Noble Foreign Policy

The Nobel Committee’s 2010 Peace Prize award to Liu Xiaobo caused some expected reactions from Chinese officials, but consequences for Serbian foreign policy came in a rather unanticipated way. China's government was reported to have asked the governments of other countries not to send their representatives to the Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo. On December 7 Serbian Foreign Ministry announced they will join 18 other states that will not send representatives to the ceremony on December 10. 
The first strong protests against this decision were raised among Serbian civil society representatives and some of the political parties. As a response, EU representatives also condemned this move: Jelko Kacin of European Parliament complained about Serbia being submissive towards China, and EU spokeswoman Angela Filote and Commissioner for Enlargement, Stefan Fule expressed their regret, suggesting candidate state foreign policy must be in line with EU's. While Kacin’s tone is not a novelty for Serbian public, the Commissioner’s rebuttal was certainly something Serbian government should be worried about, and it eventually responded to the criticism. Yesterday’s news reported that the Serbian Ombudsman will represent the country at the ceremony, in his own competence, but also as a representative of PM - ‘to congratulate the winner of the award’.

 Oslo City Hall, Photo: flickr / pattiebelle

EU & Kosovo: What’s New?

So where did this twist originate, did Serbian PM suddenly recognize the inadequacy of China’s human rights polices? In all probability this is not the case. The whole issue is entangled in the key Serbian foreign policy knot: its priority to become EU member and to defend its sovereignty over Kosovo. Ever since February 2008 Kosovo Unilateral Declaration of Independence, Serbian foreign policy revolved around conflict with states that had recognized the independence and its need to cooperate with EU and become its candidate/member state. One of the ways this government tried to resolve this incompatibility is by transferring the issue to the International Court of Justice, hoping for positive outcome. However, last summer’s ICJ Advisory Opinion essentially said Kosovo did not violate international law, which  was a cold shower for the government. Serbia than submitted a UN General Assembly Resolution that defended its position, in spite of EU’s determination to bring the situation out of a deadlock. What happened than was that Serbian government eventually yielded to the pressure and accepted a joint proposal of UN GA Resolution that called for the new process, a dialogue with Kosovo that will be facilitated by EU.
This ‘compromising’ resolution was a turning point, an indication that Serbia will change its policy towards Kosovo and will continue its EU approximation. What shape this policy will take is not really known, but its certain that last two or three years of overall ambiguity in relations with EU is over. That made one of the key proponents of this foreign policy, Minister Jeremic, who carried most of the burden of the surprising ICJ opinion, obsolete and he was pushed aside in the coming months, signaling that his ‘tough’ approach is not fully backed by his party chief, President Tadic, nor his government leader, PM Cvetkovic. 

Serbia & International Human Rights: Values or Interests?

When the 2010 Peace Prize winner was announced, Serbian government didn’t have much to say, contrary to 2008 award to Martti Ahtisaari. This choice was criticized, and ceremony was not attended by Serbian, or representatives of 9 other states. It is easy to understand why: earlier that year Ahtisaari was blamed by the government for his position during Serbia-Kosovo negotiations and for the solution that was acceptable only to one side. This year, Serbia did not oppose the award to Xiaobo, but the reason for it's no-show policy was just the same as two years ago and it has to do with Kosovo and not human rights. 

One of the indicators of Serbia’s foreign policy during the last two-three years is its voting record on resolutions on human rights in UN General Assembly. Before Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence, Serbia was in line with most Western states, voting in favor of resolutions that condemned status of human rights in Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea or Belarus. But after the process of international recognition of Kosovo started, Serbia’s priorities changed. The international campaign of repudiating the recognitions raised the importance of many African and Asian states, and their votes in the UN GA. So, in 2008, Serbia voted against the Iran Human Rights Resolution, stating this country’s high importance in the Organization of Islamic Conference, whose members, in spite of religious ties with Kosovo’s majority population mostly did not recognize the independence, seeing it as a US-backed project. It was similar reasons behind no-votes for Myanmar or Korea Resolutions, where Serbia went against the ‘Western’ voting bloc in the UN.

 Serbian vote in UN General Assembly on Human Rights Resolutions 2006-2010

The voting record on human rights in the UN as well as consideration for China's, UN Security Council permanent member, position in the Peace Prize affair had nothing to do with human rights and values, Serbian, European or universal. Instead, it had everything to do with Serbian unresolved foreign policy priorities and its contending interests with Kosovo and EU. I'd argue that, December being already here, in few weeks, the turn in the Serbian foreign policy will show up in its voting pattern in UN. Serbia could again vote in favor of UN GA resolutions that condemn human rights situation in these states.

Bilateral Relations

Serbia’s refusal to send representative was most probably FM Jeremic’s decision, based on the ‘past policy’. Its decision to send the Ombudsman, is a sign of ‘new policy’ as can be seen in the larger ‘human rights pattern'. In the meantime, Serbian public weighed its relations with two countries especially - Norway and China. The bilateral relations with China are important for Serbia, not only because of economic interests: Chinese Ambassador in the UN is the last one that will raise hand in Security Council in favor of Kosovo’s independence. 

On the other hand, not replying to the invitation might be understood as an insult to its host, Norway. Although Norway is not an EU member and cannot directly influence Serbia’s EU approximation, Serbian-Norwegian relations have been increasingly friendly and perhaps one of the best assessed relations with any EU/NATO member states in the past decade. Also, level of investments coming from this country to Serbia is among the highest.

So the decision was not easy, but the solution might have and should have been considerably better. Serbia could have used one of many diplomatic moves that might have saved its face. It could have sent a lower-rank embassy official instead of Ambassador, or conveniently excuse its absence, instead of highly-politicized rejection. This would have made all the difference. Instead, as expected, Serbia changed its mind under pressure and in the end made worst possible choice, the one that indicates lack of tact, integrity and long-term thinking. By changing the decision, Serbia ends up with a shadow over its reputation in both camps.

 'All eyes on China' - Chinese ambassador alone in abstaining 
from vote on adopting resolution 1244 in 1999 UN Photo / Milton Grant

Domestic Politics:  Foreign Minister’s Destiny

The repercussions for domestic politics might be considerable. The ruling Democratic Party is, for months now, overwhelmed with the campaign for party elections. While the current party head, Tadic, has almost unanimous support for the December 18 elections, the real struggle is for the positions of five vice-presidents, for which FM Jeremic is one of candidates. This means that the party dynamics is heavily influencing foreign politics, yet in turn, foreign policy mistakes such as this will certainly reverberate in domestic and inter-party relations. With his position already shaken, in contrast with ambition to advance in party’s structure, pulling the rug beneath Jeremic's feet in Peace Prize affair is a strongest hit on his credibility so far. It is difficult to see how FM will proceed. Although immediate resignation would be the most optimal outcome, in light of the coming party elections, this will probably have to wait.

Serbia's policy of pursuing EU approximation and trying to keep its formal sovereignty over Kosovo was under all circumstances legitimate strategy. But, if it fails on tests such as this, it becomes increasingly obvious that it either has has no capacity or no will to handle sensitive cases. The resignation or dismissal of FM Jeremic will not solve this, only new and improved Serbian approach to foreign politics will.