Publisher: PER Project on Ethnic Relations

Albanians and their Neighbors: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?

Author(s): / Language(s): English

The interest of the Project of Ethnic Relations (PER) in the issue of Albanians and their neighbors goes back many years. In 1992, PER convened its first seminar for leading Albanian intellectuals from the region, to learn about their views on the interethnic situation in the Balkans. It was one of several consultations PER held with major ethnic communities in the Balkans at that time. In 1995, at a PER roundtable in Belgrade, PER brought together vice presidents of the Socialist Party of Serbia and the Democratic League of Kosovo, thus breaking a four-year self-imposed boycott by Kosovar Albanians on contacts with Belgrade. In 1997, PER brought Kosovo Albanian leaders and Belgrade officials to a landmark meeting in New York City, where they worked out a platform for future negotiations, but this process was interrupted when armed clashes broke out in 1998. After the 1999 Kosovo war, PER renewed its efforts in the form of a series of regional discussions for senior politicians from the Balkans under the heading “Albanians and Their Neighbors.” The first roundtable was organized in April 2000 in Budapest, with the assistance of the Government of Hungary. The second meeting took place in Athens in December of that year with support from the Greek Government. The third roundtable, which is the subject of this report, took place in Lucerne in November 2003, with the support and cooperation of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.

Albanians and Their Neighbors: Moving toward Real Communication

Author(s): / Language(s): English

Relations between Albanians and their neighbors dominate politics in the Balkans and pose a continuing problem for European and Euro- Atlantic stability. More than a decade after the wars in ex-Yugoslavia first erupted, the so-called “Albanian Question” remains unresolved, with interethnic struggles in Kosovo, South Serbia, and Macedonia. The series on Albanians and Their Neighbors, launched by the Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) in 2000, is a unique regional undertaking that brings together almost every significant ethnic Albanian political actor from the Balkans with non-Albanian counterparts from Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece, and the international community. This is a report of the fourth gathering, which took place in Lucerne, Switzerland in May 2004. (Three earlier meetings took place in Budapest and in Athens in 2000, and in Lucerne in 2002.) These PER meetings provide the venue where many of the most critical high-level discussions and negotiations take place between Albanians and their neighbors—as well as with key players from the international community. Since 2000, PER has also convened regular follow-up roundtables in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro, with the aim of promoting practical measures toward interethnic accord. (Reports on these PER efforts are available at www.per-usa.org.) The May 2004 roundtable was noteworthy for the participants’ newly constructive approach to the question of Kosovo and positive reports on interethnic accommodation in Macedonia and Montenegro. The roundtable also made possible an additional PER effort: a face-to-face meeting in Pristina the following month between Kosovo Albanian and Serb political leaders, their first since the violence in Kosovo in March 2004.

Albanians and Their Neighbors: Unfinished Business

Author(s): / Language(s): English

On April 7 and 8, 2000, senior Albanian politicians from Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro met with leaders of the democratic opposition in Serbia and leaders of the Kosovar Serb community; other political leaders from Macedonia and Montenegro; and representatives from Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, the United States, the Council of Europe, the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, the OSCE, the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations. This unprecedented meeting, which was held in Budapest, Hungary, marked the start of a major initiative by the Project on Ethnic Relations on “Albanians and Their Neighbors.” It is aimed at maintaining a region-wide, high-level dialogue on the most explosive ethnic-political issue in Europe today. This report captures and records the main theme of this opening discussion: the conflicting hopes and fears of diverse ethnic communities during a period of rapid and often violent change in the Balkans. Three issues dominated the meeting: the current and future status of Kosovo and its impact on the politics of the region; interethnic arrangements in Montenegro and Macedonia and the relations of Albanians with the majority populations in those republics; and whether Albanian leaders in the region aspire to the creation of a “Greater Albania.”

