As expected, the political year 2024 turned out to be much more crowded with events, activities, summits, conflicts, wars and disputes compared to its predecessor. Inherited conflicts, specifically the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the crisis in the Middle East, the fall on December 8 of the dictatorial regime of Assad in Syria, the clashes of the West with China, the tensions in the Western Balkans and other artificially created conflicts\tensions have dramatically impacted the peace, security and stability in the world, in Europe and in our region.
2024 was a Big Election Year almost everywhere in the world. Above all in the US from the primaries until November 5, when former President Donald Trump won a convincing, sensational and multidimensional victory, with unforeseeable consequences and outcomes for politics, diplomacy, the economy and world security. Also, on June 6–9, in all 27 EU member states, the 10th direct elections for the new European Parliament were held. In the Netherlands, France, Austria, Belgium, Lithuania, Ireland, Germany and the United Kingdom, elections were held at the national and local levels. Except for the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party sensationally returned to power after 20 years, everywhere else the far right and the far left in France strengthened their positions and expanded the map of their geopolitical reach.
Meanwhile, Russian aggression against Ukraine, instead of a ceasefire or alleged peace, continues to escalate, with many serious and far-reaching consequences, despite summits, activities, sanctions and diplomatic demarches for peace; despite the many strides, the crisis in the Middle East has also shown little easing; the good news was the agreement reached on November 26, 2024 between Israel and Hezbollah to establish a 60-day ceasefire. In the Western Balkans, despite some positive developments mentioned below, the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue has stalled, even with further aggravation of relations between the two countries, which was brutally re-emerged on November 28, 2024 with the powerful explosion in Zubin Potok, a pure terrorist act.
On this basis, without going into the depth of the events, facts, phenomena and arguments known and mentioned previously, in this material we will briefly focus on the most culminating moments of the political, economic and diplomatic situation and events in the world, accompanied by reflections, conclusions and relevant suggestions of the Council of Albanian Ambassadors.
The main causes and consequences of President Trump’s convincing victory
Completely different from the polls and predictions, the long-awaited American presidential elections ended with the convincing, sensational and multidimensional victory of former President Donald Trump. With a difference even in the popular vote, he secured 312 electoral votes out of the 270 needed, a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Trump returns to the White House on January 21, 2025 as the 47th President of the United States, marking the greatest political comeback in the American history.
The analyses on the “why” of this plebiscite victory are numerous and multidimensional. The first determining actor and factor that made the difference was Trump’s inspiring personality, who, together with his deputy J.D. Vance ran a winning, inspiring and mobilizing campaign, with concrete offers for the daily and most tangible concerns of ordinary Americans, with the well-known slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again.”
In his public speeches, Trump directly expressed the frustration, anger and widespread public concern towards the government and its wrong policies, attracting a large number of ordinary Democratic voters who no longer felt at home in the Democratic Party or even betrayed by it.
The other winning factor was the positive energy, strength and unyielding resistance that Trump showed against the numerous attacks of his opponent and the judiciary. He displayed this stoic attitude also after the first failed assassination attempt – his photo with his fist raised became famous all over the world. Meanwhile, with his rhetoric and statements in simple, clear language and subtle hints or irony towards Biden and Harris, Trump secured broad popular support, including women, voters of Arab origin and unstable states.
His loyalists were not only not affected, but even increased their support, even in the face of dozens of criminal trials, two assassination attempts, and other verbal attacks from the media, politics, and other people.
On the other camp, the 4-year Biden-Harris presidency had left behind a heavy political bill for them, which was another advantage for Trump. Vice President Harris did not make concrete offers, especially on everyday concerns – the economy, unemployment, inflation. Most voters in this area have consistently preferred Trump, thanks to his entrepreneurial experience and the past presidency, where the American economy recorded growth. Trump has promised measures to deregulate the economy, strengthen trade protectionism, imposing tariffs of up to 25 percent on foreign products, including those from the EU, Canada, etc.
The illegal asylum crisis with its consequences on the security of citizens has been and remains another alarming concern for American voters. In 2022, there were 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, equal to 3 percent of the American population. Ms. Harris and President Biden have been powerless to curb and offer sustainable solutions to illegal asylum and mass influxes from Mexico.
On the other hand, Trump, among other things, has promised and has begun to define concrete measures for the implementation of the largest operation of expelling illegal asylum seekers in American history, strengthening the sense of security in all affected states.
Although not to such a large extent, foreign policy was another important point in Trump’s victory. Harris was burdened by the failure to fulfill previous promises for an active foreign policy, in the service of strengthening democracy and Western values, and for a lasting peace. With only two summits dedicated to democracy, and those on “zoom”, several “non-grata”, but doing nothing against autocratic leaders in favor of stabilocracy, one cannot speak of the Biden Administration’s success in this regard. The World Justice Project’s report, made public in recent days, shows the significant deterioration of the rule of law and democracy in 80 percent of the countries in the world. Likewise, the hardening of the tone from China, the expansion of the challenging “BRICS” bloc, and the stagnation of the Pristina-Belgrade dialogue are clear failures of the Biden-Harris Administration.
In addition, in the last 4 years, massive conflicts and wars have threatened and undermined peace in the world more than ever. Ordinary American citizens perceive this as a consequence of the wrong diplomacy of the West and the USA.
The indefinite continuation of the war in Ukraine, with heavy financial consequences for the USA, has divided the country in two. Republicans are much more reserved about further supporting Ukraine. They are in favour of a quick peace, regardless of its cost. By emphasizing that he will quickly end the war in Ukraine, Trump “clung” more to American voters.
The integrity and image of American foreign policy and diplomacy have been significantly damaged by the terrorist attack of October 7, 2023 by Hamas and the dangerous escalation of the situation in the Middle East, threats from Iran, etc. Also, the fact that Netanyahu is crossing the “red lines” has triggered immense anger and disappointment, expressed in numerous protests by pro-Palestinian actors. The latter went so far as to distance themselves from supporting Harris, which translated into a significant loss of votes.
In relation to these events, Trump’s promises and positions on “diplomacy of force” seem to have gained more ground, as has happened in Europe with the significant growth of far-right forces. We note on this occasion that in 2020 Trump managed to achieve the “Abrahams Agreements” with Arab countries and Israel, and an agreement between Pristina and Belgrade, which, although incomplete, were promising steps towards stabilizing the respective situations.
