Transcript of U.S. Ambassador Alexander A. Arvizu Interview with Aleksandër Çipa, Editor, Shqip Newspaper (December 23, 2011)

Shqip: Mr. Ambassador, what is your assessment of democracy currently in Albania, and particularly institutional democracy?

Ambassador Arvizu: When you say institutional democracy, it causes me to reflect and reformulate the answer, because the democratic experiment in Albania is ongoing. I think there has been a lot of progress over a 20-year period, but what concerns me is the fact that in Albania there is still lacking what I call a liberal tradition, that a lot of the trappings of democracy, a lot of the basic structures are in place. We have a pretty vibrant press, people are free to express their opinions, NGOs are pretty active. I’m happy now that the parliament is functioning, so there are a lot of outward appearances. And, I don’t mean just appearances. These are real functioning elements of a democratic society. I think what is lacking is a democratic culture, a respect for democratic institutions, a professional attitude of people who are in these institutions. That is still a work in progress.

Shqip: Some time ago, at a conference on democratization in Albania, you addressed the political leadership with the statement, “The past can no longer used as a justification for Albania’s failures.” Which of them is using the past as an excuse, Mr. Ambassador?

Ambassador Arvizu: I think what I refer to as the leadership, I mean the senior levels of the ruling coalition, but certainly the opposition coalition as well, they do represent the political leadership. That being said, I have always maintained that the people in the government, the people in the ruling coalition, have a special obligation. They are the ones who have been entrusted with administrative power, so they have a greater responsibility. But when we talk about the 20-year period, how you phrased it, “that the past cannot be used as an excuse for the future,” I mean it in a broader sense. But again, clearly there is a responsibility on the government to lead.

Shqip: What is your assessment of the quality and standards of the current administration in Albania?

Ambassador Arvizu: When you say administration, you mean the governing administration?

Shqip: Certainly the governing administration and the public administration in general.

Ambassador Arvizu: I think it is a mixed picture. I know that first of all, Albanians seem to love politics. That is always a good sign because it shows that the people care, but I think what concerns me is that whether it is the political actors themselves or the people who are voting in elections, so much of the focus of politics is about electing people or some of the intrigue that is involved with politics.  Now that is the fun part, the sexy stuff.  But the bread and butter of politics is administration, is providing services, being responsive to the citizens. I think that is the part that concerns me the most. It is easy to get excited about elections or about this intrigue or that intrigue. Day to day governing is kind of a boring thing, but it is the most important element of a democracy - who is providing services, education, health care, fighting corruption, these kinds of things. It just doesn’t seem like the people’s voice carries enough weight. People are already talking about the 2013 elections, or about who the president is going to be in 2012. I understand that, but I just wish that there was more focused discussion, I wish that somehow the politicians, the leaders could be forced to answer more hard questions about day to day governance right now, not about something that is a year from now or two years from now.

Shqip: There is often talk about human rights in Albania that praise has been given to progress made. When it comes to employees’ rights or lawfulness within the public administration, complaints are numerous. In fact, there are often cases of arbitrariness and violence inside institutions as is the case of the two female employees of Tirana Municipality. Do you have complaints and what is your assessment of such aspects?

Ambassador Arvizu: Three points. First, I have heard about the specific case that you mention. There were some news reports. I have to be honest, I have heard different accounts. I don’t know what the authoritative account is, it’s a little bit of a “he said” “she said” thing. It is my impression that Mayor Basha is making a special effort to appear to be responsive to citizens’ needs. His campaign focused on someone who would pay more attention to constituents’ needs. Of course, that is up to the voters, the citizens to decide about that, but it seems to me that he has been making a special effort to appear to be more responsive to citizens’ needs. But the larger point, the most important point that you raise is sort of the responsiveness of the public administration. I think there the record is mixed. My sense from traveling around the country is that the smaller the administrative unit, in some cases at least, the better the chance of getting a response because people know each other. But even in a big place like Tirana, people know who everyone else is and there, unfortunately, the quality of the response differs very much from place to place. There is still too much patronage.  Patronage, meaning who you know, matters more than observance of the law, or judicial process. So, if you know somebody who has a good heart, has a lot of energy as well as good intentions, that’s good, but if the person in charge is not a good person, is not experienced, is not very smart, you’re at the mercy of that person and who is around him or her so, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency in public administration is a big concern.

