Grim reality of Serbia's EU 'dream'
Federalists bleat buzzwords about Serbia's European ambitions but the EU, like Nato, only wants to force it into neoliberal line * Comments <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/serbia-eu-dream-neoliberal#start-of-comments> (96) A blizzard of platitudes has been unleashed by Europe's leaders this week as Serbia formally applies <http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE5BJ01720091220?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0> for EU membership. No opportunity to declare the occasion "historic" or to assert that Serbia has a European "vocation" is being passed up. Yet once these asinine buzzwords have been uttered, there will be no reason to rejoice. Belgrade's treatment by some EU governments has long been characterised by a brazen hypocrisy. Until the beginning of this month, the Netherlands was blocking <http://www.rnw.nl/int-justice/article/ministers-clear-obstacle-blocking-serbia-eu-talks> Serbia's efforts to strengthen its relations with the union over suspicions it was not co-operating fully with the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. The zeal of Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, in insisting on accountability for offences against humanity would be praiseworthy if it was consistent with his approach to other conflicts. How odd it is, then, that Verhagen has vigorously <http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/netherlands_goldstone_12_nov_2009.pdf> opposed efforts to probe (never mind prosecute) alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. With just <http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/smartsite.html?id=11280> two of the men on its wanted list – Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzic – still at large, isn't it time that the Hague tribunal was given a fresh mandate, or even better that an entirely new investigative body is set up? This body should be tasked with finally unearthing the truth about why Nato bombed Serbia in 1999. None of the alliance's personnel has yet been charged by an international tribunal with crimes relating to that war, even though it was conducted with the use of cluster bombs <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/nato-comes-clean-on-cluster-bombs-402552.html> , weapons that literally slice the limbs of their victims. Nor should it be forgotten that the war lacked UN approval and helped usher in the dubious concept of "humanitarian <http://www.bits.de/public/pdf/rr00-4.pdf> intervention", under which military action can be taken on the flimsiest of pretexts. I'm sure that I will soon hear or read some federalist (or should I say fantasist?) trying to wax lyrical about the significance of Serbia embracing countries that were attacking it little over a decade ago. What the fantasists won't acknowledge, though, is that Slobodan Milosevic <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/mar/13/guardianobituaries.warcrimes> , Serbia's then president, didn't earn his status as a favourite bogeyman of the west purely because he did dreadful things to the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo, as the official narrative would have us believe. The west could probably have tolerated his autocratic streak if he was more favourable to its pervading ideology. But Milosevic's refusal to accept the neoliberal precepts on which the global economy is being run seem to offer a more plausible explanation as to why Bill Clinton and his then cronies in Europe insisted he must go. Such a conclusion seems to me inescapable when you examine the fine print of what the EU and America have been pressing Serbia to do over the past 10 years. Privatising state-owned industry is now a standard condition of EU accession, as many countries in central and eastern Europe have discovered, often at enormous social cost. But what makes Serbia unique is that many of the facilities it has been required to sell off were first damaged by Nato bombs, with the result that western firms could snatch some of them up at bargain basement prices. More than 1,800 privatisations have occurred since Milosevic was ousted; much of the country's metal industry is now in the hands of US Steel, which has been busy shedding jobs <http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/20977/> , while the national car company Zastava has been bought by <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8866387> Fiat. The European commission's latest "progress report <http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2009/sr_rapport_2009_en.pdf> " for Serbia states that finalising privatisation is a priority for the country's "partnership" with the EU. Moreover, it indicates that the welfare state that has provided a lifeline to the country's citizens must be radically altered. It is no exaggeration, then, to say that the austerity budget <http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9CNMR9G1.htm> rubber-stamped in Belgrade, also this week, was to a large extent written in Brussels and Washington, home to the IMF, which has so generously come to Serbia's "rescue". No doubt, the pensioners whose income has been reduced at the behest of foreign institutions aren't weighed down by the hand of history on their country's shoulder at the moment. Instead, they will face 2010 with the dreaded sensation of a hair shirt on their backs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/serbia-eu-dream-neoliberal
