Threat of a “black” hole

The Atlantic Council of Serbia, a non-governmental and non-profit organization, was founded in Serbia in June 2001, nearly two years after the bombing of the former Yugoslavia by NATO aircraft. Nonetheless, the members of this organization, which includes representatives from all spheres of public life in Serbia, believe that the country’s accession to the Euro-Atlantic integration process is a top-priority goal.

Why should Serbia integrate into both the European and Euro-Atlantic structures? How does Serbia assess NATO’s role and the participation of NATO forces in the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, including the Ukrainian peacekeeping contingent in this region? These and other questions are raised in The Day ’s exclusive interview with the head of the Atlantic Council of Serbia, Vladan ZIVULOVIC.

Mr. Zivulovic, according to recent public opinion polls in Serbia, 28 percent of the population supports the country’s accession to NATO with 55 percent opposed. Strange as it may seem, Ukraine has a similar situation. You head an organization that is lobbying for Serbia’s integration into NATO. I would like to hear your reasons why Serbia should become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

“From the point of view of security, it is very important to be part of a system of security. Our neighbors Bulgaria and Romania are members of NATO, and Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania are taking part in the NATO Partnership for Peace Program. If we are not part of this system, we will be a ‘black hole.’ We cannot stand independently, like Austria or Switzerland, which have a very strong economy. So, in my opinion, if we want to attract investments to our country, we should first and foremost guarantee a safe environment that can only be achieved once Serbia joins NATO. This will be the first step for our country, and the European Union will be the next. Only then can we expect serious investments. In my opinion, foreign investors don’t want to make investments in a state where security and stability are not guaranteed.”

Why is public support of Serbia’s accession to NATO so low?

“The answer to this question is very simple. As you probably know, we were bombed by NATO in 1999, so these wounds still hurt. But I want to mention that when we were founding the Atlantic Council of Serbia, support for membership in NATO was at 12 percent and now we have 28. Of course, this is a low level of support. But after we analyzed the survey, we realized that our citizens know little about NATO and what it means for our state to be a member of this organization. People think that being a member of NATO will mean spending big money on buying weapons and switching to NATO standards, as well as losing our sovereignty. This is not true. For example, Greece and Turkey have big problems with their borders, but as members of NATO they don’t wage war on each other. The main reason for this low level of support is the NATO bombing. During both world wars Serbia was among the winners, so it is hard to explain today that we were bombed by our allies. The goal of the Atlantic Council is to explain that we don’t want the same thing being repeated.”

Does the Serbian government share your position on the country’s integration into NATO?

“No. Our government has collapsed. During the recent presidential elections slightly more than half of the electorate supported Boris Tadic, who favors Euro-Atlantic integration. Half of the government was against integration into the European Union and NATO, and the rest - vice versa. Both sides could not reach a consensus, which led to the government’s collapse. Therefore, elections to parliament and local governments will take place on May 11. This will be a kind of referendum for Serbs concerning Euro-integration.”

Do you think the government should heed public opinion on questions relating to Serbia’s integration into the EU and NATO and lead the people to these structures by proving that this is in the country’s interests?

“As for the government, we shall see. But this will depend on the election campaign. And this is very important. If the radicals, who are closely linked with Russia (Kostunica’s party), win, they will of course block Euro-integration via Kosovo. Then we will become isolated, like we were during Milosevic’s regime. If Tadic wins, we will get closer to the European Union, but the question is not only about NATO membership because there is only 28 percent support for Serbia’s integration into the Alliance. Don’t forget that Serbia takes part in the Partnership for Peace program. But we haven’t started to work within the framework of this program yet. In my opinion, if Tadic wins, he will insist on developing the Partnership for Peace program and accelerating integration into the EU. Our destiny and life depend on which forces will win on May 11.”

What is your personal opinion concerning the role of NATO and Kosovo?