Shqip: In your public appearances, you’ve called on Albania to follow the examples of Croatia and Slovenia. Has there been reaction by Albania to come closer to their examples?

Ambassador Arvizu:  Well, I refer to those two countries specifically for a reason. There are many differences admittedly between the Albanian case and those two countries. You know both of them were part of the former Yugoslavia, both of them started from a much better economic base than Albania did. But the point in raising those two instances is that each country, whether it was Slovenia or Croatia, had to overcome certain difficulties. In the case of Slovenia, there was a territorial issue with Croatia. With Croatia, they were involved in a major war in the 1990s and so, even though their economic conditions were much better than Albania, there were other issues that they had to overcome. Here in Albania, I get a little frustrated sometimes because people focus on the problems or the difficulty of the impasse between the two major sides, but Albania doesn’t have some of the problems that other countries have. Minority rights are generally respected here, there is widespread tolerance for religion, Albania is a force for peace and stability in the region, so there is a lot of sense of unity and purpose in terms of what Albania means. There is a lot of national pride, patriotism. And so, Albania needs to find a way to use those kinds of advantages for the good of the country. So, that was my broader point, saying that any country in the world has to overcome issues. You can’t just say, ‘you know, in our situation, it is totally unique, totally different.’ Everybody has a unique circumstance. It can’t be an excuse for not having progress.

Shqip: When you draw this comparison, do you have in mind legal punishments and naturally the penalization of officials, or just the standards?

Ambassador Arvizu: I think both. There are issues with rule of law throughout the Balkans and, to a certain extent, the farther along a country is in terms of economic development, generally the rule of law tends to be better because they often go hand in hand. So, again, for that reason, it is understandable that there are a lot of challenges that Albania still faces. But it gets back to your question above that the fact that Albania started from a lower base; that cannot be an excuse for a lack of progress into the future.

Shqip: Mr. Ambassador, Albania remains part of those countries where not everyone is equal before the law. In your view, how could the country free itself from the model of the country where the law is always ‘captured?’

Ambassador Arvizu: I think you are getting at what to me is one of the most pressing problems, which is the culture of impunity, that the law does not apply equally to all people. I don’t have a good answer for that. The fact that the leadership of the country, and I mean the political leadership both in the ruling and the opposition camp, there is such a focus, such an obsession with politics, that there is not enough attention paid to improving the political culture, to showing that those who are elected public officials – whether they be police officers, prosecutors, judges, basically the judicial system, to be more accountable to the people. Right now, there is very little accountability and it is very painful. Yesterday, I participated in a graduation ceremony for graduates from the Magistrates School and these are going to be prosecutors and judges. These are young people, I don’t know the exact ages, if it’s in the scope of about three  years, I assume they are about 24, 25, 26 years, it shows in their faces. They are excited, they are enthusiastic, their families were there, I mean these are some of the brightest minds of Albania. My guess is that, maybe not every single one, but I’ll bet 90% of them are enthusiastic; they want to contribute to the country’s development. But in my heart, I was thinking to myself, ‘how long before they are captured?’ ‘how long before they’re sucked in the problems that are plaguing this country?’  I hope things will be better for them, that they will find the fortitude from within, to try to resist, but you know, in the end, they are all individuals, what is one person fighting against the system? So the whole system needs to protect the people who are carrying out justice, but right now the system does not do that. So, somebody who wants to do the right thing generally feel like a crusader, ‘who is going to protect me?’ And that is the problem with the lack of rule of law here, or the problems with the rule of law. I know that is not something that is going to be resolved overnight, but there needs to be some progress and maybe it is going to be a question later from you, but I just don’t see the progress, not in the year that I’ve been here.

Shqip: You do not see progress, Mr. Ambassador, but do you believe that we can come out of the legal impunity situation?

