Serbia & EU Integration: An Interview with Dr. Nikola Lazic MP

In an interview with the Parliamentarians Network, Dr. Nikola Lazic MP discusses Serbia's path towards accession into the EU. He elaborates on the 'cornerstones of stability' in Serbia, along with the implications of the recent capture of accused war criminals Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzic.

PN:  The Government of Serbia has identified European integration is one of its strategic priorities. Enlargement of the European Union can be seen as a tool for deepening democracy and fostering more open and cooperative relationships between countries on the European continent. How do you think joining the EU will affect Serbia’s relationship with its neighbors? For example, do you think that joining the EU will foster improved relations with candidate and proposed candidate countries such as Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina?

NL: Serbia is part of Europe in a historical, civilizational and cultural sense. Dynamics and the pace of the process of integration currently depends not only on the merits of fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, plus certain political conditions, but also on the capacity of EU to respond adequately to this. It is equally important that political elites in EU countries remain devoted to their commitment from 2003 Thessalonikki agenda and support enlargement process in spite of their own internal challenges such as the economic crisis, and the rise of populism in some societies.

Due to events from their recent history, countries in the region are not only faced with typical transitional problems, but they are also burdened by various problems which are not typical. Some of terms for integration that had been set ahead were more political than structural. Serbia, as far as the structure, its economy and administrative capacity is concerned, is not much better prepared than it was four years ago.

The process of integration to EU is beneficial and stimulating not only to the countries which are entering EU, but also for their neighbors. This brings additional value to stability, but in order to reach this stage, it is important to develop mutually beneficial relations, based on respect of the international law and respect for territorial integrity of states. It is important to talk, and by peaceful means to resolve all open issues, no matter how difficult they are. Only mutually acceptable solutions based on European values are long-lasting. It is important that politicians work on achieving these standards not for the sake of their international image but rather for enforcing stability.

After the conflict period, some cornerstones of stability in the region have been set by Dayton Peace Accords, UN SC Resolution 1244, Ohrid Agreement. In that context, I regret that unsuccessful talks on the status of province of Kosovo represent a missed opportunity to reach a historical compromise between the Serbs and Albanians. Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Pristina followed in 2008, yet Belgrade rejected it as a breach of Serbia’s integrity and UN SC Resolution 1244. This open issue is divisive for UN member countries, because 117 UN members haven’t recognized Kosovo UDI. It is also divisive for EU member states, as five countries haven’t recognized it either. Unfortunately, some diplomats and politicians say that Serbia’s EU accession will be conditioned by the recognition of Kosovo.

PN: Serbia’s cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is one of the conditions of integration into the EU. The recent capture of Ratko Mladic has been lauded as a major step forward for international justice, and also – according to European Commission President Barroso - for the rule of law in Serbia itself. What do you think of this recent development?

NL: Considering that context, the EP Rapporteur for Serbia recently said that the capture was “conditio sine qua non” for the progress of the integration process. Yet, he also stressed that Mladic was a huge and essential obstacle, but not the ticket to speedy and easy EU membership.

When it comes to the EU integration itself, part of the problem is that there has not been enough incentives to solve structural problems in the country. The best illustration for this is the fact that corruption in Serbia was assessed to be lower four to five years ago, than it is today. The EU Commission has also objected to the way the Serbian Government has carried out the judicial reforms, as well as the re-election of judges.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the war crimes, it is essential that all who are suspected or indicted for crimes are accessible to be investigated and processed, regardless of their ethnic background.

PN: Some ultranationalist groups expressed outrage at Mladic’s capture – how strong are these groups and what efforts are being taken to ensure that their objections remain non-violent?

NL: For example, the previous governments, from 2004 till 2008 also cooperated with ICTY, when over 20 inditees from Serbia went to the Hague. The necessary stability was preserved, and there was no rise in extremism, even though some of them were former top state officials.  I believe that the event mentioned above is a product of synergism of few different factors. Unfortunately, the Government has not found a way to deal successfully with the social challenges and the economic crisis. Also, a part of political elite has highly ideologized the issue of EU integration, while neglecting European values. Therefore, we are witnessing a fall in support for EU integration in the last few years. When it comes to the problems related to basic democratic standards and formulating key policies of strategic importance, solutions should be based on a wide consensus. There should be more active dialogue between governing and opposition parties.

PN: Serbia has been largely successful at preventing the outbreak of large-scale violence since the unrest of the 1990s. How high a policy priority is the prevention of armed conflict to the Serbian government, and parliamentarians in particular? What are some conflict prevention initiatives currently being undertaken by the Serbian government?

NL: Most of the military structures in the region have undergone a series of reforms, and professionalizing. Civil and democratic control of armed forces has been institutionalized and formalized through parliamentary mechanisms. This is necessary but it is not enough. I would like to stress that all the important political forces in Serbia are devoted to diplomatic and peaceful resolution of conflicts and problems. Regionally, the country should play a proactive role, and support and participate in initiatives such as the South East European Co-operation Process (SEECP) and Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA), as well as in organizations such as the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, etc.

PN:  What has been the impact of Serbia’s involvement in NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) Programme? Is this indicative of deeper cooperation between Serbia and the Alliance on security and defense in the future?

NL: Serbia joined NATO PFP Programme in 2006. In the meantime, the Serbian Parliament adopted the position of military neutrality, unless it is decided otherwise at a referendum. Of course, this concept should by no means be considered as an isolationistic, but should promote an active position of cooperation towards the strengthening of security and defense mechanisms. Currently, Serbia is participating in several military and police missions under the UN Mandate. The government has adopted a Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) Programme. The issue of NATO membership is still burdened by the events which took place in 1999.