This question arises as we live in a period of profound geopolitical transition and transformation, where the norms of the old order, from which we Albanians benefited, are increasingly being ignored. The world is no longer predictable. The politics of force have returned and security is once again at the center of international affairs. States, regardless of their size, have long been debating internally at the political, academic and social levels about the consequences of this situation.

History tells us that once an order is established, it lasts for a while. After World War I, the order lasted two decades. Another order, established after World War II, lasted four decades. Meanwhile, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, political scientists like Francis Fukuyama spoke of “the end of history” and the embrace of liberal democracy as the ultimate form of government. Three decades after the end of the Cold War, we are living in the final end of history. Another order is in the making.

Even if the consequences are not yet felt everywhere, the disintegration of the world order is already a bitter reality. And therein lies the danger, because the effects first appear slowly, then escalate more and more rapidly. Rivalry for energy, technology, food supply chains, industry and finance has intensified. Anyone expecting a quick return to normality is wasting precious time. The situation we find ourselves in resembles a tsunami, where the waves are not immediately visible.

However, this transition period has several characteristics. The first characteristic is the rupture of the West and the transatlantic alliance. The West remains a valid normative ideal, but it currently does not exist as a political reality. The existence of the strong pole of the United States remains, although with more limited power than in the two decades that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The second characteristic is China's positioning as the guardian of world order, which has the greatest potential to challenge American dominance. The differences between China and the US are not only political, military, and ideological, but extend to numerous areas, from technology to major international plans and projects.

In addition to the characteristics of the early years of the 21st century, such as the existence of a single pole, and of the 20th century, such as the competition between two superpowers, today we can also distinguish a third characteristic, reminiscent of the 19th century, due to the partial understanding of the great powers to silently tolerate the violation of the rules of international law.

No matter how small and insignificant a state is in the international arena, it needs to have a foreign policy strategy. This becomes even more necessary in this period of transition. There are three pillars that shape the character of foreign policy: values, interests and power. These three elements are essential when the balance and dynamics of the world order change.

In our case, only the first two are valid, since power is a luxury of the larger players. They can project military and economic power, forcing smaller players to align with their goals. Meanwhile, alliances, groupings, and smart diplomacy are what give a small player influence beyond the size of the economy or army they possess.

For Albania, one of the challenges in foreign policy is to maintain coherence and sustainability in relation to the values ​​we defend and the interests we have, while at the same time preserving alliances with strategic partners. This becomes a necessity, especially in an uncertain time when references are constantly changing. While our interests and aspirations constitute the horizon of foreign policy, their values ​​and sustainability must be the defining lines of the horizon.

The transatlantic rift does not bode well for Albania and our region, where since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the US has been seen as the guarantor of the security perimeter, while Europeans have been seen as 'allergic' to the use of force. As is known, the EU is a project that has its genesis in American support after the end of World War II. Today, the disagreements between the US and the EU are greater than ever. The US National Security Strategy is a reflection of this reality, where the EU is described as the cause of the 'extinction of European civilization'.

The shaping of the new world order and the position that the transatlantic alliance will have will be determined in the not-so-distant future. States like Albania are neither key players nor spectators in this story. Uncertainty is part of international relations, especially during transitions from one era to another. It is important to understand why change is happening and how to react to it. Our action based on values ​​and interests will create the necessary space for us to navigate this new era of international relations. Our relationship with the US is irreplaceable. It is equally important that we do not waste the opportunity for EU membership, created as a result of the geopolitical situation.

The simultaneous wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, accompanied by cracks in the transatlantic alliance, have revealed a chameleon-like feature of our foreign policy. I do not know how valid the proposals to dialogue with Putin are, given that we, as co-hosts with the US in the UN Security Council on issues related to Ukraine, stood out for our critical stance, beyond diplomatic language, against Russian aggression. What impact could this proposal have on our region and the conclusion of statehood conflicts? How serious is this proposal when the stances of major European leaders, who until yesterday were criticized for a soft approach towards Russia, today place emphasis on building a European security architecture against Russian aggression?

Likewise, the need to differentiate between us and other European countries, regarding Albania's presence on the Peace Board, is unproductive. We are where we belong, alongside the US, whenever our contribution is valued. Although in a different format, time and geopolitical context, we were part of the US-led coalition in the war in Iraq, even though a good part of the European allies were hesitant or critical of it.

The unsolicited proposal to conduct military operations against Iran from Albanian territory, in the absence of US military bases, raises questions about the credibility of the proposal. It can also be read as a challenge to European allies, who, despite having US military bases, do not respond to the calls of the US president.

What is the interest of such proposals? I ask this question because interest guides the choices that countries make, and this is completely legitimate. Our interest is to stand by the US, but we need to have the weight that we lack to undertake such commitments.

It is also safe to say that the fate of the US-China competition will not be decided in Albania. Therefore, we must avoid any rhetoric that would pit these two actors against the Albanian reality.