Ambassador Arvizu: I am discouraged, I’ll be honest, because for me the only way that there is going to be progress is if people wake up one day, or they wake up several days, and say, ‘we have to do things differently, there has to be a different approach, a more liberal approach.’ Let me take the example of smoking – and I know there are a lot of people smoking, I’m not trying to start a campaign to try to get people to stop smoking – but in the United States, a lot of people understand that smoking is not good for you. There are different ways to stop. There is the ‘cold turkey,’ there are gradual methods, but there is a recognition that you need to cut back and maybe if somebody is smoking four packs a day, then you get down to three, then two, than one pack day, that makes it easier to stop. So, I guess, being a realist, I’m thinking, ‘ok, if the system is smoking four packs a day, how do we get to three packs?’ But, I don’t see that. It seems like four packs a day is still going on. So, I’m discouraged by that. I know that there are a lot of courageous people in Albania, who have tried to implement change. The international community, certainly the United States and others, have implored the political class, have urged NGOs and others and politicians directly to address some of these issues, but I do not yet sense a change in the political culture. I sense that the people who are in power, but also the people who would like to be in power, the contenders, they are still operating on the same model. I talked earlier about the liberal tradition and the lack of it here. I think there is a sense on the part of the current ruling coalition that ‘we got into power this way, we can take some steps to try to address corruption, - I think they have, there have been some specific steps in business procurement, taxation, and I think the government deserves credit for that, but in terms of changing the culture, I’m not sure that is really the case. And one of my main complaints about the opposition – and I’ve said this directly to them – is ‘when I talk to you, I don’t get the sense that you would really change things.’ It’s easy to criticize the PM and his government but just from the way you talk, I don’t get the sense that you would do things much differently, maybe not differently at all. And that is what’s concerning to me, but maybe they need to be given a chance, but they have to win an election.  But it is the political culture that bothers me.

Shqip: Mr. Ambassador, we’ll continue with issues of political culture, but I’ll insist on the relationship between politics and justice. What is your opinion about the process against former Deputy PM Meta so far and what is your opinion on the issue of the expertise of the video-recording that former Minister Prifti conducted? Is it what you look for in the justice-politics rapport?

Ambassador Arvizu:  Well, a couple of points. The case is ongoing so it is generally not a good idea to get into too much detail while a case is ongoing. I can say a couple of things though and that is what is frustrating to me is that the case has been plagued by a lot of delays. The defense team does not show up, the judge is not ready. This to me, from what I understand from the legal experts, is very typical of problems with the judicial sector, where there are long delays and it doesn’t seem that a judge can hold either party in contempt of the court – in the United States, if they are not ready, that is not a good thing – so the inability of an honest judge to impose a sanction on someone for a delay, that seems to be a problem in this case and this case is like a lot of other cases. As per the expertise that you talked about, there was no official American involvement in the case. We were approached and it was my determination and Washington’s that this was not a case where we felt that we needed to bring official United States Government resources to assist, in contrast to the January 21st investigation for example. Nonetheless, again based on my recommendation, we offered a list of firms, companies, experts, that we have used in the past for training purposes, in other words, reputable firms, and it was up to the prosecution to contact them and to evaluate their services. I believe that’s what was done. You’d have to ask the Prosecutor General’s Office about specifics. For example, the American firm that was contacted, I don’t know if it was one of the ones that we had suggested. All I can say is that the firms that we recommended were some that we trusted enough to use American taxpayer money to use for training and other purposes. If the Albanian judicial system makes a determination that these firms are not qualified, I don’t have anything to say. That is a decision that they have to make on their own.

Shqip: On the January 21 investigation, did you provide a list of companies, or has there been an official engagement by the United States Government?

Ambassador Arvizu: For the January 21 investigation, the assistance is direct. It involves the FBI, laboratorial, special agents who have been assisting the prosecutors with the case, both from a standpoint of the actual logistics of the investigation, but also guiding the investigation, based on their experience in other situations. Again, it is the prosecutors who are leading the investigation, but we felt that it was so significant that the United States needed to become involved directly. There was no handoff to private companies. This has been direct United States Government assistance.

Shqip: What about January 21st expertise?  Have you offered a list of companies, or have you offered official United States assistance? 

Ambassador Arvizu: For January 21 investigation the assistance is direct.  It involves the FBI laboratory, also special agents who have been assisting the prosecutors with the case, both from a standpoint of the actual logistics of the investigation but also guiding the investigation based on their experience in other situations.  Again, it is the prosecutors who are leading the investigation, but we felt that it was so significant that the United States needed to become involved directly.  There has been no handoff to a private firm; this is direct U.S. government assistance.

Shqip: With the situation of criminality worsening in the country, what would be your suggestion on the strategy and new measures the state could take?

