Former U.S. diplomat Christopher Hill continues his testimony at the Special Court in The Hague during the trial of former Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi.
Hill explained that he felt compelled to testify because, in his view, Thaçi did not order any illegal actions.
“I have no reason to believe that Thaçi was involved in such activities, nor did I hear at the time that he ordered any illegal acts. He has been detained for a certain period regarding this matter, and when I was asked to testify, I felt I had to speak about what I knew,” said Hill.
Hill also reflected on the challenges of the Rambouillet Conference, describing it as an “impossible mission” from the start. He detailed the composition of the Kosovo delegation, which was divided into three groups:
- LDK under Ibrahim Rugova, who was passive and restrained.
- Representatives of the Kosovo Liberation Army (UÇK), active as a group but without a single dominant figure.
- Independent intellectuals, including Blerim Qela and historian Rexhep Qosja, providing expertise but not functioning as a unified delegation.
Hill stressed that formally Rugova was recognized as head of the delegation, while Thaçi was the key UÇK representative. However, international actors avoided calling anyone “head of the delegation” to prevent exacerbating internal rivalries.
He emphasized that the Rambouillet proposal aimed for full autonomy for Kosovo, with NATO providing protection without the presence of Serbian police or military units.
“The core principle was decentralizing power to local levels, which seemed the most natural way to govern Kosovo, while also protecting Serbian communities,” Hill explained.
Hill also described the moment the U.S. pressured Thaçi to accept the Rambouillet agreement:
“Thaçi understood the reasoning behind our proposal. He was concerned, however, that he could not accept a text that did not clearly guarantee Kosovo’s independence.”
Overall, Hill’s testimony suggests that Thaçi acted in good faith during the negotiations, and his prolonged detention raises questions about fairness and justice, particularly given his compliance with international mediation efforts.
