The Knife in the U.S. Embassy’s Congratulations

Alfred Lela

Sixteen days after the elections, the U.S. Embassy in Tirana ended what had become a Shakespearean suspense yesterday — but it didn’t clear up, not even slightly, the interpretations, doubts, or questions surrounding what it said.

In fact, all of them multiplied — not only because the Embassy said little while saying a lot, and simultaneously tried to say nothing at all, but also because, as usual, the two familiar camps jumped into interpretation: the government and the opposition.

If, for a moment, we set aside not just those who are interested but those who are conflicted by interest, we notice a few things.

First, the U.S. reaction came just hours after a statement in Korça by the head of the EU Mission in Tirana, Gonzato. In short, the European envoy recognized the elections without hesitation, placing only the "burden" on the government to draft and pass a more acceptable Electoral Code.
Was the timing of the Embassy’s reaction connected to that of the EU Mission?

Second, the “greeting” of the Albanian elections didn’t meet even the standard of a Caribbean microstate like Belize. In Albania, it was the Embassy that issued congratulations; in Belize, it was the State Department. In the case of Albania, the people were congratulated; in Belize, it was the winning prime minister by name.
What sharpened the irony even more was that the Embassy spoke of a partnership with the people of Albania — not the government.
Was the exclusion of Rama, the government, and the winning Socialist Party intentional or a coincidence?

Third, the delay itself — the fact that it took the Embassy 16 days to craft two sentences — fits the notion that, in diplomacy, one can speak through silence and timing, including deliberate delay.
In diplomatic tradition, partner-country embassies or the State Department itself usually respond to elections — with praise or criticism — within 3 to 4 days.

What made the U.S. Embassy break with this pattern?

Fourth, and this is not about the statement itself, but rather the context it created: U.S. policy toward political parties in Tirana has changed. Or more precisely, it has normalized.
There is a history of hitting the right — both in government and in opposition — that began with Ambassador Withers, was interrupted by Ambassador Arvizu, and returned, almost pathologically, under the last ambassador, Ms. Kim.

In this sense, the Embassy’s statement was a declaration of return to normality, to clarity, a stepping away from theatricality and damaging over-involvement.
This time, the Embassy spoke as the representative of a friendly country, not as a partner or mentor to one political side.

What stands out is that, while the Embassy “congratulates” the Albanian people for the “choice” they made, it does not attempt to define who or what constitutes Albania’s opposition.

Looking at the frothing commentary of media aligned with the government, one sees what the real concern is: “Rruga e Elbasanit” no longer speaks on behalf of Rama or Veliaj, or via Soros or Charles McGonigal.
The old partnerships have fallen away — and while how the new ones will look is not the topic here, Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Conference, and who the next U.S. Ambassador to Tirana will be, will certainly play a role.