Ambassador Arvizu: With respect to criminality?  I think there has been some progress made in recent years. But again, the issue of the protection of the criminal elements is difficult to separate that from the culture of impunity that we talked about earlier.  We know that there are people with criminal backgrounds who have criminal associations in certain strategic parts of the society.  They are inside the government.  Again, I think there has been some progress over the years, but as long as you have people who are engaged in criminal activity who also happen to occupy official positions, yeah it is a problem.  I will say this: I have been very impressed in the last few months where we have had several cases, dealing specifically with the United States, and in some cases they involved extraditions, requests for legal assistance for crimes committed in the United States or that were connected with what we call “United States persons” and when I arrived the Minister of Justice was Mr. Nishani, now of course it is Mr Halimi – I have been very grateful both for their personal assistance and attention, and in fact, some of the assistance has led directly to major criminal convictions in the United States of very serious criminals.  At some level, things are working.  There has been progress.  I just think there needs to be more of it.

Shqip: The main issues of 2011 in Albania are at the same time ongoing processes in Albanian justice. In your opinion, how can justice part from the practice of “everlasting cases?”

Ambassador Arvizu: Well, we have spoken out, together with others in the international community about what we call procedural flaws in the judicial code but also as a matter of practice.  As we’ve seen in Albania, just because the law is right doesn’t mean that it is carried out properly.  But, immunity is a big problem.  I think immunity is abused.  There needs to be some immunity, but I think in Albania, the way it is practiced, it has long since departed from its original purpose.  The delays, again, are one of the problems we’ve identified.  The facts that sometimes hearings are held in judges’ chambers, behind closed doors with no recording – that’s a problem because that introduces the possibility of arbitrary decisions, arbitrary behavior.  These things need to be out in the open.  Part of our judicial assistance, whether it’s from AID or OPDAT, is designed to address some of these short comings.  We’ve spent a lot of American taxpayer money just on physical infrastructure just to make the court rooms larger, to have recording devices, so that all proceedings can be properly logged and recorded.  Again, these are elementary components of a functioning judicial system, so it’s being implemented.  There has been some progress, but there are still major gaps. 

Shqip: How do you see the new course of the opposition led by Mr. Rama? In your opinion, is the Albanian opposition prepared to offer a model of governance that is different from the one to date for Albanians?

Ambassador Arvizu: As far as the opposition, I like what I’ve seen since November a lot better than what I saw before November. 

Shqip: What is your opinion on the ‘Kastriot Islami’ case and how do you see internal democracy in political parties in Albania?

Ambassador Arvizu: I think everybody in the country has an opinion about Mr. Islami and that issue and it is good that people have opinions.  I have mine, but I think for the purposes of this interview, that is an internal Party matter and seems to have been conducted according to the rules of the Party.  That’s an internal party decision.

Shqip: A new debate is resurfacing in Albanian political discourse about new amendments to the constitution in the context of the presidential election. In your opinion, is it necessary that the main parties review the constitution?

Ambassador Arvizu:  I think there are a couple of ways to look at it.  Being an American, in general, we believe that revising the constitution is not something that should be taken lightly.  At the same time, you should not refuse to consider a constitutional amendment or revision if in fact that makes sense or is going to improve the administration of governance or justice in the country.  It is not something you want to take lightly, but you shouldn’t not do it if it is not going to improve things.  The decision that the leaders of the two parties took in 2008 has been roundly criticized by the small parties, by a lot of people.  Basically, a lot of people said, “Mr. Rama and Mr. Berisha made a deal, Mr. Rama did it because he thought he could beat Mr. Berisha,” and I don’t even want to go into 2009.  “So one kind of outsmarted the other one,” is the thing that I’ve heard from a lot of people.  I don’t know if that’s true, but that is what a lot of people think.  Some people are saying, “Let’s turn it back.” I don’t think a constitution should be treated that cavalierly, depending on the assessment of political leaders for this upcoming election cycle, that we should change it like that.  That’s my personal view.  There are other ways you can address your ability to win the next election without changing the constitution.  But, if there’s a sense that’s better for the country, then they ought to be able to, but I just don’t think it should be treated very lightly.  Some people are probably going to criticize me because I think Ilir Meta said that at one point, and if Ilir Meta said it, it must be “bad,” according to some people, anyway.  But just because he said it doesn’t mean that I won’t say it.  But I remember, one time I said something and they said, “Ilir Meta said that,” and I said, “So does that make it bad?  What, I can’t say something?”

