FROM PARALLEL DIPLOMACY TO TRANSATLANTIC COORDINATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TRUMP AND BIDEN ADMINISTRATIONS IN THE KOSOVO–SERBIA DIALOGUE

Abstract

The dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia has been one of the most important diplomatic processes in the Western Balkans and an important area of engagement for both the United States and the European Union. Although successive U.S. administrations have maintained a strategic interest in the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia, the diplomatic approaches pursued by the Trump and Biden administrations differed considerably in format, instruments and coordination with the European Union. This paper examines continuity and change in the role of the United States in the Kosovo Serbia dialogue during the administrations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The study uses a qualitative comparative approach based on the analysis of official U.S. and EU documents, diplomatic statements, agreements, and relevant academic and policy literature. The findings show that the Trump administration followed a more direct, personalized and economically focused approach, which operated partly in parallel with the EU led dialogue and culminated in the Washington commitments of September 2020. In contrast, the Biden administration restored closer coordination with the European Union and reaffirmed the central role of the EU facilitated dialogue, including in diplomatic efforts surrounding the 2023 Agreement on the Path to Normalisation and its Implementation Annex. Nevertheless, the analysis also identifies important elements of continuity between the two administrations, particularly the use of diplomatic pressure, the emphasis on concrete results and continued direct U.S. involvement when negotiations stalled. The paper argues that the main difference between the two administrations concerned the architecture and coordination of diplomatic engagement rather than a fundamental change in the overall U.S. strategic objective of normalization. The findings suggest that stronger transatlantic coordination can reduce competing diplomatic signals, although institutional coordination alone does not guarantee the implementation of agreements.