What are the effects of resolutions? of the European Parliament? The rule of law, the end of repression, reforms of the judicial system, free elections with the full and inclusive implementation of all ODIHR recommendations, the establishment of a functional REM, harmonization of foreign policy Serbia with the EU - how realistic are these requirements? Does the European People's Party actually protect Vučić if we consider the influence of Germany (ever since Angela Merkel), and there is also the support of France. What is the essence of the disharmony between the European Parliament and the European Commission, what are the conflicting interests, and what is the true role of the European Council in those relations when we talk about Serbia's position? What does this tell us about the EU, do the partial interests of its most important members (such as Germany and France) actually decide on the real policy towards Serbia? Whether Vučić follows that game well and directs himself where he should - towards economic goods and readiness for trade - are questions for Branka Latinović, vice-president of the Forum for International Relations of the European Movement in Serbia, Bojana Selaković, Coordinator of the National Convention on the European Union, and Jelica Minič from the European Movement in Serbia.
BRANKA LATINOVIĆ
"The effects of such resolutions are significant and multiple. The public's perception in Serbia of the importance of these documents is focused, first of all, on media attention - that is, on the extent to which the adoption of the resolutions and their content attracted the media's interest and to what extent the debate itself is reported. It is undeniably important, especially for the domestic public, but that presence, like most other information, is short-lived. It generally lasts as long as the event itself, that is, the debate and the comments that follow," he says. Branka Latinović continues: "That is one dimension of the story, but not the only one. There are other dimensions that are longer lasting and therefore significantly more significant. When the resolution is adopted, it becomes a permanent document that is archived and represents an important political tool - or, rather, a source on which parliaments, ministries of foreign affairs, various scientific institutes, think tanks (think tanks) centers and other analysts when preparing views and information about Serbia. Likewise, these documents are used by journalists in newsrooms around the world for similar needs."
In the latest report, the European Commission stated that Serbia is stagnating, that it is regressing in reforms, that there is no progress in negotiations with the European Union, and that a strong anti-European narrative is being nurtured in the country, reminds Branka Latinović. "According to unnamed sources reported by European media with good contacts in Brussels, the European Commission stated in its recommendation to the EU member states - as the reasons for which it proposes to finally approve the opening of negotiations on Cluster 3 to Serbia - that Belgrade has started implementing some elements related to these conditions. It is mentioned that the process of implementing the recommendations of the Venice Commission has begun, that new laws are being passed in the parliament based on the recommendations of the ODIHR and the like. It is interesting that, according to those sources, the European Commission, as elements on On the basis of which he appreciates that Serbia is increasingly harmonizing its foreign policy with the European Union, he stated that Serbia has increased humanitarian aid to Ukraine and intensified contacts with its officials at a high level. During the debate on Serbia in the European Parliament, the statement of Marta Kos was also on those lines. However, despite the positive recommendation of the European Commission, Serbia did not receive approval for the opening of Cluster 3 at this stage because at the meeting held on July 8, eight ambassadors of the EU member states were against it. "It is evident", continues Latinović, "that the echo of the debate about Serbia in the European Parliament is spreading and that this is inevitably reflected in other institutions. The number of countries that deny consensus when it comes to Serbia is not decreasing - it is constant. It should be borne in mind that three other members (Denmark, Luxembourg and Lithuania) had equally serious objections, but in the end did not vote against. Hence, the Resolution of the European Parliament cannot be considered just a mild warning; it is much more than In all this, it should be borne in mind that the government in Serbia, including the majority of deputies in the National Assembly, has an underestimating and insulting attitude towards the European Parliament, especially towards those parliamentarians who worked on writing this resolution, which is also stated in the text of the document itself."
photo: apEUROPEAN COMMISSION (ANTONIO COSTA AND URSULA VON DER LEYEN): ...into the board
INFLUENCES AND POWER GAMES
When asked about Angela Merkel's possible influence on Germany's relationship with Serbia, Branka Latinović says that "after the arrival of Friedrich Merz as chancellor of Germany, we should not expect Angela Merkel to be able to significantly influence through the party she belongs to. The reason is clear - the two did not cooperate well when Merkel was at the head of the party and the government. This is rather about the good personal relations that Angela Merkel has with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the French President, Emmanuel Macron, considering that that von der Leyen's first choice for this position was exactly the proposal of Merkel and Macron". And he continues: "Based on the information that has reached the public, it was France that strongly pleaded for Serbia to be granted the opening of Cluster 3. The reasons are not only Macron's good personal relations with Vučić, but also the large investment projects that France has in Serbia. Paris wants to strengthen its economic interests through political support on the way to the EU. That is why French diplomacy often consciously turns a blind eye to problems with respect for political freedoms and civil rights in the country, the threat of which is explicitly mentioned in this Belgrade resolution".