Shqip: Mr. Ambassador, in the recent days the issue of the president has been resurfacing.  Do you believe the majority and the opposition will head toward consensus on the new president? Do you think the next president will be a politician or representative emerging from a political agreement between the parties?

Ambassador Arvizu: The issue of the new President is obviously going to be a very difficult one in this coming year.  Although it has been encouraging, that in recent weeks we’ve seen the opposition and the ruling camp come up with a way to select the new ombudsman, the High State Audit – that’s welcome news, but that’s a very different issue from the selection of the new President.  I’m not sure exactly what a consensual president means.  I think the important thing is, for everyone, certainly for the ruling problem but also for the opposition, to try to focus on the constitution. Again, it goes back to the constitution – what is the constitutional role of the President, and who is the best individual – the best man, the best woman – in this country for that particular position.  It is a separate institution from anything else.  I have stated many times before that I think that there has to be a separation of powers, a division of responsibilities, between the President and the Prime Minister.  I think it is better for the country if they have a generally good working relationship, a common understanding, and a respect for each other.  I don’t think it’s good if one is a rubber stamp for the other.  But if they are in open conflict, that’s not necessarily a good thing either.  If you were to ask me, “what are the qualities you look for in the next Albanian President?” I’d say that, in addition to integrity and those things, somebody who represents the country well.  Again, the President of the Republic is the Head of State.  The Prime Minister, the Head of the Government.  This is the Head of State, through the symbol of the unity of the people.  The President also has some constitutional responsibilities, especially dealing with the judiciary, and so it is especially important for the President to have a sense of integrity and vision about the country, because he or she is going to be directly involved in selecting many of the key people who are going to be charged with administering justice in this country. 

Shqip: Former PM Nano is reappearing persistently in recent days as a willing candidate for the post of the President of the Republic. What is your opinion of this reappearance and, in your opinion, will Albanians have a head of state from among the known figures of politics or might we also have new protagonists?

Ambassador Arvizu:  Are you referring specifically to him as a candidate for the next president?  He indicated he’s available, so I guess we don’t have to wonder.  Obviously, it is very early and the process has to play out.  I’ve spoken to Mr. Nano, and I know there’s another person a lot of people have opinions about, but he’s one of the most experienced politicians in the country.  I’ve said before that I think the two most dominant political figures in the first twenty years of the Republic have been Sali Berisha and Fatos Nano.  They are very different personalities, from what I can tell, but they are both, in different ways, natural politicians.  In the case of Mr. [Nano], he’s had his time.  He was the Prime Minister, he helped usher in the entry of Albania into NATO, he oversaw a very difficult transition period when Albania was in turmoil, chaos, and brought some stability to the country.  He enjoyed, I think, a good run.  There is no reason why he couldn’t come back, if that’s what the people wanted, and if he’s still willing to.  But if he doesn’t come back, and he continues to pursue life as a private citizen, I think he has a legacy that he can be proud of, too.  He’s expressed a willingness, but it is up to the people and the system to decide what role, if any, is appropriate for him. 

Shqip:  Based on what you said earlier, you talked about the integrity issue.  Does Mr. Nano fulfill that [criteria?]
Ambassador Arvizu: I think people have to decide that on their own.

Shqip: How do you see the current almost antagonistic relationship between PM Berisha and President Topi and how do you view the seemingly friendly relationship between opposition leader Rama and President Topi?

Ambassador Arvizu: It is unfortunate, I think, that only the two men could really tell you or me or anyone what the source of the problem is.  But to me, fundamentally, there is a problem of communication.  They just don’t seem to be on the same wavelength.  I know that President Topi can speak for himself – he’s going to be on a TV interview tonight – so he’ll probably address this.  But I wish that, for those two, but also for political actors in general, there was more respect for the institution.  I think that too often in Albania, the politics becomes personalized.  It is possible to not like somebody.  In fact, you might not like somebody at all, but there still ought to be respect for the institution that the man or the woman represents.  And so whether you are talking about the President of the Republic, the Speaker for the Parliament, or the Ambassador of the United States in Albania, you may not like Mr. Topi or Ms. Topalli or Mr. Arvizu, but they are in those positions, and it seems to me, need to be accorded a certain amount of respect for the institution they represent.  But, by the same token, if you are Mr. Topi, or you’re Ms. Topalli, or you are Mr. Arvizu, and you are in one of those positions, you have to conduct yourself, day in and day out, in a dignified and professional manner that brings honor and dignity on that office.  Let me talk about myself.  I have strong opinions, and I think people know, and I have been wrong before and I know I’ll be wrong again, in terms of making mistakes.  But I am mindful, every day, of everything I do, of everything I say, this interview, everything I’m saying– I realize that I am speaking as the American Ambassador in Albania, and I do so fully intending to do so in a dignified manner, because of the respect that I have for this office.  Just to reiterate, and not to belabor the point, there should be respect for the institutions that they represent but whoever has the honor of being in an institution needs to conduct himself or herself in a dignified way so that people will respect that institution and hopefully believe that the person is doing a good job.

