DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

American expert: "Open Balkan" gives more economic and political power to Serbia

2022-08-08 15:17:16Politikë SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
American expert: "Open Balkan" gives more economic and political power
Edward P. Joseph

Expert Edward P. Joseph in an interview for DW says that the "Open Balkan" initiative undermines the "Berlin Process" and gives more economic and political power to Serbia. Serbian nationalist ambitions are worrying, he says.

DW: Mr. Joseph, you have a long experience working in the countries of the Western Balkans. How do you consider the "Open Balkan" initiative?

Edward P. Joseph:Your question is timely. Members of the US Senate have just introduced legislation on the Balkans, which includes a proposal to "evaluate regional cooperative initiatives such as the Open Balkans initiative and the Western Balkans Regional Common Market." The dangers of "Open Balkan" are not well understood, even though they are clear to many people in the Balkans. Yes, I have served for about 12 years in the region, including the war years in all the conflict countries. Like many others in the region, I notice dynamics and developments, especially in the discourse of "Greater Serbia" nationalism, advanced by President Aleksandar Vučić and his delegates, under the banner of "Serbian World". The initiative "Open Balkan" (or "Open Balkans") is not only a distraction from the core problems of the region - which are political - but in fact it is a danger that can lead to the worsening of these political problems. The problems of "Open Balkan(s)" can be summarized in this form: "dubious theory, naive structure and dangerous consequences".

I am starting with the theory claimed for "Open Balkan": "Trade is equal to trust". That's how I describe it. Unfortunately, this theory conflicts with reality. Just look at the raging Russian aggression against Ukraine. Until February 24, Russia and Ukraine had a gigantic trade cooperation, worth nearly 10 billion dollars in export-import. As we speak, China is conducting aggressive military maneuvers against Taiwan, a country that exports about $273 billion worth of goods to China, including electrical semiconductors. China is Taiwan's No. 1 trading partner, accounting for 1/3 of the domestic economy.

According to the "Open Balkan(s)" theory, all these countries should be at peace. Rather, they are either at war, or on the verge of war. The supporters of "Open Balkans" should be asked to give an explanation about this logic.

Instead of the “trade equals trust” concept, I offer a quite different conclusion: the impact of trade depends on the characteristics of a regime, whether it is democratic or autocratic/authoritarian. If there is trade between Western-oriented democracies, then yes, there are political benefits.

But if autocracies, especially those like Russia, China and yes, like Serbia under Aleksandar Vučić – which have territorial and political ambitions and destabilize their neighbors – drive trade, then there is growing mistrust, not trust at all. Serbia is the No. 1 partner of Montenegro, for imports and exports. Do you believe this? There is widespread mistrust of "Open Balkan(s)", especially among those who are threatened by Serbian aggression. I can tell you that after visiting 5 states in the region, officials of a state that is part of the initiative clearly acknowledge the fact that Vučić is building an aggressive and anti-democratic government.

Supporters of "Open Balkan(s)" should face and consider the fact that everywhere there is opposition and mistrust for this initiative. As for the "surveys" that supposedly show broad support for the initiative, just check the way the questions are formulated according to which "Open Balkan(s)" is only a positive initiative. There is no opportunity to express grievances or any other alternative.

DW: In your view, is this a structured initiative or an "idea in the air"?

Edward P. Joseph: I don't want to define this initiative in any way, because I don't want to suggest that the creators or supporters of 'Open Balkans' are themselves "in the air". The bottom line is that the initiative itself – regardless of motives or goals – is highly problematic.

DW: So far, Albania, Serbia and North Macedonia are part of this initiative. The states of Montenegro, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not accepted to be part of it. Do you consider this a non-comprehensive project?

Edward P. Joseph: I have expressed earlier why North Macedonia and Albania accept "Open Balkan": because they are not directly threatened by Serbian nationalist ambitions, manifested by Vucic. The "Serbian world" has nothing to do with Albania or North Macedonia. Extravagantly, Vučić tells Macedonians that he does not challenge their language (as Bulgarians do), but Vučić supports efforts that undermine Montenegrin identity. It is crystal clear: Serbian nationalism is a threat to Montenegrins, not to Macedonians, even though the latter understand quite well how "Open Balkan(S)" will reinforce Vucic's Serbian nationalization.

