THE RIGHT PATH! - McAllister: Argue in Serbian, but Speak in English About What Unites You. And Do Not Try to Drag the EU into Domestic Debates
The process of accession to membership of the European Union has always also been a political arena in which wishes, will, interests, merits, criteria and values clash. Some citizens are in favour, some against, and some are still weighing things up. This is the case in all countries that are on the path, as well as in those that are already in the EU. Serbia’s path to EU membership is burdened with all these things, but is also specific in one aspect - that is difficult to understand precisely because it comes from Serbia.
Domestic obstructers
We are witnessing that many non-governmental organisations that call themselves European have taken on the task of creating and sustaining a heated and harsh narrative about Serbia as not good enough to be praised for progress in European integration, and as not mature enough to take the next step, which it has otherwise been waiting for for more than three years. It is difficult to rationally explain who is bothered, and why, by almost every positive assessment that Serbia receives from Brussels while seriously working towards its strategic goal of joining the great European family. Every time praise or encouragement arrives from the EU, the habitual critics in Serbia make themselves heard, precisely from the ranks of those who exist thanks to Serbia’s European agenda.
One of the most active among them is certainly Bojana Selaković, coordinator of the National Convention on the EU. The narrative she persistently pushes into the public sphere is fairly simple and deeply immersed in day-to-day politics, and boils down to the idea that Serbia must not receive any positive signal from the EU, let alone a concrete step forward in European integration, until the authorities are to their liking. Thus, at a recent panel at the Brussels Forum on EU enlargement, she explained her position that Serbia did not deserve to receive the green light for Cluster 3 at the end of the year.
“When we talk about polarisation, the situation is very complicated and I am not sure that we can cope with yet another process or aspect before we secure and re-establish trust among different actors in society. In that sense, EU assistance and support are welcome, but at the moment it is very difficult to ensure an adequate level of citizens’ attention to the regular European agenda. We need to talk not only about reform processes but also about rebuilding trust or basic communication between actors in our society before we start talking about the next step,” she stated at the time.
Familiar theses
Almost every positive thing that senior European officials say about our country is met with hostility and artificially interpreted as negative, precisely by representatives of NGOs who are often paid to help Serbia on its path to EU membership. This time as well, they found themselves called upon to interpret, no less, the statement of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after dinner with Vučić on Wednesday in Brussels, apparently believing that President von der Leyen is unable to express herself precisely. Naturally, Bojana Selaković also came out with her familiar thesis.
“Anyone can understand this message however they want. I, for example, understand it as follows: that the EU is not giving up on Serbia and on supporting Serbia, but that only a democratic Serbia can be part of the EU. Not this Serbia as it is now. Therefore, it is Serbia that has to choose,” she wrote on the X platform.
Vučić’s proposal that the Western Balkans as an entire region should become EU members also triggered a flood of negative comments, and once again Bojana Selaković was among both the first and the loudest.
“A cheap way to shift responsibility for the unfulfilled promises of the past year onto the EU… Of course the entire Western Balkans should be integrated, but of course it is not realistic for that to happen now. The sole purpose of this message is to maintain an internal narrative according to which the EU does not want Serbia. It would not exist if Serbia had by now delivered at least REM, whose composition no one disputes, and if it had resolved the issue of Russian ownership in NIS. As things stand, by the time we arrive, the European Parliament’s rapporteur for Serbia could even be an Albanian,” she said.
As for REM, if we set aside the absolution from her own responsibility, given that she was one of the key implementers as a representative of civil society, it would be beneficial both for her personally and for society as a whole for her to clarify her role in the process of forming REM, to say who is disputing the members, and whether someone is trying, and who, to charge the opening of Cluster 3 by inserting their own people into REM.
Motives
Like every appearance by Coordinator Selaković, this latest one is aimed at relativising in the public sphere the efforts of the state to move closer to the EU, so almost as a rule the same phrases are heard from her, such as that Serbia is not ready to engage in substantive reforms, that it is obvious there is no will for Serbia to become an EU member in the future, that the EU is mentioned declaratively but used more to entrench power than to meet accession criteria.