Albanians as Majorities and Minorities: A Regional Dialogue

Author(s): / Language(s): English

The discussions summarized in this report took place on December 1 and 2, 2000, in the Vougliameni suburb of Athens, Greece, at a gathering of senior political leaders from Southeast Europe. The Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) convened the meeting, in an informal and neutral setting, to help these leaders in their mutual search for solutions to the bitter aftermath of ethnic strife and warfare that devastated parts of their region during the 1990s, and to encourage them to exchange ideas about how to prevent continuing interethnic rivalries from breaking out in renewed violence. Behind the prosaic title of the Athens discussions —“Albanians as Majorities and Minorities: A Regional Dialogue”— lie some of the most explosive issues of the day: the future of the status of Kosovo; relations between Serbs and Kosovar Albanians in Kosovo and between Serbs and Albanians in Serbia proper; the survival of the Yugoslav Federation, the territorial integrity of Serbia and Macedonia; and the ebb and flow of influence between Albania and Albanians living outside its borders. The outcomes of these questions will affect the entire region, including even Greece and Italy and, indeed, the international community itself, for decades to come.

Baltic-Russian Relations in the New Geopolitical Framework

Author(s): / Language(s): English

Catastrophe in the Balkans: Serbia's Neighbors and the Kosovo Conflict

Author(s): / Language(s): English

The meeting that is the subject of this report took place on May 22, 1999, in Rome, at the height of the expulsion of the Kosovar Albanians by Serb forces and the air war conducted by the NATO alliance. The atmosphere was one of suspense, alarm, and determination. Would the Yugoslav political and military leadership ultimately surrender to NATO’s bombing, or would the consensus among NATO members unravel—some had already proposed a bombing halt— because of Yugoslav resistance and Western revulsion over casualties among Serb civilians? Would the bombing stop or accelerate the expulsions in Kosovo? Was a land war inevitable? How much more damage would a continuation of the war do to relations between NATO members and Russia? What would be the fate of Yugoslavia’s neighbors? And of Serbia and Kosovo? What would be the state of interethnic relations in the region at war’s end?

Central and East European Governments and Cooperation with the Hungarian Communities: Efforts, Accomplishments, Failures

Author(s): Livia Plaks / Language(s): English

This essay on the status of the ethnic Hungarian minorities in Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Serbia, was inspired by a meeting on that subject that was organized on June 25-26, 2004 in Sinaia, Romania. The event was sponsored by the new Project on Ethnic Relations Regional Center for Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe. The Center, with headquarters in Bucharest and with an additional office in Tirgu Mures, is a branch of the U.S.-based Project on Ethnic Relations (PER), which since 1991 has been the leading private-sector organization working on problems of interethnic relations in Romania and in the region. The meeting took place under the title Central and East European Governments and Cooperation with the Hungarian Communities: Efforts, Accomplishments, Failures. It brought together Hungarian and non-Hungarian leaders from the region to discuss the evolution of their relations since the end of the communist period and to consider how they might be further improved.

Confidence-Building Measures in Kosovo 2006-2007

Author(s): Livia Plaks,Alex Grigor'ev / Language(s): English

In June 2006, PER held roundtable discussions with senior leaders of the two major political groupings of the Kosovo Serbs: the Serb List for Kosovo and Metohija of the Kosovo Assembly (SLKM), and the Serb National Council (SNV). In consultation with PER’s offices in Belgrade and Pristina, the following questions for the meetings’ agenda were drafted: What are the top issues of concern for the daily existence of the Kosovo Serb community? What are the causes of these problems? What are the Serb community’s expectations for the immediate future (prior to the status resolution)? Are there problems that could and should be resolved while the status talks are going on? How should these problems be resolved? Who should be responsible for resolving such issues? Due to severe political disagreements among Kosovo Serb leaders, PER was forced to hold two separate meetings in Mitrovica: one for the SNV group, and the other for the SLKM group. Both rounds of discussions were chaired by PER Executive Director, Alex Grigor’ev (then the PER Director for the Western Balkans).

