Britain has been thrown a migrant crisis lifeline as Kosovo’s Prime Minister Albin Kurti declared he “wants to help the UK” by offering to accept rejected asylum seekers in exchange for enhanced security assistance.
Kurti said Kosovo aims to help Britain combat illegal immigration in return for greater support to strengthen its national security against threats from Serbia and Russia.
The offer makes Kosovo the first country to express concrete interest in Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to establish return hubs where failed asylum seekers would be sent after exhausting all appeals – though the proposal comes with strings attached.
“Obligation” to Repay Britain
Speaking before a summit of Western Balkan leaders hosted by Starmer in London on Wednesday, Kurti said his government felt an “obligation” to repay Britain for its leading role in the 1990s peacekeeping force that protected Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic’s regime.
“We want to help the UK,” Kurti stated when asked whether Kosovo would accept migrants from Britain.
“We consider that is our friendly and political duty. We have limited capacity but still we want to help.”
The invocation of historical debt demonstrates how Kosovo views the arrangement through a lens of reciprocal obligation rather than purely transactional exchange.
Talks Already Underway
Kurti revealed that discussions between British and Kosovan officials are already in progress.
“As we speak there is regular communication between our teams of state officials from our ministry of internal affairs and lawyers about how to do this smoothly for mutual benefit,” he explained.
The existence of ongoing negotiations suggests the proposal has progressed beyond vague expressions of interest into concrete technical discussions about implementation.
Security Equipment and Intelligence Expected
In return for accepting rejected asylum seekers, Kurti said he expected extra support from Britain regarding security equipment and intelligence-sharing to combat Serbian and Russian threats.
Kosovo faces persistent tensions with Serbia, which refuses to recognise its independence, and concerns about Russian influence destabilising the region.
British military expertise, surveillance technology and intelligence cooperation would significantly enhance Kosovo’s capacity to defend itself against these perceived threats.
“Limited Capacity” Acknowledged
Importantly, Kurti acknowledged Kosovo has “limited capacity” to accept migrants – suggesting any arrangement would involve modest numbers rather than solving Britain’s migration challenges wholesale.
Kosovo is a small, relatively poor Balkan nation still recovering from conflict and building its institutions, meaning it cannot realistically accommodate thousands of deportees.
The acknowledgment of limitations contrasts with the Rwanda scheme’s ambitious plans to accept potentially unlimited numbers.
First to Express Interest
The proposal makes Kosovo the first country to publicly express interest in Starmer’s return hub concept after the Prime Minister scrapped the Rwanda deportation deal upon taking office.
Labour criticised the Conservative Rwanda scheme as expensive, unworkable and immoral throughout opposition, yet now finds itself pursuing essentially identical arrangements with different countries.
Summit Not Formally Discussing Returns
Significantly, the topic of return hubs was not on the Western Balkan summit’s formal agenda, though Starmer hoped to open talks with attending countries.
The off-agenda nature of the discussions suggests sensitivity about publicly pursuing deportation deals that might prove controversial domestically or internationally.
Montenegro Open if Britain Invests
Montenegro’s Prime Minister Milojko Spajic said his country would be open to hosting a return hub – but only if Britain invested significantly in its infrastructure.
The conditional offer reveals that Balkan nations view these arrangements as opportunities to extract investment and development funding from desperate Western governments.
Any deal with Montenegro would likely require Britain funding roads, hospitals or other infrastructure projects worth tens or hundreds of millions of pounds.
Bosnia Says Absolutely Not
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s three-member presidency – serving collectively as head of state – firmly rejected any involvement.
The country has “no intention, nor any willingness, to enter into any agreement” on return hubs, they stated.
Bosnia’s flat refusal demonstrates that not all Balkan nations see Britain’s migrant crisis as an opportunity worth exploiting.
Albania: “Never”
Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama was equally adamant about his country’s position.
“I repeat … Never in Albania,” he declared emphatically.
Albania’s rejection is particularly significant given its geographic position and existing migration connections to Britain, with Albanian nationals representing one of the largest groups crossing the Channel.
Approached Multiple Countries
The Times previously reported that Britain had approached Kosovo and North Macedonia along with other nations outside Europe to establish return hubs.
The breadth of countries contacted reveals the government’s desperation to find any willing partners after Rwanda’s scheme collapsed.
Echoes of Rwanda
The Kosovo proposal bears striking similarities to the Rwanda deportation scheme Labour vociferously opposed whilst in opposition.
Both involve paying third countries to accept Britain’s unwanted asylum seekers rather than processing claims domestically.
The main differences lie in geography, cost and which party happens to be in government.
Legal and Practical Challenges
Even if Kosovo agrees in principle, numerous legal and practical obstacles must be overcome before deportations could commence.
International law requires countries accepting deportees to properly process asylum claims rather than simply warehousing failed applicants.
Kosovo’s “limited capacity” raises questions about whether it could provide adequate accommodation, legal representation and services for deportees.
Starmer faces accusations of hypocrisy for pursuing return hub deals after lambasting the Rwanda scheme as cruel and unworkable.
Labour’s moral arguments against offshore processing look increasingly hollow as the government scrambles to find countries willing to accept deportees.
However, Starmer can argue that unlike Rwanda, Kosovo has historical ties to Britain and frames the arrangement as reciprocal rather than purely mercenary.
Question of Numbers
Kosovo’s acknowledgment of “limited capacity” raises fundamental questions about whether this arrangement could meaningfully reduce Channel crossings.
If Kosovo can only accept hundreds rather than thousands of failed asylum seekers, the deterrent effect would be minimal.
Migrants and smuggling gangs would quickly calculate that the odds of actually being deported to Kosovo remain negligible.
Balkan Instability Concerns
Sending rejected asylum seekers to a region facing ongoing ethnic tensions and security threats raises humanitarian concerns.
Kosovo’s need for British security assistance against Serbia and Russia underscores that it remains an unstable environment.
Human rights advocates will question whether it’s appropriate to send vulnerable people to countries requiring military support to defend against existential threats.
Transactional Geopolitics
The proposal exemplifies how migration has become a tool of transactional geopolitics, with countries trading deportee acceptance for security assistance, infrastructure investment or diplomatic support.
Kosovo views Britain’s migrant crisis as leverage to extract resources and support for its own security challenges.
As Starmer’s government pursues these Balkan return hub deals, the gap between Labour’s opposition rhetoric and governing reality grows ever wider, whilst practical questions about numbers, costs and effectiveness remain unanswered.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
Image Credit:
Albin Kurti — photo by Xavier Lejeune / European Union, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (commons.wikimedia.org)
