Members of the European Parliament will vote on a resolution on Serbia on February 8th. Prior to the resolution, there were debates among parliamentarians in the plenary session and in the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the European Parliament (AFET), where critical tones were expressed regarding the events that took place during the elections in Serbia. Findings from both domestic and international observers indicate serious electoral manipulations, and the CRTA organization stated that irregularities in the capital were of such magnitude that they influenced the outcome of very close elections for the City Assembly.
The elections in Serbia were observed by a group of members of the European Parliament, led by a member of the Renew Europe group, Klemen Grošelj. In Brussels, we spoke with MEP Grošelj, about the international investigation into the elections demanded by citizens and the opposition, and the upcoming resolution in the European Parliament.
European Western Balkans: Members of the European Parliament will vote on the resolution on Serbia on February 8. The text of the resolution will depend on the agreement between the party groups. How do you feel about the atmosphere in the European Parliament regarding what happened during the election process in Serbia?
Klemen Grošelj: I expect that it will be a good resolution, that it will receive quite broad support in the European Parliament. The positions of the political groups are quite clear and this was shown by the discussion in the Committee for Foreign Affairs in the EP (AFET).
In some political groups, such as the European People’s Party (EPP), we can see some divisions, but in principle, I think it will be a good resolution that will include all the elements of the discussion that we heard at the last plenary session and AFET. I’m quite optimistic.
EWB: The demand of the opposition, but also the citizens on the streets, is to establish an international investigation into the elections. Do you expect that there could be an agreement between the parliamentary groups on a call for an international investigation in the resolution itself?
KG: I hope so. You know, in the end, it’s going to be a compromise. I think that there is currently a certain climate in the parliament that could lead to the inclusion of that call in the resolution itself. I think that investigation and closure to these debates about those elections need to be achieved.
I expect that the resolution will also include other issues related, for example, to the police reactions during the protests, arrests of students, ongoing legal processes, and the treatment of individuals accused of violating the constitutional order, while someone who committed a crime in Banjska is not in that category. I anticipate that such matters will also be subject to debate when it comes to the content of the resolution.
EWB: You have probably noticed that the expectations of part of the public in Serbia regarding this resolution are high. What are the implications of this resolution, and what can citizens expect after the resolution? Is this the beginning of some further involvement of the EU?
KG: I hope it won’t end with just this resolution. However, politics is always a matter of all possibilities. The European Parliament is a unique institution in the European Union because it is the only institution made up of members directly elected through democratic elections.
Democratic elections are very important for us because all of us, who participate in the elections, want them to be free and fair elections. We want ideas to compete, rather than someone winning due to better resources or better control of the media in a country. We have a lot of similar views on that, and there are some who have different perspectives, but that’s democracy. That’s why I think parliamentarians view elections from a personal standpoint, as someone who has been elected and will be elected again and wants those elections to be honest and free.
I think some things are changing. The foreign policies of EU member states are like a big ship. It takes some time for them to change course, but once they change course, it is difficult to change something again. Now we have reached the point, above all regarding the elections and what followed after the elections, the police violence, that has changed some attitudes and views towards the current government in Serbia.
EWB: We have seen harsh statements by state officials after the elections at the expense of MEPs and international and domestic observers. Even some member states have even been accused of organizing protests in Serbia. How do you comment on such rhetoric of state officials of the candidate country for membership and that we can expect condemnation of such language in the EP resolution?
KG: It surprises me because of one fact. All of us observers came at the invitation of the Serbian authorities. It’s simple enough. If the Serbian authorities did not want us to observe the elections, they should not have invited us, and we would not have come. No one here has any great ambition, and no one came to observe the elections because of some interest. We came to observe the elections in a country that is a candidate for EU membership and that was our mission.
We have seen what we have seen. If the authorities do not like it, I think it is primarily the responsibility of the authorities to sort things in a way that we do not see such things. That is something I would expect from a country that is a candidate for EU membership. However, that is not happening.
Accusing individual countries without any evidence is something that does not befit a candidate country. This is something that should never happen in international relations between two friendly countries.
That speaks about the state of political consciousness and politics in Serbia at the moment, which always seeks external enemies. It should be understood that people coming to Serbia, including myself, even though I have been declared an enemy of Serbia – I am a friend of Serbia.”
If you are supported in this European Parliament by those politicians and MPs who say that everything is great in Serbia, and then at the next session, they demand that they be absolutely against the enlargement of the EU, citizens of Serbia must ask themselves if those politicians and MPs are Serbia’s real friends and who Serbia’s real friends are.
Friends are those who critically tell you what is good and what is not. I have never said that everything in Serbia is bad, but if I see some things that are contrary to the fundamental values in which I believe, in the democratic order that I believe in, then as a politician, I will always highlight and publicly point out the shortcomings and things that are not right.
EWB: There is talk these days these days that they would conduct investigations regarding the selection of funds that come from the Western Balkans Growth Plan. Apart from that, are there other mechanisms to persuade the Serbian authorities to investigate everything that happened during the elections?
KG: Well, that is a subtle message that comes, and it should be pointed out, from the largest political group in the European Parliament – the EPP. That’s a pretty clear message and it kind of confirms what I said at the beginning. And that is to change some course of relations towards Serbia.
Certainly, the European Commission has many instruments they can initiate in this matter. I hope there will be a political agreement that such radical measures will not be necessary. I think that we still have some dialogue with Serbia and that there is a rational political thought that these things should be resolved in accordance with some valid democratic standards in the EU. And that it should be for the benefit of the citizens of Serbia above all. Irregularities were noticed by international observers, not only observers of the European Parliament as the impression has been created in Serbia. It was a multitude of onlookers who saw things that were wrong. That is why the OSCE/ODIHR report is such.
EWB: A narrative has appeared on Russian portals in Serbia claiming that the EU is now meddling in the elections. Some even say that if there is an international investigation from the West, then Russia can also initiate its own investigation. Is investigating electoral irregularities considered interference in the electoral process of a country negotiating EU membership?
KG: Well, if Serbia decided not to be a candidate for membership in the European Union, then that would be interference in Serbia’s internal affairs. If a country wants to enter the EU, the so-called Copenhagen criteria are clearly defined and you have a methodology that clearly states that the most important issues are those related to the rule of law and democratic standards.
If a country wants to join the European Union, it needs to meet the conditions that have applied and will apply to all candidate countries for EU membership. Serbia has chosen to move towards the EU. If Serbia decides not to become a member, then there will certainly be no debates and resolutions in the European Parliament, and no one will observe elections in Serbia. We observed them because we were officially invited by the Serbian authorities and because Serbia is a candidate country.
I think that it is in the interest of the Serbian citizens and the Serbian authorities that the elections are clean and that the elections are free and fair. It is in the interest of every candidate country for EU membership. If Serbia decides to join Russia, then the Russians will send observers and probably won’t ask some awkward questions like we do. We know what the standard is in Russia, and what the standard is in the EU. These are the decisions that each country makes completely sovereignly and autonomously, and Serbia itself decided on the European path to full membership.
EWB: The composition of this European Parliament is set to dissolve in April due to the upcoming European elections. Do you see the possibility of the European Parliament engaging in an international investigation, or do you think another institution might play a more active role in that process?
KG: I would not expect politicians like myself to conduct such an investigation at all. I would primarily expect it to be done by professionals, legal experts, and internationally renowned judges. We have the Venice Commission, and the European Court, highly respected members with extensive experience in various areas related to the rule of law and democratic standards.
I advocate for international investigations to be led by reputable international legal experts with experience in similar cases. People of such calibre can conduct the investigation entirely independently, objectively, and above all, in a highly professional manner.