It goes without saying that the consequences of the Trump Presidency will be numerous in all directions everywhere in the world and in our Region. However, for a clearer and more realistic picture of them, in addition to the aforementioned topics that will be expanded upon during this analysis below, we must wait until the final “tuning” of Trump positions and also of his team.
European Parliament elections
The new European Parliament elections in the 27 EU member states on 6-9 June 2024, and national and local elections in several other countries, were the biggest European event of the year. Following the European Parliament elections, the new Parliament took office on 1 December, and, after its approval, the new Commission, the 27 EU High Commissioners, the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the new President of the European Council took office.
In these elections, the most difficult challenge was to neutralize the attempts of the far right, which aimed to displace the two major traditional parties from the most powerful and democratic parliamentary rostrum in the world. This is mainly due to the rapid growth of the “Brothers of Italy”, which has been in power in Italy for over 2 years, Le Pen’s “National Rally” in France, the German “AfD”, the sister parties in Hungary, Spain, Slovakia, Austria, etc. Their goal was achieved to some extent, but not completely, due to the divisions, which prevented them from uniting into a single grouping. The Group of the Right-wing Popular Parties (EPP) came first again, while the Group of the Socialist and Social-Democratic Parties came second, but the latter with large electoral “slights”. The Liberals and the Greens turned out to be the biggest losers of these elections compared to 5 years ago. However, this was confirmation of the growing power of the extreme right, which now governs in several EU/NATO member countries, at the local and national level.
Like the US, the EU and its institutions faces major geopolitical challenges, as well as internal challenges within its member states, which are analyzed below.
Weakening of the Franco-German axis
The EU has been significantly weakened, also as a result of the worrying situation in its “axis/engine”. France and Germany are losing their ability to lead the EU. Also the traditional parties in both countries are seriously threatened, especially the center-left, by the escalation of the extreme right and left.
Unlike a few years ago, now it is no longer a question of symbolic victories, of winning a few seats in parliament, but of coming to power, local and national, and even at the European level, as has happened with the extreme right which leads the governments in Italy, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Estonia, Finland, etc.
Thus, in France, in the European elections in June, Macron’s “Renaissance” won only 14 percent to Le Pen’s “National Rally”‘s 31 percent, which led him to hastily call early elections on June 30. Thanks to an agreement between Macron and the New United Front, the second round of those elections – on July 7 – ended with the victory of the left-wing front with 182 seats, followed by Macron’s centrist Alliance with 168 seats – 2 times less than in the previous elections. Contrary to predictions, the “National Rally” came in third with 145 seats- however its highest result ever.
Thus, the country has entered a political crossroad, owing to the fact that none of these parties could form a government alone. The possibility of coalitions was impossible, due to their incompatible ideological positions. Although the votes of the New Popular Front and the centrist Alliance “Together” made it possible to form a government coalition, in practice this was impossible – Melenchon’s left-wing radicals are anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-German, and anti-Semitic, as well as extremely reserved about supporting Ukraine. And more difficult, to say impossible, is the cooperation of the Socialists and the Greens with Macronists.
Thus, the only way out for Macron remained coexistence with the Republican Party, which finally agreed to enter into a coalition. This “coexistence” with a party that had only 6.5 percent of the vote or 46 seats in Parliament only worked for 3 months, although with a well-known pro-European prime minister, like Michel Barnier, former EU Chief Negotiator for the BREXIT negotiations. He was forced and made many concessions to Le Pen’s far-right, which nevertheless defeated him in the parliamentary vote of confidence on December 4.
On December 13, President Macron appointed the new Prime Minister, a well-known centrist figure, François Bayrou, to form a new government. Bayrou has continued to hold numerous meetings with the leaders of other parties, in an attempt to create a long-lasting government coalition. But he has also encountered countless objections and obstacles. Meanwhile, the leaders of other political forces accuse Macron of trying to drag out the problems and not cooperating sincerely with them. The latter is doing its best to buy time, hoping for a favorable change in the electorate’s attitude in the new early elections, which, according to the relevant law, cannot be held before July 2025. Consequently, the creation and functioning of the new government will characterize the first half of next year or perhaps the entire year, with political and economic consequences for France and the EU.
Meanwhile, after the government and Chancellor Olaf Scholz lost the vote of confidence on December 16 in the Bundestag, on February 23, 2025, Germany will also go to early elections, at a time when the governing SPD and its Green ally are at historically low levels of popularity.
The main reason for the massive dissatisfaction with the SPD and Chancellor Scholz is that they have not kept their election promises of 4 years ago. The perception among the population is that they have not met the most basic demands and their needs – preventing illegal asylum, addressing security issues against crime and gangs, providing employment, housing and strengthening the economy. More specifically, in the three years of Scholz’s chancellorship, unemployment rose to 5.9 percent, economic growth fell to -0.2 percent and business bankruptcies increased from 14,500 to 20,000 entities. As a result, the cost of living has increased by 19.5 percent. This has been mainly due to a 30 percent increase in the prices of basic food products and over 35 percent in gas and electricity tariffs. The latter as a consequence of the interruption of supplies from Russia after 2022.
The numbers above may weaken the effectiveness of the historical axis/engine of the EU, as an irreplaceable actor with no other binomial, especially in the current geopolitical conditions and circumstances. The weakening of the Franco-German axis and consequently of the EU, will have an impact on their relations with other geopolitical big actors – the USA, Turkey, Italy, NATO, China, Russia, as well as the parties involved in the Middle East and Africa, where their role and influence in recent years has shrunk significantly.
This weakening will further exacerbate the situation on Western Balkans in general and in each of its countries, as well as on the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue. It should be noted that the role/contribution of France and Germany did not meet many expectations. It was compromised due to their misguided diplomacy of appeasement and caressing towards Belgrade and punitiveness towards Kosovo, including the refusal to join the Council of Europe and to lift sanctions.
European Political Community (EPC)
The EPC is widely considered a failure of the EU and especially of President Macron, who launched this initiative on May 9, 2022. With only five symbolic summits, no headquarters, no address, no governing body, no program, no future and many other “no”s, the EPC has been reduced to an itinerant summit and an opportunity, especially for small countries, to host symbolic summits, where there is simply nothing but political marketing. If no measures are urgently taken, the predictions of analysts that the EPC will risk turning into an unnecessary overlap of the OSCE and the CoE would be confirmed.
