Interview with Albanian-American David Perlleshi: The verdict against Thaçi is unjust, Grenell’s criticism of a political process should be taken seriously

David Perlleshi, an Albanian-American businessman and broker, managing director of self-storage investment sales at Franklin Street, speaks to Journal Magazine after the 16 September verdict against Hashim Thaçi. He argues that the ruling must be read as a whole: not as a trial of an individual cut off from the war, and not without remembering why the KLA existed, amid violence, forced displacement and the Serbian campaign against Kosovo’s Albanian civilians.

Perlleshi does not place any individual above the law. He separates accountability for a proven act from the rewriting of an entire liberation movement. For him, the diaspora’s reaction after the verdict was immediate and, in large part, anger, because for Albanian-Americans that history remains personal. He takes seriously Richard Grenell’s criticism, which called the sentence scandalous and the prosecution politically motivated.

Until 27 November, the deadline for filing an appeal notice, Perlleshi leaves the appeal to the lawyers. The diaspora’s role, he says, is different: a disciplined voice for justice, impartiality and due process, not revenge. A just outcome, in his view, protects two things at once: individual responsibility based on evidence, and the historical truth that Kosovo’s war for freedom was a legitimate fight for liberty.

This piece was prepared for issue 4 of Journal Magazine, on Rubio, Grenell and the Thaçi proceedings in The Hague.

Journal Magazine: In your talk with Nik Gjonaj you said the Thaçi verdict has to be read as a whole. What do you mean by that?

David Perlleshi: When we say you have to look at this as a whole, I mean you cannot look at Hashim Thaçi or the KLA without understanding why the KLA existed in the first place.

The KLA did not emerge randomly. Kosovo Albanians were facing repression, violence, forced displacement, genocide and atrocities at the hands of Serbian forces. That history matters. International courts themselves have found that Serbian and Yugoslav forces carried out an organized campaign of violence against Kosovo Albanian civilians, including killings and the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

That doesn't mean individuals should be above the law. They shouldn't be. But there is a difference between holding someone accountable for a specific act that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and allowing a judgment to rewrite the history of an entire liberation movement.

That was really the point Nik and I were discussing. The KLA answered the call when Kosovo Albanians were fighting for their survival, their freedom and ultimately their right to determine their own future. You cannot put the entire KLA or Kosovo's struggle for freedom on trial.

I also believe there has been a political element surrounding this process that cannot simply be ignored. Richard Grenell has now publicly characterized these prosecutions as politically motivated. Whether someone agrees with him or not, that criticism deserves to be taken seriously rather than dismissed.

Journal Magazine: How did the Albanian-American community react in the days after the 16 September judgment?

The reaction was emotional, immediate and, from what I saw, overwhelmingly one of disappointment and anger.

For Albanian-Americans, this isn't some distant historical event. Almost every Albanian family has a connection to what happened in Kosovo. People lost relatives. Families were displaced. People left their lives in America and Europe to answer the call in Kosovo. That history is still very personal.

And you saw that reaction publicly. Albanian-Americans demonstrated in Times Square the day after the judgment and later outside the United Nations. Similar demonstrations occurred throughout the diaspora.

I think much of the anger comes from a feeling that history is being viewed without its full context. People see men who helped fight for Kosovo's liberation receiving decades in prison, and naturally ask whether justice has been applied equally to everyone responsible for what happened in that war.

That's why this goes beyond Thaçi. For many Albanians, the concern is about how history will remember the KLA and Kosovo's fight for freedom. Whatever judgment is ultimately made about individuals, the KLA and Kosovo's struggle for liberation should not be put on trial alongside them.

Journal Magazine: From where you sit, what has Richard Grenell said about the case, and what does that mean for Kosovo?

David Perlleshi: Grenell has been extremely clear. He called Thaçi's conviction "outrageous," described the prosecutions as political and called for American funding of the process to stop. He went even further and argued that Kosovo's political leadership should move to dissolve the Specialist Chambers.

I think his comments matter because they challenge the idea that questioning this process somehow means being against justice or the rule of law. You can believe deeply in justice and still believe that a judicial process has become politicized.

For Kosovo, I think the larger lesson is that we cannot be afraid to question institutions simply because they are international institutions. Justice has to be justice regardless of who administers it.