Developing a Comprehensive Minority Policy in Montenegro

Author(s): Livia Plaks,Alex Grigor'ev / Language(s): English

Montenegro remained deficient in its minority policy legislation. The country’s first Minority Law remained stagnant in draft form despite the comments and encouragement of outside reviewers such as the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. The problem was a lack of political consensus on several contentious points, and an inability to break the political stalemate and move forward. To address the specific issue of the political stalemate over the Minority Law as well as Montenegro’s general deficiency in minority policy legislation, in July 2005, with funding from the Global Opportunities Fund of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, PER launched a three-year initiative devoted to helping Montenegro develop and strengthen its state policies toward ethnic minorities, and in the process galvanize the authorities to show more political will in helping minorities in the country. Success was achieved early on in the project. In May 2006, Montenegro finally adopted the Minority Law and opened a new chapter in the history of majority-minority relations in Montenegro. But the Montenegrin path to minority accommodation was not without its setbacks. In July 2006, two key provisions of the Minority Law were declared unconstitutional by the Montenegrin Constitutional Court. The rejection of these provisions, which guaranteed seats in parliament and local assemblies for representatives of ethnic minorities, was perceived as a let-down by many minority leaders and continues to be an increasing source of tension between them and the majority. Mutually beneficial majority-minority relations have been the core of Montenegro’s successful model of interethnic accord. Damage to these relations will be the destabilizing factor in this multi-ethnic country.

Interethnic Dialogue and Reconciliation in Kosovo - Year Two

Author(s): Livia Plaks / Language(s): English

The activities carried out by PER in Kosovo between the summer of 2009 and the fall of 2010 were concentrated on helping to resolve specific, practical issues that the Serbian community encounters in everyday life in Kosovo with the purpose of improving the life of this community as well as improving interethnic relations in Kosovo. Issues such as how to deal with budgets and employment and how to bring more investments to a community, united Serbs and Albanians around the table preparing them to cope with the real challenges that need to be overcome. Another topic of importance in our work this past year was the effort to start a dialogue between Albanians and Serbs to help overcome and heal wounds that have been festering for many generations. Although it will take a considerable amount of time before there will be understanding and acceptance between the two communities, PER through its Forum for Dialogue has created one such venue for dialogue. The discussions have been very open and sincere on both sides. The open TV debates that followed some of the discussions with key representatives of the Albanian and Serb communities showed very clearly that interethnic dialogue can take place across the table even on some of the most sensitive topics. We judge that significant progress has been made in Kosovo south of the Ibar River in improving the living conditions of minority communities and advancing their political integration into Kosovo’s mainstream society. The local elections that took place in November 2009 resulted in expanded participation by the Serbs. The start of the process of decentralization which marked a significant change in access to power and influence at the community level, that is reflected in a more relaxed atmosphere in Kosovo and is visible in the interaction of Albanian and Serb politicians at all levels. With a number of municipalities now under the control of pragmatic mayors, mostly from the Serbian community, more decisions are made at the local level and this empowerment of the communities has helped to improve the situation in Kosovo.

Interethnic Relations in the Balkans: New Generation, New Politics

Author(s): / Language(s): English

TABLE OF CONTENTS // Preface // Note on Terminology // Introductory Remarks // Problems of Regional Identity: Images of the Balkans // Managing Ethnic Conflict // Regional Aspirations and Cooperation // Roles of the EU and the International Community // Conclusions // List of Participants

Kosovo 2005: Assuring Security for the Neighborhood

Author(s): / Language(s): English

In the late summer and fall of 2004 the news from Kosovo was dominated by the run-up to the province’s parliamentary elections, which were held in October, and the question of whether the Kosovo Serbs would take part. While Serbian president Boris Tadic encouraged Kosovo’s Serbs to participate in the elections (though at the very last moment), prime minister Vojislav Kostunica, arguing that Kosovo’s provisional government had failed to protect the Serb community, strongly urged a boycott, and, in the event, on October 23 less than one percent of the Serbs living in Kosovo turned out to vote. On the heels of this development, which seemed to promise continued difficulties in the relationship between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, the Project on Ethnic Relations (both through its Princeton headquarters and its Center for Central, East, and Southeast Europe in Bucharest) together with the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, organized a roundtable meeting on “Kosovo 2005: Assuring Security for the Neighborhood.” The meeting, which was held in Bucharest, took up issues of Kosovo’s political dynamics, including Serb participation in Kosovo’s provisional institutions of self-government, implementation of United Nations standards for Kosovo, ways to approach the issue of Kosovo’s status, relations between Belgrade and Pristina and the impact of developments in Kosovo on regional security. At the time of the meeting Kosovo’s new coalition government had not yet been formed, and neighboring states sought a chance to communicate with leaders from both Pristina and Belgrade about how resolution of the province’s political status might move forward, and how the open issue of Kosovo affects a region that is eager for increased stability and, ultimately, European integration.