NATO and its major challenges
The extraordinary major challenges for NATO during this year became clearer especially at its jubilee Summit, held on 9–11 July in Washington, where it was founded 75 years ago. This summit was met with great attention and interest due to the current complex political, economic and military conditions.
According to many well-known political scientists and experts, never in its 75-year history has NATO been surrounded, threatened and involved as now, not by one or two as a few decades ago, but by many hotbeds, crises and conflicts with frightening names, at the same time and from many directions.
It should be noted that these worrying developments have not found NATO with the political and military cohesion of a few decades ago. Although today it has almost tripled in its membership, NATO is far from its Cold War glory, when within it there was complete unity of thought and action, economic prosperity in all member countries and when there was only one hostile superpower, the former Soviet Union, but where everyone had their own geopolitical spheres of influence. In addition, North Korea and Iran, once in the second and third plan, today they have become a serious and extremely threatening bloc.
Although aid and support for Ukraine and the fight until victory against the Russian aggressor have been discussed in many other major forums and at the previous Summit last year in Vilnius, in Washington it rightly took center stage, due to the major problems in the 29 months after the Russian aggression.
Following the 4,400-page strategy that NATO approved last year on its stance towards Russia, this Summit discussed its implementation.
In Washington, the Alliance responded with many alternatives in favor of Ukraine’s victory, duly reflected in the Final Declaration.
The Washington Summit took decisive steps towards a historic turning point to carry out the largest military transformation for NATO’s collective security and in support of Ukraine. Among the most influential measures are: the historic decision to station in Germany a modern hypersonic missile system with a range of up to 2,500 km; the creation of the NATO Cyber Defense Center; the increase in the presence of troops and weapons on the eastern border of Europe; the 40 billion Euro package for 2025; the creation of the Western air coalition, starting with the rapid deployment of 125 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine by five NATO countries, as well as the deployment of five Patriot air defense systems; the creation of the Command Center in Wiesbaden with 700 troops, for the delivery of armaments and training of Ukrainian military personnel, etc.
Another significant achievement of this Summit was the clear message on the “irreversible and unstoppable path of membership” of Ukraine in NATO, although with cautious language “when the appropriate conditions have been created and met”.
International peace and security are facing alarming risks also in the Indo-Pacific Area and the Taiwan Strait with China. Precisely on the days of the Summit, China carried out a record number of flights, with 66 military aircraft near and over Taiwan. South Korea and Japan are also under serious threats from North Korea.
Consequently, in recent years NATO has expanded its activities in that strategic area; Japan and South Korea have recently conducted large joint military exercises with the US, while their leaders have participated in NATO meetings and other high-level forums.
In this context, one cannot ignore the extremely worrying event on December 2 in Seoul, when President Yoon Suk Yeol declared a state of emergency. To justify this unprecedented act for a democratic regime in peacetime, he blamed the country’s largest opposition, which, according to him, had endangered the governance and normal functioning of life in the country. The situation was clarified and calmed down very quickly and without consequences, thanks to the determination of the Parliament and the mass protests, which strongly opposed the implementation of the President’s decree; the latter withdrew from that extreme and unjustifiable measure for a country with a democratic order. Despite the South Korean President’s baseless claims, the Parliament dismissed him by a majority vote on December 13. Now this decision is expected to be approved by the Constitutional Court and there may later be a criminal investigation against him. This serious constitutional incident and its swift averting showed both the strength and the fragility of democracy, even in a country with consolidated traditions related to the rule of law like South Korea, a country of great geostrategic importance for that region and much wider. Therefore, this dangerous anti-democratic incident is rightly being analyzed with the relevant conclusions in the Western hemisphere.
On the other hand, the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East after the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, in Gaza, the danger posed by Iran, in addition to the threat of its expansion throughout that delicate geopolitical space, may affect the distraction of NATO’s attention and military capabilities from other hot spots, including our region.
Therefore, it is seen as very positive that the Summit referred to and paid due importance in its proceedings and in the Final Declaration to the aggravated situation in the Western Balkans.
Even now, 25 years after its military intervention, NATO is obliged and committed to maintaining reinforced contingents in Kosovo, committed to strongly protecting regional peace and stability. Among other things, the agreements signed during the Summit between our country, North Macedonia, Bulgaria and Italy will significantly help for faster operational mobility of NATO troops towards our region in case of danger from hostile forces/countries.
However, NATO has shown in recent years that it remains the most powerful democratic alliance, challenging and victorious over any danger or threat.
The eventual peace in Ukraine
Undoubtedly, the main defining challenge for the West, especially for NATO and the EU, remains the fate and continuation of the war between Russia and Ukraine, which will enter its fourth year on February 24. This challenge includes:
– Political, economic and military support for Ukraine’s progress on the fighting front as a necessary condition for peace.
Contrary to expectations, the postponed spring counteroffensive of the Ukrainian Army did not yield the expected results. Russia is even taking steps forward, escalating its aggressive actions with massive attacks and threats and displays of force using the most modern weapons, as it did on November 21, hitting the Dnieper in Ukraine with an experimental medium-range intercontinental missile, which may later have multiple nuclear warheads.
Moreover, thanks to its alliance with China, Iran, North Korea, and numerous BRICS and Global South countries, Moscow has relatively well coped with the challenges and obstacles created by the 15 packages of economic sanctions imposed by the EU and the US.
Meanwhile, support for Ukraine within Western countries has been practically waning. The US and the EU belatedly reached the necessary political consensus to give Kyiv a combined 110 billion euros in aid, plus more military equipment and weapons much needed for Ukraine’s progress on the fighting front. Opposition among Republicans in the US and in some EU member states has cast a shadow of suspicion, which has increased with Trump’s victory. Pressure is also growing in Germany, which is known for its large number of “Putin friends” and pacifism.
Even the G20 Summit held on November 19–20 in Rio De Janeiro did not mention the Russian aggression against Ukraine in the Final Declaration, bypassing it with the phrase “for human suffering and the need for peace!”.
In 2024, and especially during June, several events, forums and meetings dedicated to further military and economic support for Ukraine were held. The Donors’ Conference for the Reconstruction of Ukraine (Berlin, 10–11 June) and the G-7 Summit (Puglia, Italy, 13–14 June) had promising results, with the approval of 50 billion Euros in aid from percentages of interests in Russian assets in Europe, the 15th package of European and American sanctions against 300 people/firms linked to Russia, the US-Ukraine security agreement, the delivery of air and missile defence systems, and others.