In foreign policy, stability is an essential component of credibility. Let's be clear, Albania is a small country that does not have the power to solve complex international issues. But to act seriously and demonstrate strategic clarity is our obligation. Such issues require balancing the interests and values ​​that we have promoted over the years, since at stake is the maturity and continuity of the state, the ability to properly orient itself in a constantly changing world.

Also worrying is the loss of one of the main assets of our foreign policy: weight and influence among Albanians in the region. Which cannot be recovered by organizing nationwide meetings in Tirana.

Personal relationships and friendships that aim to maintain a network fossilized by the long period of being in power, the instrumentalization of national interest for the needs of the day's politics, the meaningless competition, in the absence of interaction, between Tirana and Pristina for influence among Albanians in the region, have significantly weakened the determining power of Albanians and at the same time the pace of progress of the rights they should enjoy.

The concentration of energies to normalize relations with Serbia has been accompanied by the weakening of the leading role of the Albanian factor in the region. I have been and am in support of the normalization of relations between Albania and Serbia. But these relations cannot be built in disregard of history, geography and reality in our region.

I have never understood Albania's position, which on the one hand publicly asked the EU "not to put pressure on Serbia to join sanctions against Russia", and on the other hand, suspended joint government meetings with Kosovo, due to the restrictive measures that the EU unjustly imposed on Kosovo.

It remains inexplicable why the Prime Minister's positions in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Peace Board, towards the Kosovo Special Chambers in The Hague, as well as the resolutions and declarations of the Albanian Parliament, do not coincide with the positions and actions of our foreign policy. Albania has repeatedly joined the EU statement in the UN Security Council on the "importance and need to support the work of the Kosovo Special Chambers", even though this is not an issue of common security and foreign policy, which the EU considers in the framework of alignment by the candidate countries. Who do false illusions serve when not only domestic policy is not reflected in foreign policy, but also declarations in international forums are not translated into foreign policy positions and actions?

The unacceptable language used towards Albanians in North Macedonia is a symptom of a policy that is sometimes characterized by paternalism and sometimes by indifference, coupled with a lack of sensitivity for the sacrifices made by Albanians to be treated as equals to Macedonians.

The 2017 platform of Albanian political parties in North Macedonia, supported by Albania, was based on the principle of advancing the rights of Albanians and equality with Macedonians. This platform managed to produce some successes precisely because our foreign policy was focused on fulfilling objectives related to the national interest and not on the political fate of certain parties and individuals.

The gratuitous involvement in a cycle of retorts with Bulgaria, regarding its disputes with North Macedonia, is being reflected in Bulgaria's demands towards Albania in the enlargement process. We should not be surprised, as states and diplomacy act in a cold and calculated manner.

History and geography are two components that cannot be changed in foreign policy. No one chooses their neighbors. For this reason, it is essential to make every effort to coexist with them. Albania must have a high-level and long-term strategy to address issues with Greece, as the most developed neighbor in the Balkans. A strategy that must be based on the country's values ​​and interests, addressing bilateral issues in their entirety.

Every time the foreign minister changes, it has become customary to talk about a "new beginning" in relations with Greece. The bitter truth is that no step has been taken in this direction since 2018. Albania has mistakenly overestimated the short-term benefits while not calculating the long-term losses.

After a multi-year process of discussions and negotiations, in 2018, we were close to a historic compromise with Greece. I say historic, as it would have closed once and for all the unresolved issues between us in a fair manner. Perhaps neither Albania nor Greece were ready for this compromise. Today, the conditions may be ripe. Therefore, fair and sustainable solutions are needed in their entirety, not selectively addressing issues.

In this perspective, it would be a mistake to separate the sea issue from the package of unresolved issues with Greece. The announcement by the Foreign Minister to refer the resolution of this issue to an international court within a year, if made without conditions and prior preparation, risks repeating the mistakes of 2009. For a country to go to the international court, it is not enough to hire foreign law firms. The country must have the appropriate preparation, in relation to international jurisprudence, to have done its “homework”, and to have drawn conclusions from the mistakes of 2009 and the achievements of 2018. Since we are not dealing with a transfer of responsibilities for the way to address this issue, but with the expression of the willingness of the litigants to accept the verdict of the international court.

In other words, the country must have the ability to perform three tasks: a full understanding of the precedents created by the international law of the sea, the in-depth elaboration of alternative solutions in respect of constitutional jurisprudence, and the formulation of a strategy for implementing the most beneficial of them.

Dealing with difficult foreign policy problems requires strategy, time, and patience. This lesson is not about fatalism or avoiding difficult choices. It is about what can be achieved at an acceptable cost compared to other priorities, both foreign and domestic. Perfection is rarely on the menu in diplomacy, especially these days.

To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, the statesman does not have the luxury of an analyst in foreign policy, since the problem is imposed on him, the time to find the right solution is never enough, and the wrong solution is not recoverable. And moreover, the success of decision-making is subject to the judgment of history.

The analysis is a publication of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Tirana foundation.