Da li Srbija postaje “talac” te rezolucije ili je reč o dokumentu koji je nas jedini spas?
Intervju za Novi Magazin/Interview for Novi Magazin
Do koje mere će Rezolucija 1244 biti primenjena zavisi isključivo od onih aktera koji imaju efektivnu kontrolu nad teritorijom Kosova, a to su pored institucija Kosova države kvinte, NATO i EU.
Iako je možda 1999. godine moglo da se učini da je Rezolucijom 1244 zaštićen suverenitet Jugoslavije na Kosovu, u godinama koje su dolazile pokazalo se da ovaj dokument nije bio baš tako čvrsta garancija. Srbija se stalno poziva na one odredbe iz ove Rezolucije koje joj garantuju suverenitet i teritorijalni integritet, a zanemaruje neke druge koje joj se ne dopadaju. Tako se, na primer, često ignoriše činjenica da se u rezoluciji 1244 izričito navodi da će konačni status Kosova biti utvrđen u skladu sa “sporazumom” iz Rambujea što znači u skladu sa voljom naroda koji tamo živi.
Da li neka nova medjunarodna konferencija moze da znaci neku drugaciju raspodelu medjunarodne podrske Srbiji?
Odgovor na ovo pitanje zavisi od toga ko bi sve bio pozvan na tu međunarodnu konferenciju i na koji način bi se na njoj donosile odluke. Sva je prilika da bi u postojećim geopolitičkim okolnostima na takvoj konferenciji ključnu ulogu imale upravo one Zapadne države koje su već priznale nezavisnost Kosova. One bi dakle samo mogle da ponove ono oko čega među njima već postoji konsenzus, a to je da je Kosovo nezavisna država. Zbog toga mislim da u ovom trenutku ne postoji raspoloženje da se ovakva konferencija sazove.
Da li bi za Srbiju bilo dobro da njena medjunarodna pozicija u odnosu na politiku koju vodi prema Kosovu prestane da zavisi prevashodno od stava Rusije?
Sve zavisi od toga šta Srbija želi da postigne. Ukoliko je njen cilj da zaštiti svoj fiktivni suverenitet nad Kosovom time što će biti onemogućena nova rezolucija u Savetu bezbednosti uz pomoć ruskog veta, onda ova aktuelna politika donekle može da se razume. Problem je u tome što politika održavanja ovog fiktivnog suvereniteta, koja je po svemu sudeći osuđena na konačni neuspeh, ima ogromnu ekonomsku, političku i reputacionu cenu. Ako građani Srbije žele da plate tu cenu onda je to u redu, ali potrebno je da budu svesni koliko je ona velika i koliko zapravo malo toga za nju dobijaju.
Da li Srbija u konfiguraciji medjunarodne podrske kakva je sada uopste moze da resi bilo koji problem?
U današnjem svetu kompleksne međuzavisnosti ni najmoćnije države sveta ne mogu same da rešavaju međunarodne probleme, a kamoli male i slabe države kao što je Srbija. Male države, zbog toga što ne raspolažu velikim ekonomskim, demografskim i vojnim potencijalima moraju da se oslanjaju na diplomatiju i na snagu svojih partnera, prijatelja i saveznika kako bi se čuo njihov glas na međunarodnoj sceni.
autor: DJ izvor: Novi magazin
Objavljeno na: www.novimagazin.rs
My Interview for Novi Magazin published on 29 April 2012.
What is the meaning of commitment to rely both on Russia and NATO in a situation where practically all Serbian neighbors are already in NATO; and does such an approach, by itself, carry any security risk?
Things are pretty clear. NATO is the most powerful military alliance in the world that embraces 28 democracies with almost 900 million citizens, 50% of the world economy, as well as more than half of total world investment in defense. In addition, all of Serbia’s neighbors are either already in NATO or will be soon. On the other hand, Russia at best is a defective democracy, with 140 million citizens, 2.39% of the world economy and only 4.1% of global defence expenditures. Geopolitically, Russia is primarily interested in its own neighborhood and not in the Western Balkans. All this clearly shows why the policy of “equal reliance” on NATO and Russia is the outcome of self-delusive reverie which is not based on economics, politics, strategy or geography. Serbia should maintain close cultural and economic relations with Russia, preferably with a reduced foreign trade deficit. When it comes to security and defense policy, the most reasonable orientation of Serbia leads in the direction of Brussels, both ones.