– Consideration of the possibility of bringing both warring parties to the negotiating table for a possible peace.
There has been no shortage of projects and demarches in this respect. China, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Ukraine and Russia itself have come up with some peace projects, which has been discussed in Kyiv, Moscow, Washington, Brussels and other metropolises, but without any concrete results so far.
This has happened because these peace initiatives, perhaps well-intentioned, were used more for internal electoral effects, for diplomatic protagonism, to be “politically correct” and for the image of a peace-loving country.
The reality on the ground is completely different and far from expectations. Despite the peace-making statements and demarches, it is impossible for Putin to sit down and talk about peace, when the winds seem to be blowing in his favor. He openly stated on November 14, he is not interested in sitting at the table, except on the condition that Russia be given all four occupied regions in Ukraine, “the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine” and its non-membership in NATO.
It is widely believed that what Putin is seeking would not be peace, but an occupation of Ukraine. Under these conditions, Ukraine is not interested in sitting at the table for peace, without military advances and without regaining some territories occupied after February 24.
President Zelensky’s proposal for NATO membership, without excluding some territorial concessions, has recently attracted attention. It has found echoes in some high-ranking Western political and military circles. On December 1, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also publicly supported this idea. However, he underlined the necessity of the condition for the necessary guarantees from NATO towards Russia. In fact, this is where the biggest problem and difficulty lies – what are the possibilities of retaking by Ukraine, through diplomacy or military means, the territories occupied by Russia. In an interview on December 18, Zelensky admitted that Ukraine is unable to retake Crimea and Donbass by force.
These statements can also be analyzed as a strong alarm bell for the unpromising Ukrainian situation on the fighting front. The idea of Ukraine’s admission to NATO with its free territory has been raised before by other European political protagonists, with the idea that this would discourage Putin and force him to withdraw from the war. This seems unfeasible since Putin will never accept NATO membership! Moreover, according to some well-known military experts, this alternative could lead to an even greater escalation of the war there! Even if it were realized, it would not provide any guarantee for the security of Ukraine and Europe in the future, since it would further stimulate Moscow’s appetite!
Therefore, for Ukraine, the “Peace through war” alternative sounds more relevant, of course with the help and strong support of the Western Alliance. The International Peace Conference held in Lucerne, Switzerland on June 15-16, as an initiative of the Swiss government with the presence of leaders and high-ranking representatives from 92 countries and international organizations, including 50 heads of state and government confirmed this thesis. As expected, it ended without a result, with a declaration in which 80 countries supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The absence of Russia and China significantly diminished the importance and resonance of Lucerne. Another serious problem was that despite numerous diplomatic, Western and Ukrainian President Zelensky’s own demarches, the Conference Declaration was not signed by countries with geopolitical weight such as India, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. Thus, this conference was not more than an international forum only expressing goodwill for peace.
The impossibility of classical diplomacy to achieve peace in Ukraine was best explained by Alexander Rothert, a well-known German expert. He says: “The first great lesson is that diplomacy and negotiations cannot and should not be carried out during the fighting process. They are left for the end, after the actions in the theatre of fighting have ended, when the aggressor has been weakened to the peak, bringing him to the table; because only military pressure forces dictators and aggressors to accept peace, but on our terms, not theirs.”
Based on these geopolitical factors, the prominent French writer and philosopher in this field, Nicolas Tenzer, with his latest book “Our War,” loudly demands the implementation of “war diplomacy” by the West. According to him, this is inevitable when the other openly threatens to destroy you; then there is no longer any place for classical diplomacy, meetings, proposals and peace plans; on the contrary, everything must be turned around and made available for preparations for an uncompromising war against the aggressor.
That is why, what is required from now on is the escalation and acceleration of military aid to Ukraine and a clear declaration that the West is determined for the victory of Ukraine and the defeat of Russia.
Therefore, the level of international awareness is growing that Western countries must increase and accelerate the pace of sending powerful and decisive weapons to Ukraine before it is too late. President Biden finally authorized Ukraine in mid-November to strike inside Russian territory with its modern long-range missile system. This is happening, indeed, too late, as Russia has taken timely measures to respond, so their effectiveness is unlikely to be what was expected.
On December 1, European Council President Antonio Costa and EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaia Kallas began their new duties and missions not in their comfortable offices in Brussels, but in Kiev with sirens blaring, as a symbolic message of solidarity, in the belief that this message will be accompanied by more Euro-Atlantic political, economic and military assistance and support.
Also, on December 19, after the EU Summit, leaders of NATO countries held a meeting in Brussels with President Zelensky, where they reconfirmed their support to Ukraine. Despite the guarantees that were given, we must wait for President Trump’s inauguration to see concretely the new lines of Western policy towards Ukraine.
The Fall of Assad and the Political Conundrum in the Middle East
As it is known, after a several-days offensive that the Syrian rebel forces HTS launched on November 29 against the regime of dictator Assad, occupying the main cities, on December 8 they entered Damascus victoriously, after President Assad had secretly fled to Moscow.
The overthrow of the Assad regime was a strong political earthquake for dictators in the world and for the peoples’ hope for freedom and peace. Finally, what was not achieved in the framework of the “Arab Spring” 10-15 years ago by Western forces, was accomplished in a few days by the Syrian rebel opposition forces with the support of Turkey.
Although this remarkable event deserves exhaustive analysis and evaluation in the future, what can be said with certainty is that in the geopolitical plan, the collapse of the 54-year-old criminal regime of Assad significantly weakened the positions of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas in the region. Among other things, it deprives their military forces of access to strategic bases, roads and corridors necessary for the transport of military equipment, to be used against Israel and for other aggressive actions. Meanwhile, the positions of Turkey and the West in general are significantly strengthened, giving new impulses to Western policies and diplomacy, to use this historical moment for a “breakthrough” towards a lasting peace, security, stability and prosperity in that troubled region.
The first meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the US, Turkey, the Arab League and the EU in Amman on December 14 served this purpose; there, the relevant initial measures were outlined, to manage the situation in Syria after the fall and departure of Assad as fairly as possible, in the interests of peace and democracy, ultimately avoiding the re-emergence of former terrorist forces. Discussions and demarches, both for Syria and the entire region, will certainly continue throughout 2025, especially with the arrival of President Trump at the White House on January 20, 2025.
