For decades, Ambassador Christopher Hill has been one of the most influential American diplomats in the Balkans and a key figure in the negotiations surrounding the Kosovo conflict. In a recent exclusive interview for Euronews Albania, on the program “Now with Erla Mëhilli,” Hill opened up about one of the most sensitive decisions of his career — his choice to testify in The Hague in the ongoing trial against former President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi. His testimony, as he described, was driven not by pressure, politics, or personal involvement, but by what he called a deep moral responsibility.
 |
| Screenshof of Christopher Hill while at Euronews Albania |
A Decision Motivated by Moral Duty, Not Political Pressure
Ambassador Hill emphasized that his decision to testify in The Hague was entirely voluntary and rooted in conscience. According to him, no political influence, no diplomatic instruction, and no personal request from Hashim Thaçi motivated his participation.
Hill stated clearly:
“He did not ask me for support. I spoke with some people because I thought it was a moral responsibility.”
During the war, Hill traveled extensively throughout Kosovo, visiting not only Prishtina but also numerous villages that had suffered from violence and atrocities. While he acknowledged the undeniable presence of war crimes committed during that period — both by Serbian forces against Albanians and isolated cases on the other side — he insisted that he never encountered any evidence that linked Thaçi personally to killings or orders to commit crimes.
Hill stressed:
“I never saw Hashim Thaçi kill people or give orders to kill people. I saw no such thing.”
For Hill, keeping silent while someone he believed innocent of direct wrongdoing remained in detention for almost five years would have been morally unacceptable. Testifying, even under intense cross-examination, became an obligation of honesty.
Reframing the Narrative of the UÇK and Command Structure
One of the most crucial aspects of Hill’s interview involves his explanation of the structure and functioning of the Kosovo Liberation Army (UÇK) during the conflict. Prosecutors have argued that the UÇK operated as a vertically centralized organization, where orders given by leadership figures such as Thaçi were carried out systematically.
Hill rejected this assumption as historically inaccurate.
“This was an exaggeration of the vertical organization of the UÇK.”
He explained that the UÇK was not a strictly controlled military body with a single pyramidal hierarchy. Instead, it operated with numerous autonomous actors, local commanders, and regional units that often acted independently. In his words, it was far from the rigid structure that some prosecutors describe today.
Hill also mentioned that even during negotiations in Rambouillet, Thaçi did not possess unilateral, unquestioned authority within the UÇK. Decisions were not always immediately accepted, and internal disagreements were common. This context, he stressed, is essential for judges to understand when evaluating claims of command responsibility.
The Importance of Evidence Over Assumptions
Throughout the interview, Hill insisted that justice must be based on concrete evidence, not interpretations of political influence or assumptions about wartime structures. His testimony in The Hague focused precisely on this principle.
“This has to be a trial based on evidence.”
As someone who witnessed the conflict firsthand, Hill believed he had an obligation to share his observations honestly. Not because he claimed to know everything, as he cautiously noted, but because silence could have contributed to an injustice.
His statements align with growing concerns among Albanians that the Special Court (Dhomat e Specializuara) has imposed disproportionately harsh measures on former UÇK leaders, holding them in prolonged detainment without final judgment.
How Will the Trial End? Hill’s Cautious Reflection
When asked about the potential conclusion of the trial, Ambassador Hill avoided speculation. With characteristic diplomatic restraint, he said:
“I wish I knew. I wish I had a machine to show me the future…”
His response highlights the uncertainty surrounding a judicial process that carries immense emotional and political weight for Kosovo and Albanians worldwide. What remains clear, however, is that Hill believes his testimony was necessary to ensure the judges understand the realities of that period — not through theory, but through lived experience.
Why Hill’s Words Matter for Albanians
For many Albanians, both in Kosovo and abroad, Christopher Hill has long been regarded as one of the international diplomats who understood the complexities of the conflict and the aspirations of the Albanian population. His testimony for Thaçi symbolizes not only personal integrity but also a reminder of the broader truth: the Kosovo war was a defensive struggle, and the narrative of responsibility must be grounded in facts, not distortions.
As Kosovo navigates its path toward international recognition, justice, and historical clarity, voices like Hill’s continue to play a powerful role.