Kosovo and the Region Prepare for Change: Relations, Responsible Governance, and Regional Security

Author(s): / Language(s): English

Six years after Kosovo was placed under the interim administration of the United Nations, 2005 has been called a decisive year for the province. The first indication that this is indeed the case came in March, when the UN Secretary General appointed a Special Envoy to conduct a comprehensive review of the so-called democratic “standards” mandated for Kosovo. Following this review, and depending on its outcome, in the fall of 2005, a formal process for resolving Kosovo’s status will be launched by the UN. In early 2005, while the international community appeared to be moving forward on the Kosovo issue, authorities in Belgrade and Pristina showed some signs of breaking their ongoing stalemate over official communication. Throughout the spring, reports of a potential meeting between Serbian President Boris Tadic and Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova appeared in the media, but an actual encounter failed to materialize. With Kosovo Serbs continuing to boycott provisional institutions of selfgovernment in Pristina, the positions of Serbs and Albanians over Kosovo appeared as entrenched as ever. ###While realizing that the large question of Kosovo’s status will only be resolved through a process established by the United Nations, the Project on Ethnic Relations nonetheless judged that an informal and off-the-record dialogue among Albanians, Serbs, leaders of neighboring countries, and representatives of international organizations could be of value at this time. In July 2005, in cooperation with the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, PER convened a roundtable discussion under the title “Kosovo and the Region Prepare for Change: Relations, Responsible Governance, and Regional Security.” The agenda for the discussion included three broad topics: the regional implications of Kosovo’s future status, possibilities for high-level dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, and relations between Kosovo’s Albanian and Serb communities.

Kosovo Roundtables. 2001 - 2005

Author(s): Livia Plaks / Language(s): English

The future of Kosovo has been a matter of grave international concern for more than a decade. The unresolved interethnic dispute between Serbs and Albanians and the struggle between Belgrade and Pristina over whether Kosovo would become independent or remain part of Serbia has been the most intractable problem remaining from the historic breakup of former Yugoslavia, threatening the stability of the entire region. For more than a decade, the Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) has played a key background role in efforts to ease ethnic tensions in the Western Balkans between the Albanian populations of that region and their neighbors. As early as 1992, PER arranged a roundtable in New York City where Serb and Kosovo Albanian intellectuals and social scientists discussed their troubled relations. In 1995, PER was one of three cooperating organizations that convened a roundtable in Belgrade bringing together representatives of the Serbian Socialist party and other ruling and opposition parties with Kosovo Albanian political leaders. (The Albanians broke their long-standing boycott of contacts with official Belgrade in order to participate.) PER then continued to work in the background, conducting numerous off-the-record dialogues and informal negotiations. In 1997 it finally succeeded in arranging a landmark meeting in New York City that brought together senior political leaders from Belgrade and Pristina—their last contacts, as it would turn out, before the war and the NATO intervention of 1999. Following the war in Kosovo, between 2000 and 2005, PER convened five international roundtables on “Albanians and Their Neighbors.” There, decision makers from all the countries of the region as well as from the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, NATO, the Council of Europe, and other key international entities took up critical questions of the day and debated alternatives for the future. PER followed up these large regional gatherings with country roundtables in Macedonia, Montenegro, and Kosovo to address their specific problems. This report concerns the meetings about Kosovo that took place in Pristina from 2001-2005.