After October 7, 2023, rightly described as the “September 11” of the Middle East, this explosive geostrategic area is at a major crossroads with many unknowns; in addition to Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, many major political, economic and military actors influence and dictate the situation there, with strong clashes of geopolitical interests – the USA, the EU, the Arab countries, China, Russia, Iran, now with major political and military claims.
The EU, years ago, was much more active in that region. After the failure of the “Arab Spring” in which it was heavily invested politically and militarily, as its former High Representative, Borrell, has also claimed, the EU left the Middle East in the hands of the USA. It is now time for the EU to return and strengthen its geopolitical role in that region, and not limit itself to being only an aid donor.
Iran plays an extremely negative and dangerous role in any development in the region. After the inappropriate easing of economic sanctions years ago, after reaching the Comprehensive Agreement (although the US, under President Trump, withdrew from the latter in 2018), Iran managed to secure huge profits and easily financed its so-called “ring of fire” or “reserve armies” – Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.
In the West, the other major problem is the division of public opinion in European countries, clearly in favor of Palestine. Anti-Semitic manifestations have tripled in Germany, but also in France, Britain, Italy and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the US, after October 7 has made a strong comeback in that region. After President Biden, during the last 12 months, Secretary of State Blinken was in the Middle East 12 times; in addition, the US undertook other increased military measures. As many experts and political scientists claim, the US role in the region had weakened significantly. In recent years, the Middle East was relegated of the western interests, shifting attention to China and later to Russia.
Another mistake of the international community and the West, in particular, was to “turn a blind eye” to the extremist acts of Israel, when, ignoring the UN Security Council resolutions, and the West calls, increased illegal settlements in Gaza, etc. As a result, the US and the West now have to act in more undesirable circumstances and terrains, with declining credibility. Moreover, they now face unstable opposing states and blocs, which makes their job extremely difficult. Starting with Turkey, a major Western ally and actor and extremely important in the region, a long-time supporter of Palestine. Undoubtedly, the most challenging bloc for the West remains the BRICS and the so-called “Global South” which are generally against Israel and in favour of the Palestinian state, although they have formally condemned Hamas.
Although Russia and China pose as neutral and ready for mediation, have as their interest the prolongation of the conflict in the Middle East. In this way, they divert Western attention from them.
These clashes and disagreements are also being reflected in the UN, which one again shows its inability to manage the situation and as a guarantor of security and peace. In the wake of its dissatisfaction with the UN, Tel Aviv has also demanded the resignation of its Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and in recent months has even declared him persona non grata.
Many serious analysts claim that Israel, its governments and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has led it for the last 10 years, also bear responsibility for this dangerous chaos. Political and social cohesion within the country has been damaged by various and not entirely democratic demarches, after several early elections, by attacks on the independence of the judiciary, provoking massive protests against him. According to the latest polls, 4/5 of Israelis demand Netanyahu’s resignation, also for his responsibility for losing vigilance and breaking the myth of defending the country.
Regarding Netanyahu’s declared goal of dismantling Hamas as a condition and guarantee of peace and security for Israel and the entire region, many well-known experts express doubts and call it a mere propaganda slogan. This objective can be achieved, but only by “bringing the Palestinian Authority into play”, which he opposes. Hamas can lose its attractive force only if Palestine is guaranteed a secure and peaceful future with Israel.
In addition, according to some Israeli experts, the government and Netanyahu still have neither the right direction nor a clear strategic goal of what and how to achieve it. This is recently confirmed in the Letter that Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant sent to Netanyahu on October 27, 2024. In that letter, according to reliable sources made public, he “reprimands” Netanyahu, asking him to detail/define objectives for Hamas, Lebanon, Iran, Palestine and in general for peace, security and stability in the region.
Meanwhile, as the prominent Israeli philosopher, and professor in New York, Omry Boehm, has also claimed, the two-state solution is not convincing most Jews. Netanyahu cannot continue to govern without the far right. The latter, aware of this role, dictates its decisions, especially regarding the non-release of hostages, non-cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and non-solution according to the principle of two states in peace and security.
In these conditions, war is increasingly seen as a way out of this situation. But there can be no peace only with war.
In this complex conundrum, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah certainly also has its responsibility, with apathy and a marked lack of political and diplomatic movements, with a refractory, non-cooperative attitude with its allies and with a clear lack of vision and leadership.
At the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly in September 2024, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi declared that 57 Islamic countries are ready to guarantee Israel’s security, provided that the creation of the state of Palestine is allowed. Few people believe this claim – in Arab countries in general, anti-Semitism is growing everywhere, in schools, institutions, and religious cults, at a time when politics, civil society, and other actors there do nothing to combat anti-Semitism. Of course, Israel’s actions and unjustifiable stances, including the recent outlawing of UNRWA, the humanitarian aid distribution organization, do not help to alleviate it.
This situation was further aggravated by the Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu and the former Defense Minister by the Hague Criminal Court on November 20, 2024; this act has caused further divisions within the Western camp itself and has damaged the image and public perception of Israel.
As mentioned above, one can only imagine having to stop the further escalation of the situation, let alone find and implement a sustainable solution that would satisfy all the aforementioned parties. These objectives will take years to be realized, if not decades of diplomatic demarches, and the essence of this solution remains the acceptance and implementation of the “two-state” policy, along with the creation of confidence and security measures between Israel and Palestine, the avoidance of violence, and the placement of the Gaza Strip, along with the West Bank, under the administration of the future state of Palestine.
The agreement of November 26, 2024 on the establishment of a 60-day ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is a step in the right direction; it gives hope for a revival of the problematic peacemaking process in this hot region.
China’s Geostrategic Challenge
On May 5-10, 2024, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Paris, Belgrade, and Budapest. On November 14-23, he attended the Asia-Pacific Summit in Lima, the G–20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and made several other bilateral visits to Latin America.
For several essential geostrategic reasons, the highest-level Chinese tour to Europe was an event of geopolitical importance. It was the first visit by a Chinese President after the COVID–19 pandemic to Europe, when the latter had entered the campaign for the decisive elections for the European Parliament on June 6-9, as well as at a time when it is seeking answers to numerous challenges – climate change, world trade, the crisis in Ukraine and the Middle East – despite existing tensions, Chinese contribution is indispensable.
The tour of Latin America was a confirmation of closer relations with most of those countries and the growth of Chinese influence, through the giant project “One Belt One Road” and the “BRICS” Group.