DW: In an interview given a few days ago, the president of Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, stated that the "Open Balkan" initiative would end with the undoing of Montenegro, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. How do you comment on this statement?

Edward P. Joseph: I find it significant for one major reason: it confirms the reality that "Open Balkan" supporters ignore: strong opposition. It doesn't matter what you think of Djukanovic or Albin Kurti, or of Bosnian or Croat leaders who share similar concerns.

More importantly, there is strong opposition to an initiative that its supporters say is "only about creating jobs and strengthening the economy." Its supporters should ask themselves one question: why is there so much opposition to our (allegedly) benevolent initiative? Why do they oppose it? The answer would be: then if there is so much opposition, the initiative cannot be entirely benevolent. These concerns must be legitimate. Supporters should listen to the objections of skeptics in the region, instead of pushing them to accept this initiative.

DW: The leaders of the countries that are part of the initiative consider 'Open Balkan' as an initiative that will benefit their countries and citizens. If we talk in economic and political terms, which country benefits the most?

Edward P. Joseph:Serbia will always benefit more than others. This is another fundamental mistake of "Open Balkans". Its supporters talk as if all the economies of the region have the same size and characteristics. They are not the same. For example, the economy of Serbia is about 14 times larger than that of Montenegro. The economy of Serbia is about 2 times bigger than the economies of Albania and North Macedonia, taken together. Serbia will increasingly benefit from its neighbors and will be able to produce goods with high export value, thus becoming even more dominant. This economic power translates into political power. See Germany in the European Union and you will understand. Remember that Germany's neighbors, such as France, were concerned about German economic power even after the end of World War II. France and other European countries did not want Germany to have access to coal and other resources.

France did not accept an 'Open Europe' initiative with Germany until it was assured that trade relations would develop under an equal and inclusive umbrella. That structure was the basis of the European Union we know today. Germany consolidated the democracy we know and respect today. A war between France and Germany would be unthinkable in our day.

But violence, even war, is not unthinkable between Serbia or its supporters, and other Balkan countries. Giving more power to an autocratic state like Serbia under the leadership of Vucic is irresponsible. It would be different if Serbia were a dedicated democracy that embraces the Western order. What is logical is to follow a model of economic cooperation under a wider umbrella. In this case, an umbrella that insists on mutual respect, inclusiveness, EU values ​​and a comprehensive watchdog state like Germany.

DW: From your point of view, does "Open Balkan" undermine the initiative of the 'Berlin Process'?

Edward P. Joseph: Of course it undermines it! "Open Balkans" is a competing initiative of several other initiatives in the region, including the "Berlin Process", CEFTA, and the Regional Cooperation Council, which helps to coordinate and promote concrete steps. There have been achievements, such as the Roaming agreement.

The United States can offer its energy and enthusiasm for economic cooperation within the "Berlin Process", for example. The US can catalyze progress within a framework that requires mutual respect and does not allow bullying and division. And this is in line with the successful concept that led to the creation of the EU.

DW: Is the US supportive of this initiative, and if so, in what form?

Edward P. Joseph: The US is strongly supporting "Open Balkans" in visible ways, including the event in Ohrid, and in various diplomatic efforts. I know that officials in the region have shared their concerns with US officials, including serious concerns about threatened security, giving Serbia led by Aleksandar Vucic more economic power and considering Vucic a 'partner', when he openly opposes the sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and the EU.

It is true that there are major economic benefits to advancing a Common Regional Market by easing barriers. But these benefits can be obtained from other and more reasonable initiatives than "Open Balkans". At the same time, where there are doubts about the intentions of the neighbors, there will be reluctance to embrace this initiative. A regional official expressed concern about the weapons entering his country from Serbia, due to political tensions.

