The latest bulletin of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCHRS) under the title 'EU, Germany and Serbia: Geostrategic are more important than democratization' has drawn attention about a special relationship between a key EU country like Germany and a WB aspirant country to join the block, Serbia. 
Albanian Daily News talked with Sonja Biserko, President of this Committee asking her which are the main aspects of this relationship making it specific, especially in the current situation in Europe as the Ukraine war goes on getting more complicated.  

President of HCHRS Sonja Biserko: Such an attitude of the West towards Serbia stems from the fact that this country is perceived as the central country in the Western Balkans and the factor of (in)stability in the region. In this connection the key roles were played by Germany and the United States. As the most important EU country as well as due to its strategic and economic interests in the region, Germany played a dominant role during the last two decades. Vucic's rise to power was supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party due to his promise that he would cooperate in solving the Kosovo problem. In return, he was also given support for accession negotiations with the EU, German investments and the entry of the SNS into the European People’s Party Group (EPP). 
The German presence in Serbia is characterized by economic involvement and investments, which are the single largest in the region. In that period, Russia’s financial involvement was minimal. It was focused on the spread of soft power in which it was very successful. 
The West’s attitude towards Serbia changed after Russian aggression against Ukraine, which fundamentally changed the geopolitical picture of Europe (although it was already changing over time). Serbia refused to align its foreign policy with that of the EU or, in other words, it did not want to impose sanctions against Russia primarily due to its close relations with Moscow, which it did not want to sacrifice. 
This position of Serbia forced the EU to change its attitude towards it whereby Germany had the leading role once again. This was followed by the “Banjska case” (the incursion of a Serbian paramilitary group into northern Kosovo, probably with the idea of forcing the division of Kosovo), the electoral fraud (December 2023) and, naturally, the adoption of the Resolution on Srebrenica at the United Nations (2024), which was sponsored by Germany. This was accompanied by the Serbian media campaign against Germany. The tension was finally eased with the arrival of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Belgrade and the signing of the Serbia-EU Memorandum on Sustainable Raw Materials. 
However, the West’s multi-year policy of pandering to Serbia, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other hand, enabled the present government to continue with the total devastation of the society and institutions and the subjugation of the media, thus directing them towards discrediting and compromising all opponents – from the opposition to journalists. The starting point of the West was its belief that it would draw Serbia to its side. However, as Alicia Kearns, a British MP, points out, this is not seen on the ground. 
The West has turned its back on democratic regression in Serbia in order to achieve its strategic goals. The question is whether the circumstances will definitely push Vucic to that side, or the strong desire for the realization of the “Serbian world” project, which is well underway, will prevail. Bearing in mind that Serbia cannot realize this project by itself, Russia’s support is still relevant. This incites fear in the region, which is not unfounded, that Belgrade has got the green light from the West to have Montenegro and the Republic of Srpska as compensation for the loss of Kosovo.   

-According to your opinion, will Germany keep the Berlin Process alive with the same interest as when it was launched as its geostrategic interests are focused on Serbia. As a matter of fact this initiative seems to have lost steam during the recent years... 
- It is true that the Berlin process lost steam over the last years but it seems that Germany is now on the way to revive it. Follow-up meeting is being prepared for October, Berlin. There was already a preparatory meeting in Skopje. So, I do believe that this process will liven up as a reaction to the developments in the region especially in terms of its security. It is the West's priority especially having in mind two recent visits to the region by the CIA director Burns and the NATO Assistant Secretary General Ruge. 

- Do all EU countries share the same approach towards Serbia like Germany although lately Berlin is warning Serbia about the stance towards Russia. But as far as we can see everything is within the limits of words.  
- Unfortunately, the older EU member states seem less interested, while the newer members are more concerned, particularly due to Serbia’s strong ties with Russia. Germany, traditionally the most involved, appears to be prioritizing geostrategic reasons now. However, we often hear assurances that the memorandum on lithium will not come at the expense of the democratic agenda. 

- How come that EU and US blame equally or harsher Kosovo than Serbia regarding the deadlock of the Pristina- Belgrade dialogue and as a follow up which party is more interested to drag the process? 
- The geostrategic turbulence in Europe is increasingly reflected in its value orientation and standards. Although it clings to its civilizational achievements, it is precisely its policy of pandering to Serbia that shows how it is difficult to apply the standards in cases like Serbia. On the other hand, the current Serbian government uses this very skillfully by being open to all those who want to invest and provide financial support.  Since the West views Kosovo as a security priority, its pressure on both sides to normalize relations has been uneven. The reality is that Belgrade has effectively relinquished its claim over Kosovo but continues to obstruct the consolidation of Kosovo’s internal sovereignty. The Banjska incident highlighted the region’s fragility and demonstrated that Belgrade remains the primary destabilizing force in the Western Balkans. 

