Review of a 26-page “monitoring report” detailing steps taken to reduce tensions and offer support was the main goal of the conference, which was led by Caroline Ziadeh, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General.

However, during the three and a half hour session, representatives for Serbia and Kosovo instead detailed complaints obstructing their hopes for peace, which led the majority of other participating nations to take rhetorical sides rather than address the report.

The session was opened by Caroline Ziadeh of Lebanon, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General and head of the UN Interim Administration Mission (UNIAM) in Kosovo, who gave a positive overview of the monitoring efforts and acknowledged the agreements that the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo had previously signed, including those that had just been signed in Brussels and were aimed at achieving “normalisation.”

“Our focus is on enabling communities to thrive in settings where politically charged rhetoric and morally conflicted prejudice are being transcended. “Building trust can directly pave the way for political normalisation,” Lebanese-born Ziadeh told the assembled Security Council members and attendees.

“Together these approaches mark a genuine path towards a more sustainable, peaceful, and ultimately prosperous future for all.”

Without identifying anyone, Ziadeh stressed that the two parties must “overcome differences caused by miscommunication and by regular political vitriol, noting “accusatory speech,” “pitfalls,” and “insufficient political will.”

Ivica Dacic, the Republic of Serbia’s First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, vowed to uphold peaceful negotiations but claimed that Kosovo’s efforts to gain independence and EU membership are sidelining efforts to achieve “normalisation” without addressing the suffering and losses experienced by Serbian citizens of Kosovo who have been compelled to leave due to discrimination and tensions since the two territories separated.

The region of Kosovo and Metohija has transformed over the past 20 years from a multiethnic setting to one that is almost entirely ethnically pure, according to Dacic.

“There used to be more than 40,000 Serbs living in Krishna, but there are now less than 100. There used to be 10,000 Serbs in the historic imperial city of Prizren, where I was born, and today I need permission to visit. There are now just 20 left.

Ziadeh’s efforts were applauded by Dacic, but he emphasised that the situation in Kosovo is “complex and distrubing.”

I am confident that the Special Representative of the Security General, Miss Ziadeh, is working with good intentions, but the report we are discussing today is insufficient and never will be for a thorough understanding of all of the implications of security and other challenges in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as regional and international flows.

Dacic stated that no efforts have been taken to allow the expelled Serbian residents of Kosovo to return to their homes or properties.

On the ground, there is still a climate of pressure, fear, and uncertainty towards Serbs and other Albanians, according to Dacic.

The grim reality is that Kosovo and Metohija has transformed over the past 20 years from a multiethnic setting into an almost ethnically pure territory. In Krishna, there used to be more than 40,000 Serbs, but now there are only about 100. There were to be 10,000 Serbs in the ancient imperial city or Prism where I was born, but today I need permission to enter. Now there are only 20.”

claiming that four of Kosovo’s most significant Serbian Orthodox churches, all of which date back to the 1300s and are listed on UNESCO’s World Heritage Endangered list, had suffered significant damage.

“Kosovo cannot join the United Nations because they lack a majority, but we are wholly committed to dialogue,” the statement reads. Only Kosovo’s independence is of interest to the opposing side. This Brussels pact aims to normalise future interactions rather than recognising one another, according to Dacic.

“Action must be taken now to fulfil the commitment made ten years ago to establish the Association of Serbian Municipalities, or there will be no agreement at all.”

Donika Gervalla-Schwarz, a prominent political figure in Kosovo, reacted to Dacic’s claims by charging them with obstructing the accords struck in Brussels. She referred to Dacic and other Serbian officials as “culprits” in “this breach of contract.”

“They are unable to honour their commitments because of their political nature. It guarantees that offered signatures won’t be honoured. Negotiations turn into a comedy. This is barbaric. This is reprehensible. And this is a disrespectful gesture towards the entire diplomatic corps. Serbia’s plan is to prevent the Balkans from joining the European Union. And the Russians, through Serbia and the Balkan process, are responsible for these attempts at gaining power. It is vital to take disciplinary action rather than negotiate with those who act dishonestly and unfairly while dealing with them. Sanctions on Serbia are now being demanded by an increasing number of voices across Europe, from Kosovo to the Netherlands and Germany. Gervalla-Schwarz responded, “You meet cheats with the penalties because you don’t deal with cheaters.

Without Serbia, EU integration will eventually advance. This applies to the discussion between the Republic of Kosovo and Serbia as well as the EU project of the single regional market, which encourages integration into the EU market. It is not just true for the Berlin Process. Serbia has generally ignored agreements from 2011 to 2015 that were signed.

The Kosovans, according to Gervalla-Schwarz, were “victims of genocide and brutality” committed by the Serbians, and the Serbian leadership was charged with inciting “racism, hate, and incitement.”

Officials from the United Arab Emirates were among those who spoke in more diplomatic terms, pushing the two parties to continue down the “path of peace” in the direction of normalisation.

“Peace is not a straightforward before-and-after tale. There are numerous chapters,” said Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to the UN.