What the concept of neutrality implies today in modern Europe and the world and does the fact that a country is not a part of any military alliance mean that it is completely outside of a security system?
There are a small number of militarily neutral countries in Europe such as Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Austria or Switzerland. However, there is no European country which entirely exluded itself from any international security system whether the UN, EU, NATO, OSC or else. Military neutrality implies that one state stays out of an armed conflict, while permanent military neutrality applies to all future conflicts as well. However, it does not involve sticking the head in the sand and total isolation of the country. Such was the case even during the Cold War. In the era of bipolarity, states could choose whether they would join one of the blocks, or remain neutral and non-aligned. Staying out of the blocks had a price but also its advantages. The price was such that in case of armed aggression against neutral countries, it would have no allies, while the advantage was the fact that in the event of world war it could remain aside and stay out of conflict. However, with the exception of Switzerland, all other European militarily neutral and non-aligned countries were even then (as now) the active participants in the system of collective security created under the patronage of UN. The neutral countries played a key role in creating the system of cooperative security within the CSCE.
To what extent have things changed since the Cold War?
Security environment has fundamentally changed since then. It became a cliche to say that concept of military neutrality in Europe changed its meaning after the end of the Cold War. However, today it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the fall of the Berlin Wall, German unification or the collapse of the Soviet Union for the European security architecture. NATO and the EU have expanded both its membership and its tasks. North Atlantic Treaty also became a political forum; while besides economic, the EU became first political and then incresingly a military alliance. These changes caused the redefinition of neutrality concept. In these new circumstances, the fear of military aggression and world war did not disappear, but it was no longer topping the agenda of international politics. In the absence of aggressive competition between great powers for domination and in the shadow of Western hegemony, the other security challenges, risks and threats came to the foreground. These are terrorism, state failure, civil wars, extremism, piracy at sea, climate change and organized crime, to name just a few. No state, no matter how powerful it is, can cope with these problems alone in the era of complex interdependence. Because of that, all European neutral countries today face the imperative of more intensive involvement in international security management within the common security and defense policy of the EU or NATO’s Partnership for Peace.
Is Serbia today fundamentally neutral, given the fact that most things related to the defense system are defined by NATO standards?
Professional standards should be distinguished from political decisions. Serbia has adopted NATO standards but has not signed the Washington Treaty. The fact that Serbian Armed Forces are regulated by these standards in no way calls into question the neutrality of Serbia. Those are the professional and technical regulations which standardize military equipment and weapons, ammunition, logistical and administrative procedures. In addition to all members of the alliance, these standards are adopted by a number of partner countries as well including all European neutral countries. The adoption of the same NATO standards enables these militaries to be interoperable in case of a joint action, but without prejudice to whether and when would they act together. It is a matter of political decision.
What prerequisites need to be fulfilled in order for a country to remain neutral and does Serbia meet some of those?
In order for a state to become and remain militarily neutral it is enough to declare its neutrality and that it doesn’t support any of the confronted parties in case of war, or not enter any military alliances. If a country wants to obtain the international legal status of its neutral position, it is necessary that other states accept its neutrality. The fact that the European neutral countries are rich in no way means that wealth is a prerequisite for a state to be militarily neutral. On the contrary, NATO members traditionally spend a larger percentage of their GDP on defense than the neutral European countries. Besides, Moldova is one of Europe’s poorest countries and still that fact was not an obstacle for the maintenance of its neutrality. However, the indirect costs of military neutrality should be taken into account when the economic calculation is being made. Eastern European countries had multiple benefits from their NATO membership in terms of the improvement of investment climate, increased foreign direct investment and rapid growth of their economies.
Does Serbia indeed have any developed concept of neutrality or is it an attempt to win political points among voters who are strongly against NATO and the West?
The policy of military neutrality is probably the least developed public policy of the Republic of Serbia. It is defined by only one sentence in a parliamentary resolution adopted in December 2007. Since then, several strategic documents were adopted, including most importantly National Security Strategy and Defense Strategy. These documents don’t even mention military neutrality, let alone develop it. Why is this the case? On one hand, decision makers do not dare to question this policy for the fear of domestic public whose very negative representation of NATO is still frozen in 1999. On the other hand, politicians do not want to develop this policy because it doesn’t make much sense in foreign policy terms. Due to this awkward “two-level game” of the decision-makers, Serbia is unfortunately locked in a geostrategic stalemate. Filip Ejdus is a member of the Managing Board of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy.
author: DJ source: Novi magazin
