NOTE to students: Read the “Background” and watch the videos under “Resources” before answering the questions.

1. The first paragraph of a news article should answer the questions who, what, where and when. List the who, what, where and when of this news item. (NOTE: The remainder of a news article provides details on the why and/or how.)

2. Why is any agreement between the two countries historic? Be specific.

3. a) Define normalize and broker as used in this article.
b) What have the two countries agreed to do as they normalize economic ties?

4. After years of others making no progress in brokering ties between the two countries, what different approach to negotiations did President Trump direct his team to take?

5. Biagio Carrano (who appears to be no fan of Donald Trump) wrote about the U.S.-brokered agreement between Kosovo and Serbia at SerbianMonitor .com on Sept. 6, 2020:

This was an act of strength and authority on the part of the Americans, who pushed Serbia and Kosovo, to accept commitments and impositions they had avoided for decades. …

China has suffered a decisive setback since Serbia will be forced to renounce the 5G developed by Huawei, effectively annulling all the most meaningful developments, in terms of control and data analysis, of the agreements signed on the subject by Xi Jinping during his visit to Serbia of June 2016.

Russia finds itself displaced with respect to its geopolitical strategy in the Balkans by a single sentence of the agreement: “the parties will diversify their energy sources”, that is, they will not have to rely on TurkStream, which leg in the Balkans (the oil pipeline is not surprisingly named Tesla) was to carry Russian gas from Greece to North Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary, reaching Austria. Richard Grenell, Trump’s special envoy for Serbia and Kosovo, had already been categorical with (Serbian President) Vucic in previous meetings regarding this matter.

Turkey, historical sponsor of Kosovars and Albanian irredentists, must accept the opening of diplomatic relations between Kosovo and Israel. Serbia, on the other hand, has been forced to go further and move the diplomatic representation from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, weakening the European position of “two peoples, two states”, definitively renouncing the historical affinity with the Palestinian cause and aligning itself even more with the United Arab Emirates, which signed the peace agreement with Israel just a week ago.

…[Israel] not only collects recognition from Kosovo, the Serbian diplomatic seat relocated in Jerusalem, the return of Jewish properties stolen during the Holocaust, but even an entire point is dedicated to the commitment that Serbia and Kosovo must demonstrate against Hezbollah in order not to have the Shiite organization operate in their territories.

Meanwhile, several U.S. media outlets have dismissed the agreement, saying its not a real agreement and will have no real impact on the region, or that "Experts, including many former U.S. officials who spent years working in the Balkans, say avoiding the politics is unrealistic".

What do you think: should the Trump administration’s attempts to establish ties between long-time enemies Serbia and Kosovo be commended (as Mr. Carrano does) or dismissed as not really significant or historic? Explain your answer. (Ask a parent or grandparent: what do you think of the success or unimportance of the agreement? Please explain your answer.)