According to Branka Latinović, "Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić managed to follow that game quite successfully. He recognized current trends, in which he undoubtedly had the help of various foreign advisers that he hired himself or were sent to him. The public found out that one of them, an adviser from Germany, was financed by the German state itself. That kind of support was helpful, but such a model also has its limits. Some projects were not implemented or were put on long-term hold, so their final execution uncertain. This does not only happen in Serbia - Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama is currently in an identical situation. Such a pragmatic, transactional policy, although it brings short-term benefits, does not guarantee long-term strategic success on the European road," concludes the "Vremena" interviewee.
BOJANA SELAKOVIĆ
"The European Parliament has once again done what is its role: to say out loud what many others in the European institutions say much more quietly," says Bojana Selaković for "Vreme". "This latest report is not legally binding and in itself will not change the situation in Serbia. It will not stop the repression, it will not reform the judiciary or ensure free elections, but it would be wrong to conclude that it has no significance," adds B. Selaković and continues: "European politics functions like a river with many streams. The European Parliament is the conscience of the European Union. The European Council, i.e. the member states, are its instinct for survival, and the European Commission tries to reconcile the two. When all these three streams flow in the same direction, European politics is clear. in different directions, a space is created that Vučić has been using for years".
When asked why this resolution is important, B. Selaković says: "It is important because it further narrows the space for the government's narrative. The European Parliament did not only criticize the state of democracy. It rejected the construction of a 'sound cannon', disputed the reference to the FSB report as a basis for discrediting citizens, condemned the campaign against students, journalists, activists and European deputies and expressed concern about political ties with the Communist Party of China. These are no longer general formulations about the need for reforms, but concrete political ones messages". Will it have consequences for the local regime, we ask? "It depends on the other two levels of European decision-making", says the interlocutor of "Vremena". "We bear witness that after strong and loud criticism coming from the Parliament for more than two and a half years, even the Commission somewhat revised its attitude towards Serbia and agreed, for example, to raise the standards for the opening of Cluster 3 in Serbia and to meet the demands of some member states, although, according to its report, Serbia is ready for this as early as 2021. At the same time, the European Union today is not speeding up enlargement because it believes that the candidates have become champions of reforms overnight, but because it estimates that the price of their remaining outside the European political space could become greater than the risk of their gradual inclusion.”
Ukraine, we note, is opening clusters while the war is still raging on its territory, and they are closing in Albania at a time when millions of its citizens are demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Rama due to possible corruption and misuse of public assets. "That, however", says Bojana Selaković, "does not mean that democratic standards have become unimportant. On the contrary. Precisely because it wants to speed up the geopolitical rapprochement of the candidates, the European Commission must be much more careful not to lose its own credibility. That is why today it observes the state of the rule of law, election conditions, REM, the implementation of ODIHR recommendations and judicial reform much more carefully than it did a few years ago."
And despite that, does the European People's Party (EPP) or individual member states protect Aleksandar Vučić? "The reality is more complex than that," says Bojana Selaković. "For years, the European People's Party was Aleksandar Vučić's most important political and lobbying channel in the European institutions. Belonging to the largest political family in Europe allowed the SNS to have access to the most influential European leaders and was an important source of political legitimacy. However, in recent months, a change has been visible. Not only do EPP MPs vote for reports and resolutions of the European Parliament on Serbia, including harsh assessments of the state of democracy, the rule of law and repression of students and citizens, but the EPP leadership itself initiated the process of reviewing whether the SNS still meets the political and value criteria for membership in that political family. This is not the same as suspension or exclusion, but it is a political signal that even among the most important European partners of the SNS, there is a growing awareness that the current model of relations with Serbia can no longer be maintained without a serious review."
HUNTING IN MUTNO
When asked how she comments on the publication of data on the engagement of Jorg Heskens, the meetings regarding the "Jadar" project and the intensive communication with the German government, Bojana Selaković says that these data "show how directly some member states were involved in the development of that project. This in itself is not a scandal. States protect their economic and energy interests. The problem arises when those interests ignore the state of the institutions that are supposed to ensure that such projects are legal, transparent and socially acceptable. This is exactly why the National Convention is at its time asked the European Commission not to put the 'Jadar' project on the list of strategic projects of the European Union, because it had a negative reputational effect on the pro-European sentiment. Now the perception of the citizens of Serbia is very similar to what they think of Kosovo in the context of European integration. Neither the recognition of Kosovo's independence nor the opening of lithium mines are conditions for Serbia's progress towards EU membership, but the majority of Serbian citizens think that this is true and we who stand for Serbia in the European Union must now deconstruct that myth." To that extent, Selaković continues, "the 'Heskens' affair does not show that the European Union has decided to support Aleksandar Vučić, but shows that individual member states conduct their own policy towards Serbia, sometimes parallel to the common European policy. This is not a new phenomenon. What is new is that the traces of that parallel decision-making are much more visible today, because the race against time for leadership positions in complex geopolitical circumstances does not leave much room to mask it with anything else, especially not narratives about values".
