The new government in Belgrade is no fluke. Serbian voters have finally chosen 21st-century Europe over 19th-century chauvinism. We can all cheer, Serbs most of all, and thank the magnetic attraction of the European Union for this course correction.
To be sure, the new coalition won't end Serb anger, especially in the older generation. Outgoing Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica will still hurl diatribes against a Europe that allegedly stole Kosovo from Serbia. The Radicals—who once outdid strongman Slobodan Milosevic in their zeal for a Greater Serbia and whose incumbent leader, Vojislav Seselj, is on trial for war crimes at The Hague—will still filibuster parliament to protest their own exclusion from government. It will take a hard struggle to dislodge the residual state-within-the-state of strongman Milosevic's secret services.
But as of this summer Kostunica no longer speaks for Serbia. The Radicals fell to only second place in last May's election, behind the pro-European bloc led by the Democratic Party (DS) of President Boris Tadic. Only thousands of Serbs turned out for the June 28 commemoration of the 14th-century battle of Blackbird Field in Kosovo, rather than the million Milosevic whipped up to war fever back in 1989. And the startling defection of the remnants of Milosevic's own Socialist Party from anti-European ultranationalism to pragmatism and coalition with the DS may well provide a relatively stable majority for Tadic.
With a bit of luck, the new government should finally be able to extradite the fugitive General Ratko Mladic to The Hague to stand trial for the Srebrenica massacre; cooperate with the West to curtail the power of fuel and drugs smugglers in the Radical hotbed of northen Kosovo; get on with restoring the Serbian economy to the level it enjoyed before Milosevic's disastrous wars; and cool down the polemics over Kosovo. After four years in which Serbia was the black hole at the heart of the Balkans, the region's largest country is now back on the path toward EU membership.
"We are now where [Zoran] Djindjic wanted to be by 2003—without ifs or buts," is the judgment of Ivan Vejvoda, Executive Director of the Balkan Trust for Democracy in Belgrade. Djindjic stage-managed the democratic ouster of Milosevic in 2000 and became reformist prime minister before he was murdered in 2003. His assassination by elements of Milosevic's old secret police halted democratic reforms and deflected Serbia onto the increasingly shrill chauvinist course of the past four years.
The latest twist surprises Western European diplomats, who had virtually written off the pro-European Tadic over his passivity as the constant loser to Kostunica's tactical maneuvering. This time Tadic succeeded in leveraging his 38.4 percent of the votes into a majority. From election day on, he courted the kingmaking Socialists (with 7.6 percent)—but let them first exhaust negotiations with their more natural nationalist soulmates in the Radical Party and Prime Minister Kostunica's Democratic Party of Serbia.
Key to the evolution is the desire of the Socialist leaders to end their party's marginalization, put the dark Milosevic past behind them, and transform themselves into respectable European Social Democrats. The two months it has taken to form the present government coalition—actually, a swift process by Serbian standards—was needed for the 14-man presidency to dissuade the old guard in the Socialists' larger board from staging a hardline coup against this betrayal of Milosevic's memory. The time was further needed for Ivica Dacic, the head of the party presidency, to visit Athens and Madrid and persuade Socialist International President George Papandreou and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to weigh seriously admission of the Serbian Socialists into the Socialist International.
Significantly, the main issue that the Belgrade Socialists cited in finally splitting from their former ultranationalist bedfellows was Europe. Ever since Kosovo declared indendence from Serbia last February, Kostunica has berated the EU for sending a support team to help the new state build its institutions, renounced Belgrade's long-standing application to enter the EU, and glorified Russia as an alternate patron for Serbia. The Socialists, by contrast, now insist on swift Serbian ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement that Belgrade signed with the EU last spring. Their target is to make Serbia an official candidate for EU membership by the end of 2008—even though this goal can be reached only by extraditing Mladic to The Hague.
In the end, the Serb in the street dropped nationalist histrionics and finally voted for her economic interest. The EU magnet worked, even in Serbia.
Elizabeth Pond is a Berlin-based journalist and the author of Endgame in the Balkans (Brookings).
Buy at Amazon.com or Amazon.de
- 19
July 14, 2008
Ari Rusila
All non-EU states in western Balkans have been sad to have European perspective e.g. that sooner or later BiH, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania and even Kosovo - inside or outside Serbia - would be future EU members. I can not avoid some questions, like
* Can EU any more absorb new members and simultaneously keep alive some its ideas?