Faced with such views from Serbia’s “European” NGO sector, a rational person has to think carefully and ask how it is possible for someone to be against our progress towards the EU and against closer ties with something that they, like us, promote as the best destination for Serbia’s citizens. We have somehow become accustomed to certain EU member states making Serbia’s path to the EU more difficult, which is their right and serves them in achieving their direct or indirect goals, but it is an entirely different matter when your own citizens, who are paid to guide the country towards the EU and to work exclusively in the interests of Serbian society and the EU as a whole, trip you up as a state. We must consider what their motives are.
We hope that in the days ahead we will receive an answer to this question both from them themselves and from other interested parties.
It is incomprehensible that, on the other hand, the criticisms that such people shower on Serbia do not exist in countries that are currently the “stars” in terms of the speed of progress in European integration. Take Albania, for example. Praise from our NGO sector is pouring in from all sides, even though in numerous aspects - from electoral conditions, public finances and the economy to media freedoms - it is evident that Albania cannot be compared with Serbia; it is simply far behind us. After all, it was enough to see what election day looked like in Albania at the end of October, when cameras recorded a series of scandalous irregularities and violations of electoral rules, yet reactions from the EU and ODIHR were completely absent. The sincerity and principled nature of representatives of the Serbian civil sector are best illustrated by the stance that Edi Rama is a greater democrat than Aleksandar Vučić. Perhaps that is a popular thing to say today, but it is nevertheless far too irrational.
What is the big difference? Quite simply, Albania, unlike Serbia, did not have NGO obstructers within its own ranks, because as a state it worked together with the civil sector on a common goal – bringing Albania to the point where it could open all chapters. Serbia, unfortunately, does not have that. And it is not that Albania is an oasis of democracy, as the Serbian NGO sector would like to present it. Albania has a long way to go to catch up with us in many areas, and an even longer way to be able to demonstrate that formally. For now, when it comes to chest-beating and serving the immediate interests of certain major centres of power at the expense of its own people, Albania is definitely the champion.
The language of confrontation
Open day-to-day political agitation in the style of a political party, but without assuming any responsibility for the functioning of vital systems in the country, is not the definition by which civil society should operate, yet it seems that in this segment as well we have not yet reached a European level. Perhaps Serbia needs some structural reforms here too, and a change of generation.
The interests of individual member states are a reality, and the criticism Serbia receives is sometimes deserved and sometimes not. In any case, it is guided by the interests of the states that voice it. Serbia has another problem. Criticism is welcome, but not agitation by domestic pro-European organisations to punish almost every attempt to reach EU values and standards. Kurir will continue to follow the narrative promoted on this topic by individuals and organisations from the civil sector, because our commitment is to support our country in advancing along that path as quickly as possible. Anyone who believes that Serbia belongs in the EU should push their state in that direction, even for very selfish reasons – so that their own life becomes better.
As David McAllister, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, said at the aforementioned forum in Brussels, politicians should not argue in English in front of foreigners.
“Whenever I travel to candidate countries, I always want to give one piece of advice to parliamentarians: argue and fight as much as you like – that is part of democratic debate – in your own language. But if people from Brussels and Strasbourg come and discussions are held in English, try to talk as much as possible about what unites you. Because there will always be controversial debates in Albania, in Serbia, in Montenegro… The same applies in the member states. But there needs to be a general consensus that the path of European integration is the right way forward. You know, sometimes we come to candidate countries and hear their parliamentarians arguing in English in front of us. That does not help. People, argue as soon as you see that the plane is heading back to Brussels. But please, in principle you must be united. Of course, we can never convince those who are strictly against European integration, but have decent, fact-based debates in your national parliaments. And do not try to drag the EU into domestic debates. Life is too short for that and it is not healthy. The European Union, the European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament - we do not support the government or the opposition, we support people and economies on the path to EU membership,” McAllister said at the panel attended by the Speaker of the Serbian Parliament, Ana Brnabić.
* Kurir operates within WMG (the Wireless Media Group), which launched the EUpravo Zato initiative precisely to improve mutual understanding and strengthen trust between Serbia, the Western Balkans and the European Union. WMG’s mission is to transform business and society across the entire region by encouraging change, improving productivity, and enabling greater connectivity and cooperation in order to reach a European level and global competitiveness.