Shqip: Just looking about for the economic perspective, in your opinion, do you think Albania could face the same fate of governance as in the neighboring countries – Greece and Italy – or is our case immune to neighboring situations?

Ambassador Arvizu: The fact that there was a change in government? That’s hard to say.  In any democratic society, the economic performance – conditions of employment, etc. – it’s the most fundamental issue.  It’s going to be the basic issue in the United States, assuming President Obama is re-nominated, and I expect he will, and whoever the Republican challenger is going to be – it will be all about the economy. There are important foreign policy considerations, but it’s all about the economy.  And, it is not surprising, because Italy and Greece are both functional democracies, economic considerations became absolutely critical. You’d asked specifically about whether or not it will affect the governance, I don’t know. There are constitutional mechanisms here to call snap elections; I don’t think it is used very often. I haven’t heard many people suggest that the conditions are ripe for early elections or anything like that.  But on the larger question of the impact of these economic problems, clearly they are being felt in Albania.  I will say this, and I don’t mean this in a political sense, but the key economic stewards of this country, and I mention Ridvan Bode, the Finance Minister, and Ardian Fullani, the Bank Governor, I think they are very good at what they do.  I think that these are very intelligent people who have an understanding of international economics. I am not an Albania citizen, so it is not my place to say this person should be retained or should be changed.  From my observations, and from those Americans who understand in depth economic trends and conditions a lot better than I do, there is a sense that these are two individuals who have a solid grasp, a very solid understanding of the situation, and who are acting accordingly. Now they are human beings. They are not infallible. People thought Alan Greenspan was a superman, and he was for a long time, until he admitted that he made some miscalculations. Again, I don’t mean that in a political sense, but it is my sense that the economic stewards in charge of these decisions do know what they are doing. 

Shqip: What could Albania improve in its partnership and representation in the NATO structures? Is there any critique that you would like to use?

Ambassador Arvizu: Being a member of NATO means a lot of things.  It is the greatest alliance the world has ever known.  In the entire world, there are only 28 countries that consider themselves part of this alliance and Albania is a member of the club.  The alliance brings certain benefits but it also brings obligations.  The benefits are that you never have to worry again about being attacked by an external neighbor because there is the collective defense mechanism, and that is something that the Albanian leadership understands very clearly.  It should also mean that defense expenditures can be rationalized, because now you don’t have to have tanks, or attack airplanes, or things like that.  You don’t need them, they are costly and they would be a waste of money.  The Albanian military establishment understands that.  But of course, being an ally entails obligations, and I will say that Albania has contributed in a very substantial way to NATO missions, right now and especially in Afghanistan, where at any given time there are probably about 350 people, acting in different capacities, including training Afghan forces, working with the New Jersey National Guard but also in other capacities, in fulfillment of NATO missions.  So as far as the NATO deployments go, I think Albania is doing very well.  The term we use is “punching above its weight.”  But again, that is not the only element of the alliance membership but it also means having a democratic system and acting in a manner that brings pride, that befits a member of the NATO alliance.  And I think Albania does that, but we talked about some of the earlier issues, about judicial challenges, the rule of law… Obviously these are things that are works in progress, and the more completely, the more quickly Albania can deal with these kinds of challenges and issues, I think will make them an even prouder member of the alliance. 

Shqip: Second to last question: One of the debates and most delicate moments between the GOA and that of Greece has to do with the agreement on the demarcation of the maritime borders between the two countries, which the Constitutional Court of Albania has rejected. Greece, including the current technical government, is persisting that the GOA abide by the agreement. Do you think this bilateral problem could influence relations between the two countries and is there a risk of it becoming international?