- Lithium issue has a wide space in the Bulletin. Please could you share some light on the gist of the matter? And secondly following the line of the topic, according to you, which is more important for Germany – geostrategic interests or democratization as Serbia eyes the aspiration of joining the block although such an option doesn’t seem massively popular in this country. Do all member countries share the same approach like Germany? 
- The agreement on lithium exploitation has changed the West’s behaviour. Although the Serbian media have led an anti-European and, in particular, anti-German campaign on a number of occasions, neither the EU nor Berlin have seriously reacted to it. It is obvious that this is a question of geostrategic interests, because the Europeans want to become more independent from China which has raw material reserves, as well as to prevent its further penetration, which has been discussed on several occasions. 
The majority of EU politicians have welcomed this agreement as Serbia’s turn to the EU and its integration into the EU economic flows. However, a lot of negative criticism has also been heard. For example, Florian Bieber, a professor at the University of Graz, believes that Serbia has no independent institutions or media with national coverage and there is no critical civil society space. Thus, there is no guarantee that the mining project will comply with the Serbian standards (let alone with the EU ones). 
In his commentary, Nikolas Busse, Foreign Editor, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), has pointed out that there are three good reasons why Germany and other EU countries should buy lithium from Serbia: “First, Europe can thereby reduce its dependence on Chinese batteries. Second, closer economic relations can make Serbia not to rely too much on Moscow and Beijing. Third, this increases the incentive for Vucic not to play a destructive role in the conflict with Kosovo.” 
Claudia Kemfert, Professor of Energy Economics at the German Institute of Economic Research and Leuphana University of Luneburg, points out that “this deal is still problematic for two reasons. First, the potential damage to the environment can be serious. Therefore, the extraction of raw materials should only be allowed if the environmental and social standards are met. The German Government and the EU should insist on the relevant certificates. Second, although Serbia is a candidate country for EU membership, it does not support EU sanctions and has concluded free trade agreements with Russia and China”. As she also points out, “the freedom of the press is stifled, while the judiciary is not considered to be completely independent. The geopolitical criteria should also play a role. Consequently, Serbia is not an ideal partner for both reasons”. 

- No mention is made in the study on the other 'regional centers' vis a vis Germany. Could the other centers be happy about German focus and after all does it seem as if they are ignored leaving the taste that Serbia is considered as 'prima donna' in the Balkans? 
- Some Europeans were quite critical of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, because he is prepared to throw himself into the arms of an autocrat for the sake of raw materials. The Austrian daily newspaper Der Standard points out that there are several worrying things about the lithium deal with Aleksandar Vucic. 
Even in a Politico text it is written, inter alia: “After years in the diplomatic doghouse, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic is being catapulted back into the political limelight thanks to the European Union’s – and particularly Germany’s – voracious appetite for the raw materials needed to build electric cars.” 
On the other hand, there is growing concern in the region, with many believing that Vucic has been given a free hand in Montenegro and Bosnia as compensation for Kosovo. However, as I previously mentioned, the recent visit by CIA Director Burns signals U.S. concerns about Belgrade's behavior and its role as a proxy for Russian influence in the region. 

- Do you think that the game on two chairs by Belgrade - West and Russia- might last long and how much such an alternative serving also as a way for Serbia to go ahead with its scheme of Serbian World could be tolerated as it affects other aspirant EU regional countries? 
- Belgrade still hopes that Trump will return to the White House, which is perceived as a significant boost to the idea of consolidating the Serbian world. Unfortunately, this process is already well underway in both Bosnia and Montenegro. Although little was reported in our media about Burns' visit to Belgrade, one can speculate that it was primarily focused on the security concerns created by Belgrade. 

- And lastly does this political game of Serbia harm the WB and who profits more besides Belgrade - Russia or Germany, and will Brussels keep its eyes shut in face of all this development. What has priority democratization or specific geostrategic interests? 
- As we can see, the world is changing rapidly, and priorities are being adjusted to new realities. Democratization is not a priority at this moment. Serbia will not become an EU member soon, nor will any of the Western Balkan countries. This is not only due to Belgrade but also because of the lack of reforms and the transformation of their societies. This leads us to another question: What kind of societies are we, and are we truly prepared for democracy? The West cannot change us, but it can offer a helping hand.