Macedonia: Agenda 2006

Author(s): Livia Plaks / Language(s): English

The December 2005 Mavrovo roundtable came at a historic moment for Macedonia. Having received a positive evaluation on Macedonia from the European Commission in November, the EU’s Council of Ministers was set to grant the country EU candidate status—a major milestone for a state still dealing with the consequences of a violent ethnic conflict in 2001. However, on December 12, the day before the beginning of the Mavrovo talks, the news from Brussels was that the Council, troubled by such setbacks as the recent French and Dutch popular rejection of a new European constitution and the continuing stalemate in budget negotiations, might vote to delay a decision on Macedonia’s candidacy until the next EU Presidency. This potential uncertainty over the country’s EU prospects sent shockwaves through Macedonia’s political scene. While the potential for a delay in Macedonia’s EU candidacy dominated much of the discussion at Mavrovo, other questions, such as the upcoming 2006 parliamentary elections and the implementation of certain reforms related to the Ohrid Framework Agreement, were also significant topics of discussion. Even these issues were seen by many participants as highly connected to the developments in Brussels, however, and Macedonia’s EU candidacy returned time and again in the discussions as the dominant outside factor shaping the country’s immediate future. This Mavrovo roundtable, the sixth since the series began in 2003, was characterized by a high degree of consensus. No participant disputed that European integration should be one of the state’s top priorities; to the contrary, some opposition leaders claimed that their parties, rather than the current government, should in fact be credited with paving the way to the country’s expected EU candidacy. The question of election irregularities was also an important agenda item on which there was broad agreement, with many participants supporting tougher penalties for violators, as well as reforms to the election law and the makeup of the election commission to improve the quality of the campaigns and the voting process itself.

Macedonia: On the Road to Brussels

Author(s): / Language(s): English

In June 2005, the Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) and the Embassy of Switzerland in Macedonia organized the fifth roundtable in the so-called “Mavrovo Process” series. These roundtables are an occasion for members of the Macedonian governing coalition (the Together for Macedonia coalition headed by the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM) and the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI)), the parliamentary opposition and representatives of the international community to assess the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) and evaluate the coalition’s progress. The discussions also provide a forum for honest and open communication—off the record—among all parliamentary parties. The Mavrovo roundtables are always important events in Macedonian politics. They provide a forum wherein difficult and sometimes contentious issues of Macedonia’s daily politics can be discussed in a neutral space, free of everyday political pressures. In fact, coffee breaks, lunches and dinners between the sessions often turn out to be just as important as the plenary sessions themselves, as these provide chances for the participants to continue their discussions and build the trust necessary for reaching compromises. The Mavrovo series has also become a major channel for the political parties of Macedonia’s smaller ethnic communities. They use this unique opportunity to present their case to the other coalition members and to receive a sympathetic hearing.

Macedonia: The Next Stage

Author(s): / Language(s): English

The fourth round of discussions in the Mavrovo process was held in mid-December 2004, at a moment of great challenge for Macedonia. A new government, necessitated by the former prime minister’s resignation on November 15 and his public allegations of corruption against a government member, was confirmed by parliament on the very day the Mavrovo meeting was to convene. Nonetheless, the new prime minister and his government elected to attend the Mavrovo meetings, and use them to foster open and frank discussion among the coalition partners in the government including the parties of the smaller ethnic communities and with opposition parties. In comparison to earlier sessions of the Mavrovo process, these discussions were characterized by a significant increase in the proportion of time and attention devoted by participants to what they described as “constructive criticism” and problem-solving. Although the first session of discussions was abbreviated because of the government’s need to convene its first, organizational meeting following parliamentary confirmation, this round of the Mavrovo process covered a number of important and sensitive issues facing the new leadership team. Participants discussed their understanding of the nature of representation and accountability, from the perspective of both government and opposition. Attention was devoted to the meaning and implications of “equal representation” as a principle embedded in the Ohrid Framework Agreement and as a practical goal of government policy. There was substantial discussion of the relationship between political parties, their leaders, and the government, and its crucial effect on government authority and performance. Discussion turned several times to the importance of improving the performance of the economy for resolving social and political problems, and therefore its importance for the new government. Improving the functioning of the electoral system was the focus of a substantial amount of discussion, prompted by the upcoming local elections, scheduled for March 13, 2005. Participants put forward a number of specific issues and problems for inclusion on the government policy agenda. Participants also engaged one another in candid discussion of sensitive and contentious issues concerning the integrity of electoral processes in Macedonia. These discussions led participants to consider the adoption of a “code of conduct” to guide parties in the upcoming and future elections.

Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic Integration: Advancing Common Interests

Author(s): Livia Plaks / Language(s): English

The seventh Mavrovo roundtable of leaders of Macedonia’s parliamentary parties revealed deep fissures between the leading political parties in the government and those in the opposition, as well as within some of the opposition parties. Tensions between the two major ethnic Albanian parties, and between the leading Albanian opposition party and the government, were evident in a series of events that occurred in the weeks immediately preceding the meeting. They were reflected in the decision by a key Albanian opposition leader not to participate in this Mavrovo meeting. The internal divisions within each of the Albanian parties were evident in the discussions. Reconciliation between the government and the main Albanian opposition party was hampered by disputes between them over issues of local governance, establishment of the parliamentary committee on communities, adoption of the police law, and implementation of the language provisions of the Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA), and by the suggestion that the leading party of government was intent on “splitting” the Albanian opposition rather than working with it. Senior members of the government at Mavrovo made it clear that the government has accepted responsibility for continuing the policies of the previous government with respect to EU accession, and is intent on adhering to EU standards. But, at the same time, the government showed its impatience with the delays inherent in democratic processes, and pressed for changes in parliamentary procedures designed, according to them, to energize the parliamentary process, or as the opposition sees it, to reduce opportunities for debate and disagreement. Participating MPs who are not members of the three major ruling coalition parties all criticized the government’s proposals for limiting parliamentary debate, and called for dialogue between government and opposition to be carried out within state institutions, including the parliament. Representatives of the main opposition parties expressed deep skepticism about the government’s calls for dialogue and professed their unwillingness to enter meaningful dialogue at this stage on any issues other than those required by the EU accession process. Internal differences among opposition leaders, evident in their statements at Mavrovo, complicated the task of shaping any process of consultation or dialogue with a strong potential to achieve consensus.

Macedonia's Inter-Ethnic Coalition: The First Six Months

Author(s): / Language(s): English

The idea of hosting a meeting among members of the Macedonian governing coalition (the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia [SDSM], the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the opposition and representatives of the international community just six months after the formation of the new government, originated in Lucerne, Switzerland. There, during the third in a series of regional dialogues devoted to the issue of “Albanians and Their Neighbors,” representatives of Macedonia’s new coalition government asked the Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) to hold this meeting. Intended in part as an evaluation of the coalition’s progress and as a vehicle for honest and open communication among all parliamentary parties, the meeting could perhaps not have come at a more interesting time in recent Macedonian politics. Just weeks before the meeting – made possible by the generous support and cooperation of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the Swiss Embassy in Macedonia—former Prime Minister and leader of the largest ethnic Macedonian opposition party, Ljubco Georgievski publicly disavowed the Ohrid Framework Agreement—an internationally brokered truce that in 2001 helped to bring peace to a country on the brink of civil war. (Georgievski was a signatory to the Framework Agreement.) Days later, Arben Xhaferi, leader of the largest Albanian opposition party, threatened to resign, issuing a moratorium on behalf of his party. Also a signatory to the agreement, Xhaferi said his party was taking a “time-out” in opposition to the government’s failure to adequately implement the agreement.

Macedonia's Inter-Ethnic Coalition: The First Year

Author(s): / Language(s): English

When, at the request of members of the Macedonian government, the Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) agreed more than a year ago to host a roundtable meeting for representatives of the country’s coalition [the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)] and opposition parties, we scarcely anticipated the demand for this type of forum. Indeed, what started as a single meeting (held in Mavrovo, Macedonia on May 10-11, 2003) has since become the “Mavrovo Process.” Launched by PER in cooperation with the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the Swiss Embassy in Macedonia, the Process is designed to facilitate communication not only between members of the government and the opposition, but also within the coalition itself. These discussions, which are not for public attribution, provide participants a rare opportunity to offer their vision for Macedonia’s future and to candidly assess the government’s performance in implementing the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement—an internationally brokered truce that is credited with ending the country’s bloody albeit brief ethnic conflict. The participants at the May roundtable agreed that all parties should reconvene under PER auspices roughly once every six months, whereas members of the coalition should meet every three months. Two meetings have since taken place. The first, a discussion among the coalition parties, occurred in September; the second meeting, held in December, featured participants from the senior-most levels of the Macedonian government and opposition as well as representatives of the international community. While themes from the September discussion are referenced herein, it is the latter meeting which forms the basis for this report.