Rama's political prostitution to the detriment of the KLA

Armand Maho

The famous writer Samuel Johnson’s remark that “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels” gained renewed meaning at the Washington forum, where Edi Rama’s political prostitution (a term he himself once used) in pursuit of domestic credibility appears to have further complicated—at least politically—the situation of the four former KLA members currently on trial in The Hague before the Kosovo Specialist Chambers.

By asking the American President to intervene, in a forum where many of the world’s autocrats were gathered—figures broadly rejected by the very European Union Rama seeks to join—he revealed how he uses justice in his own country and, at the same time, attempted to subtly challenge the authority of the American President in relation to Europe.

The phrase, “For God’s sake, intervene before something bad happens,” may mislead certain commentators and feed his loyal media machinery, which presents him as a great nationalist. But at such a delicate moment for Kosovo’s four former leaders, it marked yet another diplomatic and political blunder.

This is because, in matters of justice, even within his own country, the American President does not hold absolute power—let alone in Europe. In the United States, a district judge can suspend the implementation of an executive order within his or her jurisdiction, and judicial decisions take precedence over political acts. To publicly request such intervention places the President in an awkward position before the world.

Secondly, directly or indirectly, such statements could create a situation that might be perceived as influencing the Court’s decision-making. The Kosovo Specialist Chambers are funded by the European Union, which has spent approximately €500 million to date. Hashim Thaçi, for example, was formally notified of his indictment in June 2020 while traveling by plane to Washington for a meeting with President Trump—a fact widely known, as the aircraft departed from Tirana.

On the other hand, Edi Rama himself was among the most vocal supporters in 2015 of establishing the Special Prosecutor’s Office in Pristina to try KLA members, in part to gain credibility with international actors—and also with Aleksandar Vučić, who strongly lobbied for its creation. At the same forum was Vjosa Osmani, President of Kosovo, representing a state directly affected by the Hague proceedings. Rama’s intervention, therefore, appeared entirely inappropriate and is perceived as an attempt to curry favor with international leaders for personal political benefit.

This political misstep at such a moment is not accidental. It reflects the conduct of leaders who, to protect themselves and reshape domestic narratives, gamble with the fate of four individuals—former political allies—at a critical juncture. In their confrontation with the Court, these defendants must also navigate the diplomatic perceptions of key funding states such as Germany, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom, whose political climates inevitably shape broader contexts.

Moreover, the composition of the forum itself suggested that participation was based less on democratic values than on narrow political interests and expectations of U.S. backing—support that, in Rama’s case, was notably absent. The American President’s mention of his name appeared purely protocol-driven, unlike the explicit expressions of support offered to others.

Rama’s framing of the issue at that meeting seemed designed to relativize his own domestic justice problems by shifting responsibility toward Europe. It was no coincidence that he mentioned Special Counsel Jack Smith, who, in fact, began his prosecutorial career in international tribunals long before becoming involved in investigations concerning former President Trump. Naturally, Rama did not mention his acquaintance Charles McGonigal, whom Trump has frequently cited as an example of corruption in the so-called “Russiagate” investigations.

Many leaders with questionable democratic records were present at that forum, yet it was Rama who stood out. Others may face democratic deficits at home, but they have not been accused of direct cooperation with transnational criminal networks, nor of attempting to insert themselves rhetorically into American electoral politics. Rama’s move risked placing the fate of the four former KLA figures in the service of his own political rehabilitation.

For that reason, he did not appear as a statesman seeking allies or partners, but rather as a leader seeking external validation to offset domestic vulnerabilities.