“As a citizen of Serbia, I am not very happy about the fact that our country was bombed by NATO. But when we talk about NATO, I can see 26 countries in front of me, some of which are our friends that have not recognized Kosovo’s independence. These are Spain, Greece, and Romania. Taking NATO as a whole, it is difficult to speak about the role of this organization. But, honestly speaking, Serbs would have had bigger problems without NATO. Some NATO member countries that are in Kosovo defend the Serbs. On March 17, 2004, many ethnic Serbs were killed in Kosovo, and more than 100 churches and monasteries were destroyed by fire. It was NATO forces that were rescuing the Serbs. If there had been no NATO forces, we would have had to send our forces there and this would have entailed a new war and destabilization. That would not have been wise at the time. Although I’m not pleased that NATO forces are still in Kosovo, without them we would be worrying about the fate of Serbian nationals whose numbers in this region are decreasing by the day. They are leaving Kosovo because the Albanians in Kosovo have declared their independence. As for the Atlantic Council, we completely agree with the official position of our government that the declaration of Kosovo’s independence is illegal and violates international law.”

What is your assessment of the role of Ukrainian peacekeepers, who are part of the UN police mission and KFOR forces acting under NATO’s protectorate?

“NATO and KFOR forces were sent to Kosovo in accordance with the UN resolution. Ukraine is a member of the UN and sent troops to Kosovo to fulfill its duties. I cannot see any problems here. I think it is good that Ukrainian peacekeepers are here. At the same time, I must admit that Ukraine has similar problems. If Serbia has problems with Kosovo, I am sure that one day a situation may emerge in your country and you will have problems with the Muslim population in the Crimea. So we should remain cautious. If we allow Kosovo to declare its independence via a referendum, everyone will be able to do this. Then we will have a hundred new small states. In my opinion, this is not wise and not worth doing. I found out from the news that a Ukrainian policeman died in Kosovo. I am very sorry about this. The Ukrainian and Serbian nations are very much alike, and we do not think that it is bad that Ukrainian peacekeepers are taking part in the peacekeeping operation in Kosovo.”

You probably know that in connection with the death of the Ukrainian policeman, the Ukrainian opposition is trying to pass a law in the Verkhovna Rada, which is aimed at withdrawing Ukrainian peacekeepers from Kosovo. How will such a decision be received in Serbia?

“In my opinion, such a decision won’t do anything good for Serbia because, thanks to the presence of Ukrainian peacekeepers, the protection of Serbs in Kosovo is guaranteed. We need the international community to be present there to protect Kosovo’s ethnic Serbs. One should take into account the fact that, according to UN Resolution No. 1233, Serbia has no right to deploy its troops to Kosovo. I understand that the Ukrainian parliament has the right to approve a decision on the withdrawal of its peacekeeping contingent. I admit that dispatching troops to fulfill any mission is risky for people. Even if you send medical personnel, let’s say to Africa, there is a chance that a doctor may die in an incident. There is always risk associated with peacekeeping activities. But I support the international mission in Kosovo. If Serbia had any chance, and I personally had the possibility to approve the resolutions, I would always support sending Serbian peacekeepers on international missions. Of course, there is no question of sending our soldiers to Iraq, which does not have a mandate in the UN.

Do you support Ukraine’s aspirations to join the NATO Membership Action Plan in Bucharest?

“You have bigger problems than us because you share a border with Russia. As for the MAP, I support this step 100 percent. If Russia is a member of the NATO-Russia Council and is cooperating very closely with the Alliance, why shouldn’t Ukraine develop closer relations with NATO? But Ukraine’s accession to NATO is a very delicate question because if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will border directly on NATO and it will have problems with its security. But I think that since you have good relations with Russia, you will find a solution to this problem.”

What results, in your opinion, would Serbia like to expect from the NATO summit in Bucharest?

“Of course, I would like to be among the three neighboring Balkan countries. Unfortunately, because of the political situation in our country and Kosovo, we are not so lucky. Our attention is not focused on NATO at the moment. So far we are not in a position where we can think about joining the Alliance. On the other hand, NATO has not invited Serbia. Therefore, at the present stage we should show some activity and propose projects within the framework of the Partnership for Peace Program. This will be a beginning for us. But NATO membership is a distant prospect.”