This visit, Xi Jinping’s meetings with US President Biden on November 16 at the Asia-Pacific Summit and other contacts have had a positive impact on reducing political, economic and military tensions between China and the West and on finding ways out of the crises and conflicts that have characterized them – the fierce trade war, incidents in the South China Sea, etc.
However, the policies and positions of the new Trump Administration towards China are now awaited with interest. The objective is to keep armed conflict as far away as possible, to prevent China from supporting Putin and North Korea, especially regarding the non-use of nuclear weapons, and, instead of conflicts, to have as much consensus between them as possible. It should be emphasized that all parties have common economic and military interests. In fact, for the US, China constitutes its greatest challenge on all levels. President-elect Donald Trump’s invitation to his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to be present at his inauguration ceremony in Washington on January 20, 2025, is considered a gesture of goodwill and a good start to the challenging relations between them.
The situation in the Western Balkans
The intensification of various efforts, initiatives and processes, to strengthen regional cooperation in general and between its countries, has continued throughout 2024 in various forms and formats. In particular, within the framework of the Berlin Process, several important ministerial meetings were organized. Its Summit in Berlin on October 14 took several important decisions for the creation of the Common Market and the implementation of the EU Economic Growth Plan for the Western Balkans. These topics were discussed at two summits of the European Political Community and at several regional forums in the capitals of the Balkans, in Austria, in New York, Brussels, etc.
Finally, as has become known, the most urgent issues of the Western Balkans were addressed with special emphasis and with ultimatums at the EU-Western Balkans Summit held in Brussels on December 18.
However, despite these and other activities and demarches, the great concern is that the situation and climate in the region and between some of its countries remain turbulent, heated, and explosive, with many risks and uncertainties.
In the meantime, the serious terrorist act in the Zubin Potok water supply channel in northern Kosovo on November 29, 2024, once again demonstrated the serious risks and threats to the security of Kosovo.
The Council of Albanian Ambassadors joined the most important international institutions, the USA and the EU, in condemning this act and demanding that its perpetrators be brought to justice.
Another worrying news and dangerous source of conflict, which requires attention and decisive intervention from the EU and the USA, is the announcement of the possible separation of Republika Srpska from Bosnia, within the framework of the creation of the Serbian world, announced by Dodik.
As a result, even during 2024, the Western Balkans, despite efforts and some achievements, remains a tense terrain that has kept busy and engaged the Belgian and Hungarian EU Presidencies with numerous diplomatic demarches.
The blockage of the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, the non-implementation of the Brussels and Ohrid Agreements, the continuous pressure from the EU on Pristina to create the Association of Serb-majority municipalities, the failure to lift the EU’s punitive measures against Kosovo, and other disagreements between the parties have had a negative impact as well.
As a result, the real international diplomatic concern this year was and remains the avoidance and containment of further deterioration of the situation and the exit from the impasse.
All hopes and expectations have shifted to the period of the creation and commencement of work of the new leadership teams in Brussels and Washington, as well as the completion of the new parliamentary elections in Kosovo on February 9, 2025.
What is required from now on is a qualitatively new diplomatic approach, strategy and practice towards Belgrade and Pristina:
Major change in content, structure and in the American and European names\personalities that will deal with this process;
Increased and genuine efforts to finally create the right terrain, climate and environment for Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. No step forward can be made without gradual improvement and understanding between the parties at all levels and formats. This understanding would help create confidence-building measures, which are among the main pillars of the OSCE;
Replacing peaceful and appeasing diplomacy with coercive and imposing diplomacy towards Belgrade;
Relevant discussions and forums in both countries and everywhere in the Western Balkans should be inclusive, with the presence of representatives of the opposition, civil society, the academic world, etc. This would help create a united front, which would give the entire dialogue much greater credibility and sustainability;
The new strategy should strongly demand that within a certain time limit, but certainly not at the end of the process, Serbia gradually recognizes Kosovo and not hinder its membership in the UN and other international organizations.
If Serbia does not accept, as it has clearly stated, then it must move to other formats and the tough Western stance towards Kosovo must also be reviewed.
In general, politics in Pristina has held the right positions in several aspects and with the relevant arguments. However, now is the time for it to demonstrate the right political will, in addition to sovereignty; to engage in more realpolitik and not moral diplomacy, aligning itself with the politics and diplomacy of the US and the EU; in addition to arguing with political principles, Pristina should deal more with technical procedures, which is lacking in the diplomatic aspect, especially regarding the creation of the Association.
On the other side, it is a must for Serbia also to fully implementing its obligations, in spirit and in letter.
The Council of Albanian Ambassadors has followed with great interest and concern the protracted negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia. In addition to direct contacts with statesmen in Pristina, as well as with many diplomats and centers of International Organizations, inside and outside the country, in some statements and official documents, it has expressed itself against the pressure being exerted on Kosovo to agree on the formation of the association of municipalities with a Serbian majority, since this pressure undermines Kosovo’s sovereignty and encourages the Serbian position of non-recognition.
According to the CAA, the role and irreplaceable contribution of the EU should focus on facilitating a fair dialogue that respects Kosovo’s independence. He has suggested that the EU appoint as its negotiators for the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue diplomats/politicians who would be acceptable to both countries, in order to increase the level of trust between all parties.
Promising EU Membership Negotiations
On 15 October, the 2nd EU-Albania Intergovernmental Conference was held in Luxembourg. It marked the opening of the accession negotiations for the first or “Foundational” Chapters. Undoubtedly an event of great importance, and yet belated; 15 years after the official request, 10 years after the granting of candidate status, 4 years after the decision to open them and 2 years after the First Intergovernmental Conference held in Brussels on 22 July 2022.
The next achievement in this area was the opening of the 6th Chapter Group on Foreign Policy and Relations, at the Third EU-Albania Intergovernmental Conference on 17 December in Brussels. And from a practical/psychological perspective (this is the easiest chapter – we are fully aligned in foreign policy with the EU), this fact serves as an incentive for achieving the objective of EU membership in 2030.
The CAA has welcomed these major events, underlining that the opening of negotiations on the vital chapters of justice, the judiciary, the rule of law, the fight against corruption, and foreign policy is a moment of great political, institutional, diplomatic, and social importance for our country.
They are a synthesis of numerous efforts over the past two years, through the successful analytical review of legislation and various practices by various state and non-governmental institutions.
