“The UN Resolution on Srebrenica has shown that Serbia lacks the political will to acknowledge its responsibility for the brutal collapse of Yugoslavia and for crimes against humanity and genocide, especially in Bosnia. Instead, there was a diplomatic campaign against the adoption of the resolution on Srebrenica and Kosovo’s membership in the Council of Europe,” has said the Serb veteran activist for human rights in Serbia and Western Balkans and President of Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCHRS) Sonja Biserko in an exclusive interview with Albanian Daily News, which dealt with the situation in Serbia in many current aspects unfolded in the monthly Bulletin published a few weeks ago.

“Despite ample evidence that Serbia is not essentially oriented towards Euro-Atlantic integration and the West’s  somewhat changed attitude towards it after the “Banjska incident”, the West still believes that Vucic, although a nationalist, is the only one who can explain to the Serbs that Kosovo is irretrievably lost,” said Ms. Biserko.

According to her, after Banjska case the EU has already taken harder stance on Serbia but it is not yet clear whether it will continue with this new approach. “Resolution on Srebrenica revealed the true nature of the Belgrade regime and its anti-western attitude. Some countries such as the US believe that president Vucic is pro-western and that he can deliver.”

Expressing her concern about Serbia’s expansive mentality and aggressive scheme in the Western Balkans  HCHRS President Biserko insisted Vucic will continue with his policy of undermining Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Montenegro, which is essentially a systematic rounding up of the “Serbian World”, that is, a revision of the defeat of the 1990s. “This is in line with the revisionist policy of Russia which wholeheartedly supports the “Serbian World” project.”

According to Ms. Biserko, Belgrade views the postponement of Kosovo’s admission to the Council of Europe as a victory for its diplomatic activities, signaling to the region that Belgrade is still tolerated. The West’s attitude towards Serbia and, in particular, President Vucic is complex, often contradictory, and lenient.

“It is important to note that Belgrade is anticipating a change in the US presidency, a shift to the right in the European Parliament, and a Russian victory in Ukraine, all of which it hopes will be favorable for Serbia both internally and externally,” said President of Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia Sonja Biserko in the following interview:

Albanian Daily News: A few weeks ago Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCHRS) published its monthly bulletin (No.173 // May 2024). Could you, please, tell ADN readers some words about its monthly content?

HCHRS President Sonja Biserko: The objective of the Helsinki Bulletin was to analyze the current politics of Serbia, which clearly demonstrate that Serbia has not shown the political will to implement the reforms necessary for the creation of a democratic society. Despite its official pro-EU orientation, Serbian foreign policy leans more towards the East, especially towards Russia and China.

This orientation is supported by the Serbian elite, including a significant part of the academic community, especially in terms of leaning towards Russia and China. This is perceived as geostrategically important for Serbia and, in a way, resembles the non-alignment of Yugoslavia.

The UN Resolution on Srebrenica has shown that Serbia lacks the political will to acknowledge its responsibility for the brutal collapse of Yugoslavia and for crimes against humanity and genocide, especially in Bosnia. Instead, there was a diplomatic campaign against the adoption of the resolution on Srebrenica and Kosovo’s membership in the Council of Europe. The visit of the Chinese President Xi was yet another indication that questions Serbia’s EU orientation.

Apart from that, all domestic and foreign analyses testify to unfavorable election conditions, media unfreedom, corruption, the rise of authoritarianism, and essentially non-liberal values which, by nature, characterize all authoritarian regimes, such as those of Russia and China.

Despite ample evidence that Serbia is not essentially oriented towards Euro-Atlantic integration and the West’s  somewhat changed attitude towards it after the “Banjska incident”, the West still believes that Vucic, although a nationalist, is the only one who can explain to the Serbs that Kosovo is irretrievably lost. 

- A coincidence or not but partial local elections in Serbia were held a few days before the EP elections. Do you think that they might influence on future relationship between Brussels and Serbia regarding the accession process? Will the new bloc's organization tolerate indefinitely the non-alignment of Serbia’s stance regarding delicate issues like the 'brotherhood' with Russia and its support to the aggression of Ukraine?

- The previous December elections and the elections held on June 7 showed several things: Voting for the leader (Aleksandar was the leader of all local lists, including in Belgrade); a tendency that had already been evident towards, essentially, a one-party state, the merging of the state and the party (SNS), normalization of electoral engineering (ruling parties), and that politics is a personal matter (people voted for Aleksandar Vucic, not SNS).

The election campaign was dominated by Serbian nationalism, and President Vucic ended his pre-election rally with "Serbs are not a genocidal nation." The UN resolution on Srebrenica was used for electoral purposes and significantly contributed to the homogenization of Serbia. This will certainly be further reinforced by the Assembly under the slogan "One nation, one assembly - Serbia and Srpska". Despite the victory of SNS, which guarantees its uninterrupted rule until 2027, it should be noted that SNS received fewer votes than in the December elections, and part of the opposition succeeded, despite the boycott by a significant portion of the opposition. Savo Manojlovic won 18% in Belgrade, and Dr. Milic in Nis received half of the votes, probably would have won if there had not been manipulation and pressure on all those working in public enterprises and their families. The disunity of the opposition significantly influenced the abstention of their voters, thereby demonstrating their notorious inability to produce a credible opposition leader and offer a convincing alternative program.