Ambassador Arvizu:  When you look at the map and you look at the chart it is very clear that Albania has a special relationship, in particular, with two neighbors.  And we know who those are, Italy and Greece.  Together, they form a disproportionately large percentage of commerce and economic activity, travel, education, and generally that’s a good thing.  And I think that over the years, no matter who’s in government in Tirana, any government has to figure out a way to have a good constructive relationship with Rome as well as with Athens.  On this particular issue, I know that it has been the subject of some discussion; I don’t know all the ins and outs, the specific details of this.  Obviously, it is important for the government in Albania to act in the national interest, and more often than not that entails finding out, coming up with ways to act, or to interact, in a constructive way with neighbors for mutual benefit.  As for the specific deals, as I said, I just don’t’ know, and frankly, that is something that the two sides need to deal with, but I hope that they can do so in a constructive way, because there is so much interaction between the two countries.  It is important for the two to have a constructive relationship. 

Shqip: What is your assessment of the diplomacy conducted by Mr. Berisha’s government? Especially when talking about the issue of Kosovo and Macedonia.  What do you see about the relations?

Ambassador Arvizu:  Do you mean the state to state relations, or as they relate to the ethnic Albanian communities living in the countries, or both? 

Shqip: Primarily state to state, and also between the Albanians.

Ambassador Arvizu:  Good.  I’m glad you said both.  It is difficult to separate, and that is the precise point.  Let’s talk about the state to state first, because I think that’s easier.  I think the Prime Minister deserves a lot of credit for having a very forward looking diplomacy, and very constructive relations with the neighbors.  You mentioned Kosovo, you mentioned Macedonia – I would extend that to Montenegro, I would extend that to Serbia, where the potential for a lot of friction exists, given history, but I would say the state to state relations between Belgrade and Tirana are very constructive.  There are disagreements from time to time, and naturally there are going to be disagreements.  But I think this government, this Prime Minister, deserves a lot of credit for, as I’ve said, forward looking diplomacy.  For making sure that Albania is a constructive player, a constructive force in this region, for security, for stability.  That being said, I think this is, frankly, the demand of the people living in Albania.  So if there was a different administration in place, I would like to think that the policies would largely be the same.  Any responsible government that is elected by the people of Albania, I think, is going to pursue constructive relations with the neighbors.  To me, that’s almost a given.  But the larger point about Albania… I’m learning, after a year here, the concept of what it means to be Albanian.  It is certainly the country, but then there is the sense of common heritage, ethnicity, language, religion – all of those factors.  Obviously, that has a very positive dimension to it – it is a source of patriotism, of pride, so for Albanians, whether they are living in Macedonia or Kosovo, or the United States or other parts of Europe, there is a certain bond, a kinship that they feel.  That’s a good thing, obviously.  My only issue, or concern, is moving forward is, and here I’m talking about the country of Albania, which is where the Albanians are living, that for the country, the state of Albania to make progress – democratic progress, economic progress, education, technology, all of that – and that has to happen, because the country is still underperforming in spite of its advances.  In order to do that, let’s take a look at the cold reality.  Albania is a small country, there is about 3 million people here, and although it is growing in the per capita GDP, it is still one of the poorer countries of Europe, and so, for Albania to continue to advance, it needs to find ways to integrate with the neighbors.  I’m talking about Macedonia, I’m talking about Kosovo, I’m talking about Montenegro, in particular, and certainly Greece and Italy, but I’m talking about small countries surround Albania.  And I mention them, not because Albanians are living in those countries, but because those are the neighboring countries.  And in order for Albania, and again, I’m talking about the country here, to advance, there has to be much more development in terms of economic infrastructure.  We’re talking about roads, and customs, and technology, and all these things, because these are all small countries individually, but working together, with more integrated economies, they can all prosper.  So Albanians living in Albania can prosper, Macedonians can prosper, so everybody can prosper.  We say in English “a rising tide lifts all boats.” And I think that needs to be the focus, beginning now, but especially as the country celebrates its 100 years of independence, I can think of no more appropriate way to look to the next 100 years than a national recognition of more integration, more cooperation, with the neighbors, not because of the ethnic Albania issue, but because of geography and because of the reality of the world in 2012. These are not mutually exclusive concepts – the ethnic Albania issue and the country issue. They should actually reinforce each other. But sometimes, there is a little bit too much focus on the former issue, which is the ethnic Albanian component. I think there needs to be a little bit more objective and intellectual discussion and focus about country to country issues, country to country integration and relations.