“The Trump Administration does not support democracy at home, so it doesn’t come naturally to do it abroad either. This is in sharp contrast to the Congressional request for the report in its Western Balkans Democracy and Prosperity Act, which cited democratic backsliding as a major concern.”
By Daniel Serwer, @DanielSerwer ,
Washington, 03 June 2026, dtt-net.com / peacefare.net – The State Department report to Congress on “United States Policy to Promote Regional Stability and Prosperity in the Western Balkans” merits analysis and comment. Like most official statements, it is as important for what it doesn’t say as what it does say. And it important for the who as well as the what.
For the uninitiated, “Western Balkans” refers to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia are already members of NATO. Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia are not. Croatia is a member of the EU. The others all aspire to membership in the EU.
The State Department is clear about the purposes of policy in the Western Balkans. It wants 1) stability and 2) economic benefits for the US.
Stability
Previous administrations would have talked about “security” rather than “stability.” The former implies a more normative approach. “Security” precludes acceptance of Russian proxies like Milorad Dodik and Aleksandar Vucic. They threaten security more than they ensure it. “Stability” regards the latter, if not also the former, as a necessary feature of the landscape and seeks not to rock the boat. But even if the Administration managed to get Dodik out of office, it has now welcomed him to the White House. That is not something any previous Administration would have done in the pursuit of security.
The statement reiterates the US commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is good. But it does nothing of the sort for Kosovo, which it treats as the product of an ongoing dispute with Serbia. That is not good, but leavened a bit with a commitment to the Kosovo Security Force. Kosovo for the US should be as much a sovereign state as any of the others in the Western Balkans. And in the name of security the US should be supporting its efforts to join NATO as soon as possible.
Engagement
The statement also lays claim to a new type of engagement, saying the era of “nation-building” has passed. That is just a canard. Except for Kosovo, US nation-building in the Western Balkans ended more or less two decades ago, when the US passed leadership to the European Union. With Kosovo, it arguably ended with the dissolution of the International Civilian Office in 2012.
There is nothing new about the new type of engagement, which is termed “empowering local actors.” Even at the Dayton peace talks in 1995, the US imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina a constitution that the local actors said they could accept. That’s the problem, not the solution. The key question is which local actors. The Trump Administration is choosing to favour ethnic nationalists in Bosnia. That is a formula for instability.
Economic opportunities for the US
The main focus of the statement is economic opportunities. This is a perennial goal of American diplomacy, which has long sought market access for the US. Here the emphasis is on infrastructure, including strengthening “investment screening mechanisms that protect critical infrastructure from predatory foreign acquisition.” I suppose that is a reference to the Chinese, but if so Vucic deserves more scrutiny, as Serbia is the largest recipient of Chinese investment in the Balkans. Transportation and energy get particular attention, including roads, US natural gas (to eliminate Russian supplies), nuclear technology, and coal. Some of the technologies cited don’t really exist yet or are not economical, but never mind.
Then the statement returns to nation-building, without calling it that. It wants reforms to commercial law and law enforcement cooperation “to promote good governance and dismantle transnational criminal organizations.” This is intended to limit Russian and Chinese inroads by means not only of growing economies but also of “transparent institutions.” If that isn’t nation-building, I don’t know what is.
What it doesn’t say
The statement doesn’t say anything about democracy or the European Union. Neither is surprising. And both are linked.
American foreign policy is often a reflection of domestic circumstances. The Trump Administration does not support democracy at home, so it doesn’t come naturally to do it abroad either. This is in sharp contrast to the Congressional request for the report in its Western Balkans Democracy and Prosperity Act, which cited democratic backsliding as a major concern. Certainly, it is a serious problem in Serbia and Bosnia. I might hope someone in Congress would notice that the report doesn’t indicate any support for democracy.
The Congressional request also cites the European Union as a positive force in the Western Balkans. The Administration report does not. That’s because President Trump dislikes the European Union, which he regards as a free-riding competitor rather than a legitimate partner in both trade and investment. The most important issues in Montenegro and Albania today are all connected to their EU ambitions. North Macedonia, though lagging, is not too far behind. Ironically, the best way to reform commercial law and law enforcement in the Western Balkans is not for the US to provide assistance but rather to rely on the EU accession process, which this report doesn’t mention.
Silence on democracy and the EU is better than criticizing them. But no one should be fooled. The State Department has done its best to suggest continuity with past policy. But an Administration that favours stability over security, fails to mention democracy and the EU, and welcomes Milorad Dodik to the White House is a sharp break from the past.
——————————————————————————————–
Daniel Serwer is a Professor of the Practice of Conflict Management as well as director of the Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy Programs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
This opinion was published first at his peacefare.net website.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of dtt-net.com.