After Banjska case the EU has already taken harder stance on Serbia but it is not yet clear whether it will continue with this new approach. Resolution on Srebrenica revealed the true nature of the Belgrade regime and its anti-western attitude. Some countries such as the US believe that president Vucic is pro-western and that he can deliver. He already delivered on Kosovo but it is a question when he will de facto recognize Kosovo and normalize relations with it. Since the pressure to close down the Kosovo issue from both the EU and the US is rather strong, Vucic is turning to Republika Srpska and the Sabor was quite indicative.

- Let me turn to the touchy question of minorities which constitutes approximately 13% of the population of Serbia, according to the population census. My question has to do with the Albanian population in Presevo Valley where among others the so-called passivizations of home addresses by Serb authorities continues to decrease the number of Albanian population. You have followed this matter closely and please how do you assess the realization of Serbia’s so called Action Plan for the fullfilment of the rights of national minorities, in this case of Albanians?

- Both Albanians and Bosniaks are perceived as Islamic populations and have faced various forms of discrimination over the last few decades. Albanians in the South are additionally caught in the unresolved Kosovo issue; at one point, even the swap of territories was considered, but that is no longer on the table. After the 2001 conflict, which was halted by the US, Serbia was obliged to pursue the agreement brokered in 2001. However, not much has been implemented.

Since Kosovo declared independence, Kosovo diplomas are not recognized by Serbian authorities, preventing young people who studied in Pristina from getting employed in public administration, leading many to leave. In the long run, this has an extremely negative impact on the Albanian community because, without an elite, it is slowly dying out. The issue of passivization, which was highlighted by the Helsinki Committee, continues to persist.

American Ambassador Hill, along with others, has visited Presevo and Bujanovac, but no significant results have been seen yet. Though President Vucic is announcing new infrastructural projects in these regions and integration of minorities, in reality, minorities are excluded from political, economic, and cultural spheres, thus totally marginalizing or even segregating them, because Serbia is being defined as an exclusively ethnocentric state.

- As a follow up, what do you think about the following assessment that within the EU accession process Serbia has received support and positive evaluation from the European Commission and certain EU member states regarding the Action Plan?

- The West’s somewhat changed policy towards Serbia is not sufficient, because President Vucic still pursues a balancing policy. This is best illustrated by the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Although short and in passing, it sent a crucial message that China is Serbia’s important economic and political pillar.  

Serbia will continue with its policy of undermining Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Montenegro, which is essentially a systematic rounding up of the “Serbian World”, that is, a revision of the defeat of the 1990s. This is in line with the revisionist policy of Russia which wholeheartedly supports the “Serbian World” project.

In recent months, President Vucic has affirmed the relations with Russia, China, Hungary and other authoritarian countries, which leaves little room for belief that Serbia is moving towards the West. His behaviour in the United Nations, that is, his threats that the resolution on Srebrenica will worsen the relations in the region and possibly lead to a conflict and prevent reconciliation is mere intimidation, because Serbia has been the main disruptive and destabilizing factor  for decades. 

The tactic of low-intensity destabilization of the Balkans hinders all neighbours in all aspects – from political, through economic, to security ones – which greatly damages the economic development and Euro-Atlantic aspirations of all surrounding countries. The international Western community is not sufficiently consistent in its policy towards Serbia, although it has all the necessary information about the current regime and its intentions in the region. 

Belgrade has repeatedly stated that it will not implement the Brussels and Ohrid Agreements, which are considered by the US and EU to be legally binding.

- Madame Biserko does Vucic want to change the existing situation in the WB through wars atmosphere like he is doing in Kosovo and Bosnia, and secondly could it be said what it heard from certain circles in Brussels that Serbia maintains stability in WB? I would like to bring to the attention countries like Croatia (EU and NATO member), Albania, North Macedonia , Montenegro (NATO member and EU aspirant countries), Bulgaria (EU and NATO member) and Kosovo where a large contingent of NATO forces are stationed. What do you think about their role in maintaining and defending peace and stability in the region as compared to what Belgrade trumpets?

- Serbia won’t be allowed to radicalize the security situation in the region, as security is one of the West's priorities in the current international context. Since the EU and the US are interested in a stable Balkans, much will depend on their stance toward Serbia, especially in the case of any kind of escalation. KFOR and EUFOR have already been reinforced with additional forces, and new NATO bases are emerging in Albania and Romania.

Surrounded by NATO countries, Serbia is unlikely to engage in war-like policies but will likely continue its threatening narratives. Serbia will persist with its policy of undermining Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Montenegro, aiming to systematically consolidate the "Serbian World"—a revisionist agenda echoing the policies of Russia, which fully supports this project.

Belgrade is not genuinely interested in the creation of the community of Serbian municipalities. Instead, its constant insistence serves to portray the Kosovo Government as rigid and Stalinist. This narrative is supported by the opposition, media, and non-governmental sector in Kosovo, as well as the Western community. Kosovo is used to unify the Serbian people, serving multiple purposes: electoral gains in June and maintaining tensions to demonstrate that Serbs and Albanians cannot coexist. Essentially, this policy pushes for the only perceived solution - the division of Kosovo.

Belgrade views the postponement of Kosovo’s admission to the Council of Europe as a victory for its diplomatic activities, signaling to the region that Belgrade is still tolerated. The West’s attitude towards Serbia and, in particular, President Vucic is complex, often contradictory, and lenient. The West is interested in aligning Vucic with Western interests, and he is skillfully navigating this for the time being. It is important to note that Belgrade is anticipating a change in the US presidency, a shift to the right in the European Parliament, and a Russian victory in Ukraine, all of which it hopes will be favorable for Serbia both internally and externally. / ADN