[A-List] Serbia and Europe: who?s ruling who?

["Jim Yarker" <sjy_estrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3362/

Wednesday 16 May 2007


David Chandler
Serbia and Europe: who?s ruling who?
Many are shocked that Serbia has been made president of the Council of 
Europe, yet they turn a blind eye to the EU?s blackmail of elected Serb 
politicians.



Printer-friendly version Email-a-friend Respond


There has been a lot of concern expressed over the past week about Serbia 
running the Council of Europe. However, not many commentators have raised 
concerns about European king-making in Belgrade. To read the press debate 
over Serbia assuming the presidency of the Council of Europe, you could be 
forgiven for assuming that European institutions have little influence over 
Serbian politics. In fact, the new Serbian government, formed on Sunday 12 
May, owes much to the power that Europe wields over the country.

In a column in the Guardian last week George Monbiot went so far as to argue 
that if the Council of Europe did not take the moral high ground against 
Balkan human rights abuses, by refusing Serbia the right to its turn at the 
rotating presidency, it might as well be abolished (1). He argued that the 
decision to let the presidency pass to Serbia mocked the goals of the 
Council and demonstrated its weakness and inability to take hard decisions 
which might raise a broader debate about the importance of human rights and 
democracy in Europe.

Monbiot said the Council of Europe?s unwillingness to intervene in Serbian 
politics is close to being complicit in genocide: ?The price of being left 
alone by other states is the tolerance of mass murder.? Those who have 
voiced disagreements with this anti-Serbian line taken by Monbiot and others 
tend to reverse the logic. Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of 
Europe, responded by arguing that Monbiot was siding with indicted war 
criminals like Vojislav Seselj, who also do not want Serbia to be a member 
of the Council (2).

Where the advocates of the Council of Europe agree with Monbiot is in their 
portrayal of European institutions as being too weak vis-à-vis the power of 
the Serbian state; they claim that the Council plays a largely symbolic role 
in upholding European values and norms against a Serbian government that 
apparently has limited experience of democracy and protecting human rights. 
Guardian commentator Conor Foley argues that the Council?s 2003 decision to 
admit Serbia ?will help to strengthen the work of civil society activists 
and local human rights defenders? (3). For Foley, membership of the Council 
?is a prerequisite for countries to be considered for accession to the 
European Union and it is recognised as a key institution for spreading this 
body?s ?soft power?? (4).

Terry Davis takes a similar approach. Seeing the Council as ?disappointed 
and impatient? with the lack of Serbia?s progress, he argues that Serbia?s 
accession to membership of the Council was ?a sign of support for, and 
solidarity with, the Serbian people?, which will enable assistance 
programmes ?to help modernise the judiciary and other state institutions? 
and enable individuals to bring cases to the European Court of Human Rights 
(5).



For all the talk of the ?soft power? of the European Union and the Council 
of Europe, their ?modernisation? of Serbia?s state institutions has been one 
more akin to political blackmail than the empowerment of the Serbian people.

In the Serbian elections in January 2007, the Serbian people voted for the 
Serbian Radical Party as the largest party in parliament, making it a 
potential party of government. This result was not to the EU?s satisfaction. 
Olli Rehn, the EU?s enlargement commissioner, argued that allowing 
representatives of the Radical Party into power would send out a ?worrying 
sign? to the rest of the EU (7). Months of electoral wrangling followed the 
elections, as the EU and the Council of Europe intervened in Serbia to help 
shape a pro-EU coalition alliance.

Last week, in the run-up to the 12 May Serbian Parliament?s decision to form 
a new government without the Radical Party, the pressure was stepped up to 
ensure that a pro-EU coalition could be formed. Javier Solana, the EU?s 
foreign policy chief, expressed his desire for Serbian President Tadic, from 
the Democratic Party, to take over control of the police and security 
service from prime minister Vojislav Kostunica ? clearly expressing the EU?s 
concern that Kostunica was blocking a deal with the Democratic Party in his 
reluctance to share out power (6).

Rehn promised that if a reform- and Europe-oriented government was formed in 
Serbia, then ?Serbia?s path to the EU will be revitalised immediately?; he 
offered to sign visa-facilitation and re-admission agreements, as well as 
resuming talks on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) as a first 
step towards Serbia becoming an EU membership candidate. Rehn said: ?I trust 
that the leaders of Serbia?s democratic forces now realise their 
responsibility and choose a European future for Serbia, instead of letting 
the country fall back to its nationalist past.? (8)

The installation of the EU in a political king-making role in Serbian 
politics is an inevitable result of the policy of blackmailing Serbian 
politicians to choose the right coalition partners and undertake the right 
policies. Despite the talk of EU ?norms?, democracy and rights, the European 
institutions? approach to Serbia has been more like the exercise of 
arbitrary and ad hoc power. Instead of having a clear framework for 
Serbia/EU relations, the carrot of EU aid and membership talks has been used 
as a pragmatic and instrumental tool by institutions seeking to influence 
the ?composition and programme? of the Serbian government (9).

While critics of Serbia bemoan its chairmanship of the Council of Europe, 
they overlook the EU and the Council?s incessant intervention into Serbia?s 
democratic process. They present Serbia as a threat to European values, when 
in fact Serbia is being forced to mould itself around such values or else 
face being ostracised.

David Chandler is Professor of International Relations at the Centre for the 
Study of Democracy, University of Westminster. His latest book is Empire in 
Denial: The Politics of State-building.

(1) George Monbiot, ?The price of being left alone has been the tolerance of 
mass murder?, Guardian, 8 May 2007

(2) Terry Davis, ?Response: I don?t regret allowing Serbia to join us?, 
Guardian, 11 May 2007

(3) Conor Foley, Keeping the Council, Comment is Free, 9 May 2007

(4) Conor Foley, Keeping the Council, Comment is Free, 9 May 2007

(5) Terry Davis, ?Response: I don?t regret allowing Serbia to join us?, 
Guardian, 11 May 2007

(6) Ian Traynor, ?Extreme nationalist elected speaker of Serbian 
parliament?, Guardian, 9 May 2007

(7) Ian Traynor, ?Extreme nationalist elected speaker of Serbian 
parliament?, Guardian, 9 May 2007

(8) Serbia forms pro-EU government, EurActiv, 14 May 2007

(9) Reuters, EU Urges Serbia to Finalise New Government, 14 May 2007