* Are European perspective and EU membership the same?
* Are benefits from joining to EU bigger or less than being outside it?
* Is there any alternative strategic alliances to EU?
Today´s EU
EU was meant to be an association of independent regions that pursue their own policies and serve the interests of their people. Today´s EU has Parliament sitting and travelling between Strassbourg and Brussels with zero power and authority. Instead Commission, their army of bureaucrats, lobbyists from different interest groups are keeping EU as their playground. Due the high risk of corruption EU tries to limit damages with Auditors (In Brussels I once heard that there is more auditors in EU than people who are really implementing some practical task). The Parliament´s Puppet democracy is showed by interpreting all speeches/documents to all EU languages and verse, sad that no one is listening or reading them.
EU is today already so big that democracy and efficiency are in constant conflict. When Ireland last week said no to Lisbon Treaty in democratic referendum it same time paralysed EU structure. If EU is enlarging even more the decision making mechanisms and maybe the tasks of EU should be reconstructed again - it should find the core functions again and cut off extra branches, trim the budget and administration. Today EU member states are paying more or less their taxpayers money to common budget and are receiving more or less back through some 500 different EU programmes. When common bureaucracy, Puppet democracy and corruption are taking increasing share so on the field one sees less money and actions. The bottom line is that EU´s ability to absorb enlargement is questionable and even if it could come bigger what´s the idea to join to it.
European perspective vs. EU membership
One common custom is to equate European perspective and EU membership. I totally oppose this equivalence. Almost half of Europe´s territory and 30 % population is not EU members. Does anyone believe, hat e.g. Switzerland and Norway have less European perspective than member-states. Western Europe shows only one part of wholeness of our continent, eastern Europe and also Byzantium are part of continent´s history. Perspective can point East as well than West.
EU has brought many benefits to its citizens - visa-/passport-free traveling and healthy competition over borders, more market economy instead protectionism, comprehensive multidimensional standards numbers of public and private fields. EU has also offered a forum to manage conflicts with peaceful manner.
However some of these benefits can be applied also without EU. For instance one can travel from Finland or Sweden (EU) more easy to Norway (non-EU) than from Hungary to Romania (both EU). Some standards outside EU can be better than worse than inside but one should remember that those standards are decided closer in one state and are not some compromise made in Brussels.
Being outside EU does not mean to be outside EU financing. EU has e.g. its border programmes with neighbors to finance transnational projects and also some inside programmes are open to non member-states. Economically inside EU each member has different case if they have surplus or deficit and how much with their EU budget, the same is valid future new members.
With this article I have highlighted some negative aspects with EU. In case of my home-country Finland I must confess that I have enjoined about many positive things EU has brought to my country, many projects and wider view which could be impossible without membership. Critical questions I have arised to break simple black and white picture which is familiar in simplified mainstream media in western Balkans. The question is too important to let it only to join or not level.
Some options for strategic alliances
So big question is if there is any alternative strategy to joining EU? I would like to see following options to taken into consideration in all non-member-states of western Balkans :
* Strategic linkages to the BRIC countries - Brazil , Russia , India , China. These countries are representing rising economical, cultural and political powers (and markets) in three continent while Western Europe and USA are more and more going towards stagnation or moderate development at most.
* Association Agreement without goal to come member-state could be good alternative and realistic also. Because EU can not absorb Turkey this kind of arrangement can be the most used alternative to enlargement by membership. Every country can negotiate their own association and cooperation agreement and highlight those topics which are important each individual state. Cooperation can be very wide with most of EU member benefits, of course also EU gains its share about cooperation e.g. with logistics through trans-European transport (roads, railways, energy, telecommunication …) corridors.
* European ‘Free Port Zone’ - models could be e.g. Kaliningrad, Singapore, Luxemburg, San Marino. This position can make non-member state popular with people who want to live in Europe but do not like high taxes and with businesses that engage in international manufacturing, trade and commerce.
EU is not miraculous power which brings economic and other development with membership status. More important is what people are doing in each western Balkan state. They can develop their societies with or without EU depending individual needs and priorities. If they can develop good country for themselves (not because EU) it can be good country also for outsiders and e.g. diaspora can start to invest back to their old home-country like one can see now for instance in Russia.
posted by: AriRusila (http://arirusila.wordpress.com)