And I think there is a broader historical question here. The Balkans have spent generations living with borders, political arrangements and conflicts heavily influenced by outside powers. There is something difficult about seeing international institutions now make definitive judgments about people who emerged from conflicts shaped by that history.

That doesn't mean Kosovo should turn away from America or the West. Quite the opposite. America played an extraordinary role in Kosovo's freedom, and the relationship between Kosovo and the United States is incredibly important. But friendship should also allow us to say when we believe something is wrong.

Journal Magazine: What is the State Department’s line, as you understand it, under Secretary Rubio?

David Perlleshi: The State Department's position following the verdict has been different from Grenell's. A State Department spokesperson said the United States respects the verdict, supports accountability, due process and the rule of law, and called on all sides to respect the court's decision and avoid inflammatory rhetoric.

I respect the State Department and Secretary Rubio, but my personal view is different on this ruling.

At the same time, I think it's important not to confuse disagreement over this case with America's position toward Kosovo itself. Secretary Rubio has said this year that the United States remains unwavering in its support for Kosovo's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

That's important to me because sovereignty is at the center of how I look at this entire issue.

Whenever a people are fighting for their freedom, their sovereignty, and the right to exist and govern themselves on their own land, I believe that cause is not only noble, but it is a divine right and a fundamental duty of survival. That doesn't mean every action taken during war is automatically justified. It means the fundamental cause of freedom, self-determination, and the preservation of a people should never itself be criminalized.

America should understand that principle better than almost any country in the world. Our own country exists because people decided that they had the right to determine their own future.

Journal Magazine: The appeal notice deadline is 27 November. What can the diaspora usefully do before that date?

David Perlleshi: First, the diaspora needs to stay engaged, informed and unified. The November 27 deadline is real. The Appeals Panel extended the deadline for both the defense and prosecution to file notices of appeal.

But we also need to understand our role. The legal appeal belongs to the attorneys and has to be fought through the legal process. The diaspora's role is different.

We can peacefully make our voices heard. We can communicate with our elected representatives. We can ask American policymakers to scrutinize the process, demand fairness and insist that Kosovo's history and the circumstances surrounding its liberation are not rewritten through a judicial proceeding.

But I think our message needs to remain disciplined: justice, fairness and due process. Not revenge and not hostility toward institutions simply because we disagree with an outcome.

We should be asking difficult questions and demanding that the appellate process be completely free from political influence. If there were errors in the judgment, the appeal process exists to correct them.

Journal Magazine: What outcome would you consider a fair result for Kosovo and for the people named in the judgment?

David Perlleshi: For me, a fair result is one based purely on evidence, justice and fairness. Not politics and one that does not allow the prosecution of individuals to become a prosecution of Kosovo's liberation.

I believe this judgment deserves to be overturned or materially corrected on appeal if the appellate judges conclude that the findings cannot withstand that scrutiny.

And I think history matters here.

There are moments when the judgment of a court and the judgment of history are not ultimately the same thing.

Nelson Mandela is probably one of the clearest examples. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment after the Rivonia Trial. Today, the world remembers Mandela not primarily as a convicted prisoner, but as one of history's great symbols of liberation and reconciliation. That doesn't make Mandela's circumstances identical to Thaçi's, and I don't pretend that they are. My point is about the lens through which history eventually views struggles for freedom.

I believe one day we may look back at this ruling in a very different way. We may conclude that politics influenced a process that should have rested solely on the pillars of justice and fairness.

America's own history teaches us something similar. This country was born because people decided they had the right to freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.

That principle is bigger than Kosovo, America or any one individual.

Whenever a people fight for their freedom, their sovereignty and the right to determine their own future on their own land, that cause should never be treated as inherently wrong. History has repeatedly shown that struggles for freedom can be difficult, imperfect and sometimes violent. That does not mean every act committed in those struggles is justified. It means we cannot lose sight of why the struggle existed in the first place.

Kosovo exists today because people were willing to fight for that freedom and because the United States and our allies ultimately recognized that something had to be done.

So for me, a fair outcome protects two things at the same time: individual justice based on actual evidence, and the historical truth that Kosovo's fight for freedom was a legitimate struggle for freedom.

And whatever happens to the individuals named in this judgment, Kosovo's liberation and the men and women who answered that call should never be put on trial with them/Journal Magazine/