement and the Joint Commission for Missing Persons — all under the umbrella of its so-called “constructiveness” and “sincerity.” But Serbia’s “constructiveness” and “sincerity” actually translate into blocking the establishment of the Joint Commission, and into setting preconditions and red lines for the implementation of the Basic Agreement. I think it is very important that this message be accurately conveyed to the EU member states, so that they understand who has in fact been blocking progress in the dialogue since March 18, 2023.
