Prime Minister Edi Rama has chosen to read, through the filter of American politics, the wave of protests against the tourism project linked to Jared Kushner, suggesting that their international resonance is also tied to the clash surrounding Donald Trump. The statement comes at a time when opponents of the project are seeking answers on the environment, property and procedures.
Rama’s statement in the German media
In an interview with the German daily WELT, Rama mocked American Democrats in relation to the protests that for months have opposed the luxury project reported to have ties to the son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump.
According to his statement, the international attention toward the protests cannot be explained only by the substance of the debate in Albania, but also by what he described as Trump’s “long shadow.” In this vein, the prime minister said he had told his Democratic “friends” in the United States not to try to “take revenge” in Albania if they fail to defeat Trump in their own country.
From opposition to the project to a political protest
The protests began against the tourism development project, but later expanded into a broader movement against the government. One of the most visible symbols of the protesters has become the flamingo, used to raise alarm over the possible consequences for natural areas and bird habitats.
Opponents of the project have raised questions about environmental impact, transparency and the lack of public consultation. These are the issues that have kept the protest alive and pushed the debate beyond the country’s borders.
The government defends the investment, but questions remain
According to Rama’s version, these are two different developments: one on Sazan Island, which is public property, and another in a private area. He has argued that opposition to foreign investment should not be portrayed as the “sale” of the country, responding directly to the protesters’ slogan, “Albania is not for sale.”
The prime minister has also said that negotiations for the project are continuing and that the environmental impact will be assessed before a final decision. Nevertheless, the transparency of this process remains one of the most contested points in the debate.
The ownership issue is also under investigation
Beyond the political clash, part of the issue has also entered the sphere of criminal investigation. Ownership of part of the land linked to the project is under investigation by SPAK, amid suspicions over the property documentation.
The land’s former owner has denied any wrongdoing. On the other hand, Rama has promised full transparency for the project process and documentation, while the public debate remains open not only over the investment, but also over how it is being handled by the institutions.
Rama’s statements about political “revenge” from the United States shift the focus to a battle of narratives, but they do not diminish the main questions that brought the protests into the streets: what will happen to the environment, how public property is being administered, and how open state decision-making has really been.
With part of the case also involving SPAK, the debate does not remain merely political. It is directly tied to standards of transparency and to the credibility of institutions in the face of a project that has generated strong public opposition.