On this occasion, the CAA has greeted and congratulated the negotiating team, the institutions participating in this process, the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, in particular the National Integration Council, as the most comprehensive and supervisory institution of this vital process, major actors and factors such as the opposition, civil society, the media, interest groups, etc. for their assistance and efforts for the most dignified and fruitful representation.
Undoubtedly, the achievements in the areas included in these groups of chapters are a good basis for a normal progress of the long process of these negotiations. Also, the trainings, seminars, exchange of experience with many EU member states, the comprehensive assistance and support of the latter in the process of approximating our legislation with that of the European Union, the high level of qualification of our negotiators, etc. constitute favorable premises in this regard.
However, in its Declaration of 14 October 2024, the CAA stressed the need for a non-euphoric assessment of this complex process. Without denying the positive aspects, emphasis should be placed on the shortcomings and concerns created in recent years, which negatively affect the duration of the negotiations. The main problems have been caused precisely in the first group of chapters, which are the essence of the content of the negotiations. The progress in other five groups of chapters, from the beginning to the end of the process, depends on them.
The continuous implementation of the suggestions and conclusions of the EU-Western Balkans Joint Summit, held in Brussels on 18 December, is of particular importance for the further progress of our accession negotiations; it highlighted the priority of avoiding and resolving bilateral incidents in a spirit of understanding, implementing the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the need for inclusive political dialogue, and the implementation of electoral reform, according to OSCE/ODIHR recommendations.
At this Summit, the EU also made a series of clear remarks and warnings for more caution, especially regarding the implementation of laws, so that the new draft laws do not conflict with the spirit and letter of European laws, as has happened with those of strategic investors, criminal amnesty, as well as with rampant corruption and organized crime.
Based on the above, the EU has called on the government, the majority and the parliamentary opposition to better take into account the spirit, legislation and practices of the EU in the process of drafting and especially approving laws, and to conduct relevant consultations, so that those laws do not become causes, obstacles and further delays.
The CAA agrees with the opinion that EU membership does not belong only to the government and diplomacy, but to the entire society. However, at the forefront of this historic process and the main responsibility lies with the government. Of decisive importance here is the creation of a broad European supra-party front, in order to accelerate the pace through dialogue, consensus and a spirit of compromise. The declaration of 2030 as the objective for our EU membership should reflect a total mobilization, first of all by the government, to create a much more favourable climate, terrain and environment, approaching and reconciling with the opposition, which has its own important role.
The experience so far requires a fair and equal consideration on the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the European External Action Service, without overestimating or underestimating any of them, as has happened in the past.
This also requires the development of the best possible and incident-free relations with all 27 EU Member States and especially with neighboring countries; this is also the best way to avoid any possible veto or blockage in the future. We recall that the 2020 Enlargement Methodology gives any EU member state the right to request the interruption and suspension of negotiations when, according to them, the aspiring country does not meet the appropriate European values and standards.
On this occasion, the CAA has expressed its regret and concern for the separation of North Macedonia from our country in this process. We very much hope that the relevant authorities in Skopje and Sofia will react and resolve the disputes together and in European understanding, by implementing their obligations taken on the occasion of the opening of the talks two years ago.
Despite this separation, which hopefully will be temporary, our two countries should continue to strengthen their cooperation in this field, as in the last 20 years, with the hope that they will progress together again in this vital process.
The CAA has expressed its willingness to provide its assistance in this historical process, thanks to its composition, with senior diplomats, ambassadors and former foreign ministers, who have served with devotion in Tirana and in many European metropolises and continue to contribute to this historical process in other elite tasks and functions, with their knowledge, experience, public and media statements and several thematic publications.
Suggestions on resolving the impasse with Greece
The election of the former elected Mayor of Himara, Fredi Beleri as a Member of the European Parliament, his release from prison and especially the conclusion of the partial local elections in Himara on August 4 with their respective messages created the first promising premises for overcoming the 20-month impasse and for a new dynamic in our bilateral relations with neighbouring Greece. Due to the impasse in question, there have been very few political and diplomatic steps and movements between our two countries. Even the visit of the Greek Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Diplomacy, Mr. Costas Fragkogiannis in early November to Tirana passed without due attention and without being used for a new impulse for these relations. In this regard, Prime Minister Rama’s speech at the Meeting with the country’s Ambassadors last August in Tirana, emphasizing that relations with Greece, Italy and Turkey are strategic and underlining the need to strengthen them as a priority, was positive.
This is very important because we are talking about two neighbouring countries, members of NATO and other international organizations, while we are at the gates of Brussels, for which Greece has its own important role. In this context, overcoming the impasse with Athens is an urgent priority, of great importance for our image, the perspective of EU membership, for our compatriots there, for our bilateral and multilateral cooperation, etc.
Overcoming this impasse requires that we put aside for the moment some incidents of the past, of course without ignoring the problems, and look forward as two neighboring countries, friends, allies in NATO and later in the EU.
Likewise, our diplomacy in Tirana and Athens, as well as in Brussels, Strasbourg, Vienna and elsewhere, needs to be put into action more and better. Meetings of our Ambassador in Athens, senior leaders of the MFA, and perhaps even a special envoy, regional and European forums and summits are good occasions to exchange views, to measure the pulse and reach agreements through “soft, reassuring diplomacy”. In the meantime, an “inventory” of bilateral issues awaiting resolution can also be made.
The Presidency of the Republic and the Parliament have an important role in this regard; especially the latter through the Parliamentary Friendship Group with Greece, which now has the opportunity to make its contribution, which has been missing throughout this period.
Equally important is the accompaniment of these diplomatic demarches with public, cultural, artistic, sporting activities, exhibitions, etc. that evoke our best traditions and remind us that we are two peoples with ancient culture and traditions, destined to cooperate in peace and prosperity.
On the Agreement with Italy on Refugees
It is known that Italy, especially during the last two years with the far-right government of Meloni, has placed particular emphasis and importance on intensifying its role in all countries of the region, including the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue. There have been also some well-known achievements between our two countries during this period, where support for the opening of membership negotiations, the implementation of the Economic Growth Plan and especially the signing of the Mutual Pension Agreement (from which over half a million compatriots in Italy are expected to benefit), stand out.
However, our relations with Italy during 2024 have been dominated at all levels, and at the European level by the efforts and steps to implement the bilateral Agreement of November 2023 for the reception and treatment of illegal refugees caught on Italian shores; as well as the delayed start of operation in October of this year of their Reception Center in Shëngjin.
