balkaninsight.com <https://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/why-is-the-us-probing-serbian-loyalties--10-27-2017>
Why is the US Probing Serbian Loyalties? :: Balkan Insight Milan Misic 5-7 minutes _____ When a top US diplomat accused Serbia of sitting on the fence between Russia and the EU, he really put the cat among the pigeons - but what brought on the sudden demand for fealty? But a terse Serbian statement nevertheless came out five and a half hours later, stating that Vucic had “carefully listened to the American official and has responded very directly”. It also said that Vucic will reveal what he said “in the next few days”. Considering that Vucic and Yee also discussed the state of media in Serbia and “the importance of the existence of an opposition in a democratic society”, it is obvious that the US stance toward Serbia is hardening. What is not so clear is what prompted that. Was it the treatment of controversial US ambassador Kyle Scott, often on the front pages of local tabloids in a negative context? Or was it the long-established media portrayal of the West as an enemy trying “to destroy Serbia” on the one hand, while loudly glorifying Russia as an eternal friend and President Putin as “Serbia’s saviour” on the other? That Yee’s words had hit hard was immediately confirmed by a statement from Defence Minister Aleksandar Vulin, a close ally of president Vucic, who said that the American official’s remarks represent “the greatest pressure against Serbia yet”. Serbia’s official news agency, Tanjug, also quoted Vulin saying, “This is not a statement made by a friend or a person respecting Serbia, our policy and respecting our right to decide independently.” Yee managed to provoke tensions in Moscow too. In a prompt comment from the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry “on provocative statements of a U.S. diplomat”, the press office emphasised that the United States was not an EU member and because of that it was “unaware that many EU countries are involved in large/scale, mutually beneficial and productive cooperation with Russia”. “Nobody should prevent Serbia from having the same approach on the basis of its national interests” was the main message. The advice also included a not so subtle warning to their “American colleagues” – “not to impose on others hostile ideological stereotypes that undermine the foundations of international stability and cooperation on the Balkans and Europe in general”. “As if they read Vulin,” Serbian foreign affairs commentator Bosko Jaksic said of the Russian reaction. His opinion was that Vulin’s rhetoric was much more closer to Russia’s position and not appropriate to a supposedly neutral country, which Serbia declares itself to be. According to the Vecernje Novosti daily, whose newly appointed chief editor Milorad Vucelic is close to the ruling circles, Vucic insisted to Hoyt Yee that Serbia “remains strategically determined in favour of EU integration, but it will continue to develop friendly relations with Russia, and also with China, India and the United Arab Emirates”. It is perhaps worth mentioning that India is a fresh addition to this list of Serbia’s most important partners. The general context of this fresh diplomatic imbroglio is that Serbian leaders, and President Vucic in particular, are fully aware of the need to cooperate with the West, but their political instinct forces them to remain close to Russia. By maintaining this position President Vucic is putting himself between a rock and a hard place: EU membership is from the present perspective a distant proposition – 2025 is the latest prognosis – while his voters consider Russia as Serbia’s protector. What is rather strange, is that Russophilia is promoted almost on a daily basis by the media close to the president, creating the false impression of who really is assisting Serbia the most – which is, by most criteria, the West. Serbia is advancing towards the EU – at least formally – by opening negotiation chapters, but the real “Europeanisation” of Serbia is going in the opposite direction: the rule of law is pushed further and further aside, the ruling party controls most of the media, opposition parties are not treated as partners in national dialogues... America’s ire could have been provoked by the growing gap between what is really going on with Serbia’s cooperation with the West (NATO included) and the artificially created perception that the country is very close to (and dependent on) Russia. Hence the metaphor of “two chairs”. A good example is the Russian humanitarian centre in Nis, southeast Serbia: Moscow demands that Russian staff there should be granted diplomatic immunity. But Washington is applying equal pressure on Belgrade not to allow it. The fact is that President Vucic is so far saying neither “yes” or “no”, unlike some of his coalition partners such as Foreign Affairs Minister Dacic or Defence Minister Vulin. After stating its displeasure with the current “impression” of Serbia’s tilt to the East, the US will most probably not press further. It is up to President Vucic to see what the true meaning of Hoyt Yee’s message is – and to reconcile the actual relations and true interests of Serbia with the public discourse on it. Milan Misic is the former editor-in-chief of Politika (2001-2005) and was Politika’s correspondent in New Delhi, Tokyo and Washington. The opinions expressed in the comments section are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.