This is another detail that supporters of "Open Balkans" forget: if there can be more conflicts as a result of the escalating tensions that this initiative incites, then the economic prospects of the region will be damaged and citizens will continue to leave their countries. . Very little is said by the supporters of "Open Balkans" about the fight against corruption. One of them claimed that foreign investors will demand the rule of law and anti-corruption controls. This is clearly not true considering the amount of foreign investment in Serbia, and the lack of demand for the rule of law.

I asked an experienced businessman from the region about this topic and he explained that most businesses insist on resolving disputes – for example breach of contract – outside the Serbian legal system, in international arbitration. So it seems that there can be foreign investments even in a corrupt system.

DW: The skepticism surrounding this initiative is also related to claims that it "may have been inspired" by Russian influence. What is your opinion about this issue?

Edward P. Joseph: What is significant about Russian positioning in the 'Open Balkans' is support. Lavrov openly expressed Russia's support for this initiative. "Sputnik Serbia" has published many articles with titles very supportive of 'Open Balkans'. Russia understands very well the effects of this scheme for Belgrade and Vucic, outside the value system of the European Union.

DW: How do you see the future of "Open Balkans"?

Edward P. Joseph: It depends on the wisdom of the leaders of the region, the US and the EU. If they will understand that the challenges of the region are political in nature - even the economic problems - they will not support a regime that aggravates the political problems. It is important to get the opinion of experts such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). In analyzing the political situation in Bosnia, the EBRD highlights the political problems, an obstacle created by the Dayton Agreement.

In fact, Bosnia and Herzegovina enjoys the "four freedoms" promoted by 'Open Balkans'. For more than two decades, there has been freedom in the movement of people, goods, services and capital. A Bosnian in Sarajevo can open a business in Banja Luka and a Serb vice versa. The same with the Croats.

The same "magical claims" about "Open Balkans" were also raised about trade with Bosnia and Herzegovina: "as soon as they do trade, they will focus on making money and forget about any division". On the contrary, as the EBRD notes, there is a serious economic obstacle as a result of the Dayton Agreement, which rests on the country's ethno-territorial division and complicated political rights. This requires a serious political strategy, not only for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but for the entire region. We proposed this in January in the SAIS-Woodrow Wilson report, called From Crisis to Convergence: How to Address the Source of Balkan Instability.

DW: Is Russian influence in the Balkans a serious threat, in the context of the Russian occupation of Ukraine?

Edward P. Joseph: The influence of Russia, the influence of China but also the influence of Hungary are serious threats. All the influences of anti-democratic regimes are negative factors in the Balkans. The problem is to recognize where this weakness originates: only one country in the region, Serbia, rejects the Western order for the region. This is the reason why the regime led by Vučić is connected to Hungary, China and Russia.

As we explained in our January SAIS-Wilson Center report, Serbia's "advantage" over Kosovo is related to the fact that Kosovo has not yet been recognized as a state by four NATO member countries: Spain, Slovakia, Romania and Greece. We even explain the connection between the problem of Serbian advantage over Kosovo and the bitter dispute between Croats and Bosniaks. It's no mystery: Croats and Bosniaks will always be at odds as long as Bosnian Serbs, empowered by Belgrade, reject Bosnia-Herzegovina.

We proposed a practical way to address the issue of Serbian nationalist ambitions, expressed under Vucic's leadership as "Serbian World". This proposal provides the preconditions for dealing with the difficulties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and of course, Kosovo. Unfortunately, "Open Balkans" takes things in the opposite direction, legitimizing Aleksandar Vucic as a 'partner', even though he openly supports Russia and signed energy deals with his friend Putin. There are two choices for the Balkans: address the problem of the Serbian "advantage" over Kosovo and its neighbors, which is exploited by an autocrat like Vucic, or pretend that Aleksandar Vucic is a 'partner' who will suddenly behave like a democrat if Serbia gains access to the same neighbors threatened by Belgrade.

Edward P. Joseph is a good connoisseur of the Balkans, a professor at the "John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies" in the USA. He has worked for 12 years in the Balkans, including the years of wars and conflicts in the region. Until 2012, he was the Deputy Head of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo.

 


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×