We must all embrace this positive trend; there is a way forward. The latest agreement between Serbia and Kosovo is the most important development in relations between both governments in over ten years.

Do Norwegian politicians have a sense of humor after all? Or are they being deliberately provocative by nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in the middle of the biggest campaign of character assassination faced by any Western politician in recent times?

At first glance, Trump may actually have a claim to the dynamite-maker’s prize. He has brokered normalization between Israel and two of its erstwhile Arab enemies, with more expected to follow. He may have also cleared the last foyer of conflict in former Yugoslavia by mediating a settlement between Serbia and Kosovo.

In both cases he has managed to jump historic, emotional and ideological hurdles that many, including this writer, believed could not be crossed in the foreseeable future. How he did it and what underhand measures he employed to clinch the deals is a matter for speculation. But what matters, as far as the Nobel judges are concerned, is that he did it; he brought peace where there was conflict.

Trump the peacemaker? The liberal elites on both sides of the Atlantic react to that phrase with a hearty “Ha! Ha! Ha!” or an angry cry of “scandal”.

But, wait a minute, a closer look may tell a different story. First, with the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, Trump is the only US president since World War II not to have led his nation into a war, big or small.

President Harry Truman took America into the Korean War. John F. Kennedy got the US involved in the Vietnam War. His successor Lyndon Johnson extended the war into Laos. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford prolonged the war and extended it into Cambodia. Ronald Reagan had his mini-war in Grenada plus proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua while also helping British allies in the Falklands conflict.

George H. W. Bush led the invasion of Iraq plus a mini but costly incursion in Somalia. Bill Clinton dragged the US into the Yugoslav conflict. George W. Bush drew a double by invading first Afghanistan and then Iraq. Leading from behind, Barack Obama got the US involved in the Libyan war while starting the largest drone war in history in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. He also incited the Arabs to rebellion against their governments but then refused to raise a finger to help them, thus lighting the fire of civil wars, notably in Syria. His support for the mullahs of Tehran also encouraged them to speed up their empire-building efforts, plunging much of the Middle East into violence and war.

In contrast, Trump the dealmaker, ignoring hawkish advisers, refused to take military action against North Korea. He even accepted to demean himself in the eyes of many by treating the North Korean despot Kim Jung-un with decorum. Trump also pulled the plug on a series of planned airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Last but not least, Trump tried to broker a deal with the Afghan Taliban.

One may or may not approve of those acts, and in some cases, notably legitimizing the Taliban, one may even have a sense of betrayal. But, as far as Nobel judges are concerned, all those acts were aimed at making peace.

I doubt that, in the end, the liberal elites in control of the Nobel game will go for Trump. But if they do, he will be the fifth US president to gain the accolade. And if he does, he would be the most deserving of them all.

The first to win the Nobel was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, for mediating a ceasefire in the Russo-Japanese war, which Russia had lost. The mediation did not remove the core of the conflict over the Sea of Okhotsk, with Russia recovering its losses in World War II and annexing the Japanese Kuril archipelago. Roosevelt, endearingly known as “Teddy”, was far from a “peace and love” icon. He waged war to complete the conquest of the Philippines and campaigned for joining the First World War. Worse still, the dear “Teddy” was a promoter of eugenics, ordering that “criminals should be sterilized and mentally retarded be forbidden to have descendants.”

The second of the four was President Woodrow Wilson, in 1919. Hailed for his “liberal internationalism,” Wilson had led the US into World War I, at the end of which he published a 14-point declaration promising self-determination to numerous “nations” and proto-nations in Europe and the Middle East. Britain and France ignored the declaration and went on to expand their empires with a series of treaties from Versailles to Lausanne and Montreux.

During his presidency, Wilson the peace laureate had led several wars, notably an invasion of Mexico to seize Vera Cruz and destabilize the despot Victoriano Huerta in favor of the “liberal” Venustiano Carranza. Wilson’s Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan talked a good talk for liberal elites but achieved little. Had he been around today, Wilson’s thinly disguised racism alone would have disqualified him.

The third Nobel laureate was Jimmy Carter for “his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts and advance democracy.” Since Carter was president only for four years, it is not clear where those “decades of efforts” came from. In any case, by arming, training and financing the first Mujahedin, Carter started a war that is still going on in Afghanistan. Carter’s Keystone Cops-style mini-invasion of Iran to release US hostages showed that was not shy about using force; he just didn’t know how to do it.

The fourth Nobel winner was Barack Obama, who was chosen even before he had become president. His case illustrated what in 1817 Coleridge called “a suspension of disbelief” with Nobel judges deciding to honor Obama for what he might do in the future. That Obama did not turn out to be the champion, of “make love, not war,” as Nobel judges had expected, is beside the point. His fans like him because he talked their talk without walking the walk.

Trump’s message of “make deals, not war” isn’t intellectually sexy enough for the liberal elites who set the norm for Nobel-style gimmicks. He may yet win the Nobel, but don’t hold your breath.

Article first published on GateStone Institute International Policy Council.

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.