Does he think Vučić understands that logic, we ask? "Vučić's greatest political skill was never the implementation of value-based reforms, but the trading of political stability, which he packaged in geopolitical interest. For years, he offered regional stability, lithium, investments, infrastructure projects, migrant cooperation or geopolitical positioning. In return, he expected greater tolerance towards the internal state of democracy. He offered geopolitical value, and avoided fulfilling what was expected of a candidate state for membership. Now that the geopolitical instrument is becoming an internal security issue of the European Union, there is room for expansion the application of that logic is narrowing, and that is why the Serbia-EU relationship has become frustrating in recent months for both Vučić and the citizens of Serbia, for the European Parliament and the Commission, but also for the member states," Bojana Selaković tells "Vreme".
JELICA MINIC
What is the impact of the resolution of the European Parliament, given that the resolutions do not have executive power, we ask Jelica Minić? "They influence public opinion both in the EU institutions and member states themselves, as well as in the countries they refer to. In recent years, those resolutions have had the effect of blocking Serbia's integration process, which manifested itself as a lack of political will to open Cluster 3 to Serbia. Although the European Commission has been proposing the opening of the cluster for the last four and a half years, in that period political resistance has grown in the EU precisely thanks to those resolutions, as well as increasingly unfavorable reports from the Commission itself on Serbia's progress on the European path. The gap between formal, technical progress and implementation of declared legal-institutional reforms has grown more and more, and it seems that the Serbian administration is making more and more efforts to carry out the reform, systemic changes to which it has committed itself, instead of continuously improving them", says the interviewer "Vremena".
We remind you that in Serbia, however, there is no political will to improve relations with the EU. "Yes, the resolutions of the European Parliament register that characteristic of Serbia's European integration process - there is no political will, no transparency and honesty, no creation of stimulating public opinion and preparation of citizens for future membership. Unfortunately, that process is characterized by a gap between declarative and effective, many fraudulent actions, disinformation of citizens and open glorification of other geopolitical actors, especially China lately, but also Russia, with which relations are complicated. And there is no basic information about the EU about all the support that has been received so far, although no one else "He did not give significant non-refundable aid to Serbia. The EU is present in the media controlled by the government only when speedy campaigns are launched to open the famous Cluster 3 or receive financial support from the Growth Plan," says Jelica Minic. "It should be added," he continues, "and all the insults, slanders and accusations that came from the highest representatives of the authorities in Serbia against parliamentarians and EU officials. Let's add to that the 'support' for the EU Summit - Western Balkans - a surreal plane full of bandits, which the 'pro-European' authorities of Serbia are sending to Tivat. And much more. It is an illusion that it will be overcome just like that. The 'Diary of Insults' has already seriously grown. I think the border has long been crossed." exceeded.”
We note that the relationship with the European People's Party (EPP) is not the best either. "The EPP sent a message through its member of the European Parliament, Davor Ivo Štir, during the debate on the adopted resolution," says Jelica Minić. "He believes that 'Serbia will not harmonize with the European Union in the near future. There is no political will for that, neither in the government nor in the opposition. Our response to such a situation should not be concession, but neither should it be isolation, but real engagement, steadfast in our views and pragmatic in terms of promoting our interests, without false promises about progress in the negotiations, but we must have a clear vision of what we will do for the sake of peace in Southeastern Europe'. He has in mind above all peace and transactional arrangements - trade, transport, energy, as he says further in his speech. There is not a bit of love in the EPP for the Serbian authorities. The only division among the deputies of this group is whether to expel the SNS from their ranks. Let us remind you that the EPP deputies voted en masse for the extremely unfavorable Resolution on Serbia."
And what are the relations with Germany? "SNS long ago accepted a colonial and not an equal status, first of all in relations with Germany", answers the interlocutor of "Vremena". "The German viceroy has been sitting in the president's cabinet for 13 years, where a large-scale sale of Serbia's natural resources is taking place. For such arrangements, partial, sectoral, gradual (long-term) integration of Serbia is mutually beneficial, at least for the current authorities. Serbian authorities have allies everywhere for various reasons. Many do not see Serbia exclusively as a possession of the current government, but think long-term and/or prioritize geopolitical priorities. But, cumulatively, Serbia today is seen as a problem that needs to be kept under control. I think they are about that. everyone agrees," concludes Jelica Minić for "Vreme".
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
