What does Kosovo benefit and why are they criticized?

The southeastern Cepa of Europe, including Kosovo, is turning into a terrain where the most powerful states try to relocate one of their dilemmas: what to do with migrants who do not want within their borders?
Finally, Kosovo has agreed to accommodate 50 migrants from third countries staying in the US, while expressing its willingness to accommodate even asylum seekers rejected by the United Kingdom.
The Government of Kosovo, together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs that will have the task of implementing the agreement with the US, have not responded to Radio Free Europe questions about the subject.
What Kosovo earns from this agreement has not even shown the US State Department, which has only said that the US is « grateful to our partner, Kosovo, for the acceptance of third-country nationals expelled from the United States ».
Later, in charge of the US Embassy in Kosovo, Anu Prattipati thanked Kosovo on X, saying it became « the first country in Europe that announced that it would accept citizens from third countries expelled from the United States ».
« Securing the American border is the top priority of the Trump administration and I appreciate the government and the people of Kosovo for their partnership, » she added.

What does Kosovo win?
Do these agreements really make up strategic progress for Kosovo? Donika Emini, from Europe’s advisory group for Balkan politics, says these agreements should be understood « as a form of bilateral cooperation, and not as a transformative moment in Kosovo’s international positioning ».
« This strengthens the image of Kosovo as a reliable partner, but it does not deeply change the dynamics of relations, especially when key political issues, such as the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue, continue to be a source of tension between the two countries, » Emini told Radio Free Europe.
As evidence of this, it mentions an agreement between the European Union and Turkey on Syrian refugees, which says that « cooperation in migration management does not necessarily translate into improvement of broader relations if deeper political disputes remain unresolved. »
Even former US ambassador to Serbia, Christopher Hill, says it is not enough for Kosovo to show that it wants to help the US in addressing its challenges.
« Symbolic gestures of this kind, though important and useful, must be accompanied by a broader approach that ensures that Kosovo is not on the list of problems, » Hill told Radio Free Europe.
But Kosovo is not the only one in the Balkans that is accepting such responsibilities for managing migrants.
Albania has an agreement with Italy to accept migrants, Northern Macedonia is mentioned as a potential place for agreement with the United Kingdom. Whereas, Bosnia and Herzegovina is cooperating with the EU on the management of migration, accepting funding and support for reception centers.
At the end of last month, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) organizations called on the United Kingdom and the European Union not to use the Balkans as a « Migrants Warehouse ».
Michael Bochenek, from this organization, tells the Rel that the Balkans have become the target of such plans of the most powerful states for several reasons.
« The Balkan countries do not have a truly terrible history of human rights violations (compared to other countries used for these plans, such as Rwanda, South Sudan, Libya), » he says.
Bochenek adds that the impact that the European Union has on the countries of this region also plays a role.
« For better or for bad, these governments can have a sense of obligation to the European Union and therefore may be more open to these types of requirements, » says Bochenek.

Why are we talking about the European Union?
For three main reasons, says Olivia Sundberg Diez, from the Amnesty International, which has been monitoring and criticizing such agreements for many years.
There are three steps, she says, that the European Union has recently undertaken that the processing of migrants should be outside the EU borders as a way to face a large wave of migrants.
In recent months, the European Union has brought proposals that enable a applicant’s asylum application to be rejected, on the grounds that it may seek asylum elsewhere; facilitating rejection and expulsion of asylum seekers from states that the EU calls safe, as well as the possibility that the rejected asylum seekers are also sent to states with which they have no connection.
« There is a deliberate attempt to shift responsibility for protecting refugees in countries outside the EU, without clear legal guarantees and with much ambiguity for responsibility, » Diez told Rel.
And the discussion of where such return centers can be built for migrants targeting the EU, but which have been rejected asylum, has included the Western Balkan countries.
Emini says these states should understand that such agreements bring benefits, such as investment or specific support, but not progress towards EU membership.
« In the future, Kosovo and other Western Balkan countries should aim to position themselves not merely as sensitive service providers that the richest states do not want to undertake, but as proactive and strategic actors in the international arena, » Emini says, adding that the Western Balkan region is « instrumentalized without real and long -term benefits. »
In a similar agreement that also promoted criticism, in 2022, Kosovo and Denmark agreed to rent 300 prison cells at the Correctional Institution in Gjilan to accommodate foreign prisoners who are expected to be deported from Denmark after the end of the sentence.
In return, Kosovo will benefit over 200 million euros, which will be invested in the correctional service and renewable energy projects.
The first prisoners from Denmark are expected to be transferred to the Gjilan prison in the first part of 2027.
Previously, Kosovo had also housed about 1,900 Afghan citizens who had been evacuated by Afghanistan after returning the Taliban to ruling in 2021.

What do migrants lose?
In addition to the debate over the diplomatic benefits of the Western Balkan states, such agreements are raising serious concerns about the rights of migrants.
Human Rights Watch says that « these agreements are political and an attempt to bypass human rights obligations. »
He adds that they often create legal uncertainty for migrants, especially for those who have nothing to do with the host country.
« People do not know where they are, they do not understand why they are sent there, they feel lost and isolated, » he says.
Diez points out that such agreements create a risk of arbitrary prohibitions, restrictions on access to legal aid, and difficulty following legal complaints.
« You cannot apply this (agreement for the return centers) in a way that is in accordance with human rights, » she says.
The agreement between Italy and Albania on the transfer of migrants has encountered such difficulties since the beginning of implementation. More than 70 people initially sent to Albania have returned to Italy again after court decisions or because of medical needs.
« We have enough evidence of extensive international research showing that such schemes – attempts to relocate responsibilities as far away from the borders of the European Union, removing people from their eyes and mind – do not work and cannot be implemented in a way that is humane, » says Diez.
Like her, Bochenez points out that such schemes are also expensive for the states that finance them.
For this reason, they would prefer the most powerful states to invest in their capacity to manage migrants.
« It seems like an extremely complicated way to address this issue unless the real goal is simply to remove people and leave the problem to others, » says Bochenez.
For Diazi from Amnesty International, even the lack of transparency that conveys such agreements between states is a serious problem.
« Agreements are often negotiated in a non -transparent manner, without the involvement of parliament or civil society organizations, » Diez says, adding that it makes it difficult to any independent control.
She and Bochenek say that it is important that both activists and civil society of states that are targeted for such return centers call into question the decisions of their governments.
« The more politicians and lawmakers are aware of the existence of local opposition, the more they will be forced to consider, » says Bochenek.
He adds that such agreements are often presented as good, as it is said that the state will receive funding or look good in the eyes of a more powerful state.
« But if these agreements are not carefully considered, if their negative sides are not highlighted, unless the public opinion is taken into account and if the true cost they carry is not understood, then the risk is high, » says Bochenek.
He adds that in other cases of these agreements in the world – such as Costa Rica, Panama, or South Sudan, « these agreements have proved much more problematic for host countries than it was originally predicted. » /REL/