Although promoted with great fanfare as the “Meloni Master Plan” which has aroused interest as a model to be followed in many European countries, in recent weeks the problems, doubts and weaknesses of this initiative have been mentioned in the foreign media and among experts. Several non-governmental organizations, Amnesty International, the Italian left, the media and even within the ranks of the Italian majority have expressed criticism and distrust. The presence for a period of three months of a UNHCR observation team is an indication of the relevant international attention and concern.
The EU, which is in great trouble with its asylum policy, has invited other countries to follow the Albanian example; but so far no other country has given any positive signal, even between the lines. The President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, initially enthusiastic about this alternative, sent a letter to all member states to support this initiative. However, this call did not find an echo even at the EU Summit, held in Budapest on November 7. The leaders of the largest member states, Scholz, Macron and Sanchez distanced themselves from this model, which they considered non-functional.
Meanwhile, the Court in Rome cancelled the landing in Gjader in the first two cases and ordered the return of the refugees to Italy, transferring the case to Strasbourg. This has been accompanied by numerous debates in political, media and public circles in Italy, amid a growing wave of opposition.
This variant is mainly criticized since it shows the weaknesses and failures of the EU more than it creates a real and functional solution.
As for our side, it is justified that Italy is responsible for everything. Nonetheless, if such initiatives fail, it will have a negative impact and damage the image of our country. Intentionally or unintentionally, the public perception is created that the country is turning into a garbage dump and a haven for illegal immigrants.
Consequently, amid these uncertainties, the image and resonance of this initiative is not what was expected. The way in which that agreement was made, the lack of public transparency, the lack of consultation with other important political, economic and institutional actors and factors, with the opposition and civil society in both our countries, have also had a negative impact.
However, the progress of this process in terms of significantly reducing migratory flows and the functioning of this center will be important factors for migration and the success of Meloni’s government, as well as the image of our country.
Relations with Turkey
Relations with Turkey have continued normally with many activities and contacts at the highest levels in Ankara, Tirana and in other multilateral forums and formats, which culminated with the visit of President Erdogan to Tirana in early October. As two allied nations and NATO members and with common traditions, there are all possibilities for further intensification of our relations. Efforts from both countries have not been lacking.
As has been underlined by many domestic and foreign analysts, overcoming some inherited and newly created problems will have a positive impact in this regard, especially regarding the positions of elements and institutions accused of being Gülenists, the clear separation of the state from religious cults and institutions and the non-personalization of political relations. Undoubtedly, in today’s European circumstances, friendship, cooperation, strategic partnership with Turkey are solid guarantees for peace, security, prosperity and democracy.
On the modernization of our diplomatic service
Our foreign service and diplomacy have their growing role and responsibility to cope with and avoid the consequences arising from the aforementioned developments and to make the most of the respective benefits.
In this sense, the CAA has welcomed several notable geopolitical achievements of our foreign and diplomatic service, especially the opening of EU membership negotiations, our leadership in several regional initiatives and in other aspects.
CAA has welcomed the change, albeit very belatedly, of the vast majority of the heads of our diplomatic missions, who had up to 10 years or more in the same post. However, there are still 2–3 ambassadors who unjustifiably continue to stay there, alongside many other diplomats who “vegetate” in embassies, more thanks to their nepotistic connections than to their professional skills.
CAA has criticized several unnecessary appointments of political ambassadors from outside the system and in general the unfair ratio between career ambassadors with a lot of experience and those from outside the system. Meanwhile, with the desire to contribute to the drafting and adoption of the best possible law for the Foreign Service, to withstand the times and to have a career diplomatic corps, after a broad consultation among its members, referring to the best practices in the region and the EU countries, and appreciating in principle the concern and the expressed intention for the adjustments and improvements aimed at in a new Draft Law on the Foreign Diplomatic Service, on August 20, it sent to the MEFA and the Assembly a long Material with many ideas, opinions, remarks and concrete suggestions, “in spirit and in letter” for that Draft Law. The CAA has raised countless alarming concerns about the great and irreparable damage that the adoption of this Law would cause to our diplomatic service, if the numerous observations and suggestions that have been made by many diplomats and experts, and especially by the CAA and its members, also publicly, are not taken into account. This extensive and detailed material had a wide public echo in the media, thanks also to numerous interviews by CAA members.
Some of the activities of the CAA
As can be seen from this summary analysis, the Council of Albanian Ambassadors has followed all the aforementioned events and aspects with great attention, interest and concern; it has also expressed its positions publicly, through Declarations echoed in the Albanian media, with official letters and documents to the relevant institutions, in meetings with ambassadors and diplomats, at conferences, events, receptions and working lunches with heads of diplomatic missions accredited in Tirana and by offering its assistance and consultancy in dealing with various problems.
It is worth highlighting that, among other things, the Council of Albanian Ambassadors has recently been entrusted with the leading role of a regional project by the Western Balkans Fund. In partnership with the Council of Ambassadors of North Macedonia, the Atlantic Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Institute for Sustainable Democratic Development in Kosovo and New Horizons in Montenegro, we have developed a comprehensive agenda for CSO representatives at all levels. In the implementation of the project, two workshops will be organized, in Skopje, on 22/23 January 2025 and in Golem, on 6/7 February 2025. The two-day program will aim to equip civil society representatives with the necessary skills and techniques for effective diplomatic communication, enabling them to engage productively with officials, international organizations and other important stakeholders, in a national and international context.
The Council of Albanian Ambassadors would like to take this opportunity to thank the Western Balkans Fund and the European Union for the opportunity to contribute with our extensive experience in strengthening the dialogue with civil society for the increase of communication and cooperation in our region.
In our meetings in North Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro, we agreed to continue our cooperation in the future, on the principles of mutual respect and trust, and to expand partnerships in our activities, including other organizations in our neighbouring countries and beyond.
CAA has become a partner with the Albania-Germany Economic Association. The Executive Director of KASH, Mr. Genc Muçaj, participated in an important event of theirs in November at their invitation.
CAA has continued its active cooperation with its American, Italian, North Macedonian and Kosovo counterparts; it has exchanged useful political information and analysis on world events with them and other interested parties.
Last but not least, a large number of our members have been increasingly active with frequent writings in the daily press, television interviews and the publication of relevant books, positively influencing the expansion of the image of our Council.
