In a stirring interview with Serbian public broadcaster RTS, Professor James Pettifer, a leading scholar of Balkan history at University of Oxford, addressed the contentious label of terrorism applied to the Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës (UÇK). His remarks highlight how perspective and politics shape the narrative of conflict — particularly in the tumultuous history of Kosovo.
 |
| Screenshot of Professor James Pettifer at a Serbian TV |
“One of the topics you deal with is the UÇK… You consider it a terrorist organisation. In fact the United States also considered it as such until June 1998… When Richard Holbrooke met with the UÇK leadership. Was that a turning point in U.S. policy?” asked the Serbian journalist.
“As we know, those who are terrorists to some are freedom fighters to others,” responded Pettifer. “You can see that every day on television in the case of Palestine. Nobody in the world agrees what exactly a ‘terrorist’ is.”
The UÇK and the Question of Terminology
The UÇK, formed amid the tensions in Kosovo during the 1990s, waged armed struggle for the rights and self-determination of the ethnic Albanian majority. What Professor Pettifer emphasises is that:
-
Labels like “terrorist organisation” are not fixed universal definitions but often reflect political vantage points and timing.
-
Until mid-1998, U.S. policy regarded the UÇK as a terrorist entity; that changed following the meeting between the U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke and UÇK leadership.
Pettifer argues that the same group of people may be demonised in one narrative and glorified in another — depending on who holds power, who interprets history, and who writes it.
From Pettifer’s perspective, the UÇK’s armed resistance against the regime of Slobodan Milošević is an example of a liberation movement that, while controversial, attained success — and thus legitimacy (at least for some). He has previously described it as “perhaps the first successful insurgent movement in Europe after the Second World War.”
Why Pettifer’s View Matters
Professor Pettifer is widely recognized for his expertise on the Balkans and has authored major works on modern Balkan history.
His commentary thus offers a credible lens through which to examine the Kosovo conflict and its ongoing legacy.
By framing the UÇK in the context of freedom fighters rather than mere terrorists, Pettifer invites reconsideration of:
-
Historical memory: How Kosovo Albanians remember the war and the role of UÇK in securing self-determination.
-
International law and justice: The problem of how victory changes the meaning of armed struggle, and how winners and losers are judged.
-
Labeling in conflict: The shifting meaning of "terrorism" reveals as much about those who apply the label as those to whom it is applied.
In the interview Pettifer also noted that the upcoming opening of more government archives will cast new light on the 1990s conflict, suggesting that the dominant narratives could shift further.
Recognising the UÇK’s Role
While giving his analysis, Pettifer did not shy away from acknowledging the complexity of wartime behaviour and post-war accountability. Yet his praise for UÇK — their organisation, courage, and effectiveness — stands out. The message is clear:
UÇK engaged in a legitimate struggle for freedom — and should be understood within that broader ethical and political frame, rather than dismissed merely as terrorists.
He also implicitly contrasts UÇK’s struggle with the repressive policies of Milošević’s Serbia, remarking that Milošević failed to grasp the threat posed by UÇK, especially in Kosovo’s rugged terrain and among its diaspora-backed funding streams.
Thus, the article you’re reading is a testament to both UÇK’s significance in Kosovo’s liberation and to Pettifer’s standing as a historian willing to challenge entrenched narratives.
Why This Matters Today
The legacy of the Kosovo war continues to shape politics, law, and memory across the region. Professor Pettifer’s remarks carry relevance in several ways:
-
Memory politics: The way UÇK is remembered affects national identity in Kosovo, diplomatic relations with Serbia, and diaspora narratives.
-
Transitional justice: Accountability for alleged wartime crimes is ongoing. Understanding UÇK’s foundational role provides context for the complexities around war-crime trials and political results.
-
Labels and legitimacy: What one state calls “terrorism,” another may call “liberation” — a reminder that international policy and media narratives can change, sometimes abruptly.
-
International implications: The U.S. shift in how it regarded UÇK reflects how major powers may pivot based on strategic interests, not purely on moral or legal certainties.
Honour Where It’s Due
We recognise and honour the sacrifices of the UÇK, whose members fought under extremely difficult circumstances for the freedom of Kosovo. It is only fair to place their struggle in context and give them the respect they are due. At the same time, the crimes and controversies of war should not be ignored — but neither should the courage of those who stood up against oppression.
Professor Pettifer’s commentary helps illuminate why the UÇK resonate as symbols of freedom for many, and why dismissing them under the label of “terrorists” alone may miss the full story.
In sum:
-
Professor James Pettifer offers a powerful reminder that the question who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter often depends on perspective, timing, and power.
-
His defence of the UÇK as fighters for freedom, and his critique of labels imposed from without, challenge simplistic narratives of the Kosovo war.
-
For Kosovo Albanians and for those studying the war, his remarks reinforce that the UÇK played a central, transformative role — not simply a violent fringe group.
-
History is still being written: as archives open and new research emerges, our understanding of the conflict, the UÇK, and Milošević’s policies may continue to evolve.