Following the adoption of a critical Resolution on Serbia in the European Parliament, a marathon of Serbian students to Brussels, as well as the trip of President Aleksandar Vučić to Moscow Victory Day Parade, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group in the EP demanded that the European Commission stop with the “appeasement” policy towards Vučić and stop with the “business as usual” approach.
Have the recent events in Serbia, in particular the emergence of the student movement, changed how the EU sees the situation in the country? What is realistic to expect from the Union when it comes to the change of the approach which is demanded? European Western Balkans discussed these questions with Kathleen Van Brempt, Member of European Parliament from Belgium and Vice-President of the Socialists and Democrats Group for Enlargement. We talked with Ms Van Brempt on the sidelines of the meeting of the Friends of the Western Balkans network in Ljubljana.
European Western Balkans: S&D group has requested that the European Commission stops with the appeasement policy towards President Vučić following his trip to Moscow. Which exact steps and actions do you expect the Commission to take?
Kathleen Van Brempt: I can give you some examples of what I think, because it’s open to discussion. We want to listen to Commission and the Council but also our counterparts in the European Parliament. This is not about who is the toughest. This is about changing the policies. It starts from reflecting if it is a good idea to go to Belgrade, shake hands and not be critical. You need to be there, need to engage with the Vučić government, but also need to be very critical. So that is the first point about stopping the appeasement politics. Marta Kos, the Commissioner on Enlargement, started slowly going in that direction, but we do not feel that she has the support from the leadership of the Commission.
That is the first point. The second point which is related to that, is that the enlargement process is a very specific process where you open up negotiations on fundamentals and close them on fundamentals. That is how important it is. And normally, you see progress during the enlargement process that underpins progress on the internal market, on the green deal and the acquis. What we see here in Serbia is that fundamentals are declining. The question now is, if there were new elections, would they be free and fair? And the answer is just no. Then you have to act.
And that is what we are saying – we need to act and start thinking about a possible revision of the enlargement process. There is a lot of money involved, investments in the enlargement process, infrastructure development, but also on the fundamentals.
EWB: So, are you suggesting that some funding should be suspended if the situation does not improve?
KVB: That is a possibility. I am not saying that it should happen right now, the first thing is to convey a message to Serbia that, for example, electoral conditions need to improve. The students are now asking for elections, and I would do exactly the same if I was them, but the question is under what conditions. They have a huge support in public opinion, but if that is not reflected in the election results, what will happen then? Then it might become even worse.
EWB: Let me return for a moment to the visit of President of the European Council António Costa to Belgrade this month. As you said, many people criticized him for not being critical enough of the situation and for being relatively friendly towards President Vučić. And that happened three days after Vučić’s visit to Moscow. Why do you think this approach is still maintained by the European Council and European Commission? Is it some sort of miscalculation on their part, is it shortsightedness, or maybe the lack of maneuvering space – perhaps they do not have many other options available?
KVB: Well, I cannot look into their heads. Not even Costa. But let me say a few things about that. Of course, Costa needs to represent 27 member states. The most leverage is with the Commission. For the Council is more difficult. I think they are still making a mistake of believing that being nice to them, understandable, that it gives them a way of improving the situation. They think that, if we retrieve ourselves, or if we are very critical, we risk losing Serbia. And I think that was a mistake all along, I think this is bigger than Serbia, they made exactly the same mistake when it comes to Turkey. When İmamoğlu was arrested, that should have been the red line for the EU. It wasn’t. They said something very little, released a press statement and that was it.
EWB: Is it because the geopolitical arguments or priorities take precedence over democracy?
KVB: Yes, exactly that. And of course, the geopolitical situation is very critical. At the same time, you are fighting a war with Putin, we are not fighting but we are supporting Ukraine, and luckily we are still doing that, so it is critical we remain there. At the same time, the Transatlantic relations are collapsing. It is now a little bit better, but it is not just the relations, it is the security umbrella, and we are going to change that, so good things are happening, but it takes time. It will take at least five but probably fifteen years to get there.
In that situation, the Council and Commission think the most important thing is to balance out the geopolitics. And I am ready to balance out geopolitics with trade, for instance. But you can never balance out geopolitics and democracy, when it comes to countries that want to join the EU. You can maybe do that when you talk to China, even though human rights are human rights. But not with Serbia, or with Turkey. It is a mistake we’ve made and it has cost Europe so much, I am talking about Hungary now, it’s costing Europe so much in credibility and efficiency, that we should not make that mistake again.
And that is what we will press on from the S&D group in the EP. I saw a lot of support to the report of Tonino Picula (on Serbia), which was probably the most important thing that happened within Europe in the past couple of weeks, now we have to build on that. We have to use this majority to say it is not enough to have a good report in the EP, we need to pressure the Commission and the Council and so we will engage Costa, with Kos, with Ursula von der Leyen. We started drafting a letter saying this is what we think, please take it into account. But we in the EP also need to work with the Council, I agree.
EWB: You mentioned this context of enlargement, which is indeed very important, though I believe the ability of the European Union to condition reforms in Serbia and other countries in the region depends on the political will within the EU actually to enlarge in the foreseeable future. When you speak to your colleagues in the EP and other EU institutions, do you think that the enlargement momentum is really there and that there could be enlargement to some countries by the end of the decade?
KVB: It is a very good question and there is no “yes or no” answer. Is there a momentum now? Maybe. There are always good things in any crisis, and because of the possible collapse of Transtlantic relations there is now a necessity to strengthen Europe. And the question is whether enlargement would strengthen Europe or not. When I was a young politician in Europe and spoke to young people, I always said – Europe is here to stay and we will always advance. Sometimes you advance two steps forward and one step back, but you advance. I no longer dare to say that. That is my wish, but I do not know whether Europe as we know it, as a political project, will still be there in 15 years. It is my absolute wish that it will be there and that it will be further integrated, but it is not a given. Neither is democracy. It is something we have to fight for. It is a nice thing to say “let us enlarge”, but we need to make sure that enlargement is strengthening the EU. That is why the question of revising the enlargement process vis-à-vis Serbia is also a broader question of needing to strengthen the European Union. If that is the case, then the geopolitics is helping and the momentum is now.
But I am saying “yes or no”, because if you look at Serbia again – and it is our fault and the fault of the Vučić regime –the support for the EU has been destroyed. We discussed why there are no European flags at the student protests, although things there are moving in the right direction with the marathon to Brussels. In the end, there has to be feasible support, like there is in Ukraine. Politics is also emotional. We sometimes forget that. The moment Putin invaded Ukraine, the whole pro-European group in the EP said that Ukraine needs to be a part of Europe. We have to deliver on that.
EWB: To what extent has the perception of Serbia been changed by the student movement and the student protests?
KVB: Hugely. Because you see a modern, open-minded movement, I have to say I am very impressed by the way they are organised. If that is the future of Serbia, there is a common future for EU and Serbia.
They know how to use the media in a positive way. I saw them on 13 May and said, “look guys, when I came home yesterday, I saw you on the national news on television”. This is also extremely relevant because the Prime Minister is watching it, maybe not at that exact time, but a lot of people working in the Commission, they also listened to the news in Belgium. So they dominated the media for 24 hours, 48 hours. I can tell you, people immediately started asking what was going on in Serbia. So, they did what many politicians could not do.