Author: professor Ljubica Vasić, PhD
This article was originally published in Serbian language on website www.nacionalist.rs
- New Foreign Policy Challenge Factors
Economically speaking, there is currently a kind of economic and political imbalance in Serbia due to the fact that the progress in EU integration requires Serbia to move closer to the EU and the West (including the US) in foreign and security policy, in addition to its already close trade and foreign aid relations. Obviously, approaching the EU would not jeopardize the established forms of trade exchange with Russia, nor would it jeopardize the inflow of Chinese investments. However, although only 21% of Serbs believe that their country should unequivocally commit to one of the mentioned parties, the EU accession process requires it, for its part (Directorate General for External Policies, Policy Department 2017).
Serbia has a special significance for China as well. Such a conclusion stems from real geopolitical circumstances which indicate that Serbia, as a Balkan state, represents a link between Central Europe and the Middle East. In that sense, Serbia is a very important factor for China because it is located on the main land and river route that enable it to communicate not only in the east-west direction, but also north-south. This is one of the preconditions for faster economic development, as well as for integration into important regional organizations for whose market China is interested. Also, in the historical, legal and political sense, China considers Serbia the successor of Yugoslavia’s peaceful foreign policy. Throughout its history, until today, Serbia has pursued a peaceful foreign policy. This position is important considering the negative attitude of China towards the policy of force in international relations (Dimitrijević 2018).
In this sense, geoeconomics is a very important strategic element. It could be said that the Chinese geoeconomics is in the service of its geopolitics. In other words, geoeconomics is both a purpose and a tool of the rapidly changing world of geopolitics. From the aspect of diplomacy, it could be said that “the strategic goals of economic diplomacy of each country serve to promote the capabilities of their economy and enterprises in world markets and protect their national interests in international economic relations and foreign economic cooperation, as well as identifying tools and mechanisms for their realization. The concretization of the strategic goals of economic diplomacy varies from country to country, from their narrower or broader geoeconomic and geopolitical orientation” (Dašić 2003).
The Belt and Road initiative (BRI) was renewed in 2013 when President Xi Jinping addressed Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan, stating that “China must accelerate the development of Eurasia through the establishment of an economic belt along the Silk Road.” The idea of restoring the ancient “Silk Road” became the inspiration for trade and investment ties between China, Central and South Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
China’s influence in the Western Balkans is growing, especially in the economic sphere. China’s turn towards the Western Balkans can be seen in the “16 + 1” framework (now known as “17 + 1”) established in April 2012, which annually brings together heads of state to strengthen dialogue between China and Central and Eastern European countries. All Western Balkan countries are members of this initiative. What Serbia should pay special attention to is actually the distinction between investments and loans, whether it is Russia, China or the USA (Rrustemi, de Wijk et al. 2019).
Observed through an aspect of a key element of classical geopolitics, that is, how to use space to increase the power of a state, it has become apparent today those states are using all available means to achieve that goal. Thus, China today strategically uses its economic and political power worldwide by expanding cooperation with various developed and developing countries in Asia, Europe and Africa, thus making geoeconomics a new tool in measuring forces between countries (Babić 2009).
In today’s circumstances of emerging multipolarity and changing discourses about U.S. dominance in the international arena, the application of economic instruments is particularly emphasized (Lagendijk and Schipper 2016). The intellectual mile after the Cold War, expanding the concept of security and diminishing the importance of traditional military power, created new forms of economic influence through the use of state funds. Therefore, it is not incorrect to think that China’s goal is to question the existing balance of power in the world in order to increase its power and improve its role in the international system. The balance of power between the world’s leading countries is taking place in the military-strategic and economic fields. However, this should not be understood as the abolition of military assets and reliance solely on the economic instruments of a state. Namely, the reality of geoeconomics can be seen as “inextricably intertwined with the traditional military and diplomatic directions of foreign policy” (Jisi 2011).
However, if Serbia wants to increase its influence and importance in international relations based on economic cooperation with China, its business with China must be based not only on past successes and achievements, but also on potentials based on improving its real economic capacity through various types. investments in industry and infrastructure. In that sense, Serbia will have to be successively involved in international production through global chains that originate not only from the trace of ownership investments, but also from concrete investments (Dimitrijević 2018).
2. Serbia and Globalization
Military-technical cooperation represents a special area of strategic partnership that especially attracts the attention of the EU and NATO. The Army of the Republic of Serbia has the largest military-technical cooperation with the Russian Federation. The Serbian Armed Forces procured six MIG-29s, 30 armored reconnaissance and patrol vehicles and 30 T-72MS tanks free of charge. Also, Serbia has an additional discount on Russian weapons and military equipment, as well as other benefits. Former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Serbia, Aleksandar Vulin, said that “Serbia perceives the modernization of its army as a guarantee of peace in the Balkans, especially at a time when the” Republic of Kosovo “is creating its own paramilitary units” (Vulin 2019).
When it comes to the relationship between Serbia and the United States, the social significance of many of today’s debates includes introducing Serbian and American society, but also the wider professional and scientific public with various world experiences, accompanied by NATO programs in the field of sustainable development. and as a global factor in the process of achieving the goals of sustainable development, in order for the Republic of Serbia to use these experiences, knowledge and best practices for its internal interests. Serbia, as a member of the UN and a signatory of relevant international documents, should be very interested in this issue, ways of functioning and financing, the possibility of direct contribution to investments and work of NATO agencies, their results in all analyzed areas, as well as on its territory. The only institutional confirmation of “military neutrality with regard to existing military alliances until a possible referendum is held to reach a final decision on the issue” is contained in a 2007 Serbian Parliament resolution (a term often used in certain circles), countries have acquired a military dimension, i.e., the intention to develop cooperation with both Russia and NATO structures (Ponomareva 2020).
Some of the areas of sustainable development of importance on the territory of the Republic of Serbia are the following: protection and improvement of the environment; migration of refugees, internally displaced persons; poverty reduction or unemployment rates (especially young people and public administration professionals); modernization of the educational system and eradication of illiteracy – raising the educational level of citizens; solving problems in the energy sector; adoption of modern techniques and technologies; strengthening democratic institutions, processes and practices; respect and protection of human rights, especially of vulnerable categories of the population (Vasić 2018).
Relations between Serbia and the United States were difficult due to the US participation in the conflicts in Bosnia and “Kosovo”, as well as the American recognition of Kosovo’s independence. However, it seems that the relations between Washington and Belgrade have improved recently. For example, between 2001 and 2017, the United States provided Serbia with nearly $ 800 million in aid to boost economic growth, strengthen the justice system, and promote horizontal and vertical governance of the administrative system. The United States continues to support Serbia’s efforts to implement all necessary reforms in order to strengthen its institutions and eventually become a member of the European family through gaining full membership in the EU. At the same time, the United States sought to strengthen its own relationship with Serbia by deepening cooperation based on common interests and mutual respect (Directorate General for External Policies, Policy Department 2017). What used to determine American policy was the so-called isolation, they were not concerned with what was happening in Europe, but only with what was happening on two American continents. However, the importance of the assistance provided by the United States to Serbian soldiers and refugees at that time should be emphasized (Faculty of Political Sciences, Belgrade, 2020). In this regard, projects such as the US Red Cross, the Rockefeller Relief Committee, as well as Dr. Roger Strong’s Medical Mission should be singled out. Analysts, both in Washington and in the Balkans, believe that the United States should strengthen its strategy of active engagement in the Western Balkans, and especially strengthen its relations with Serbia (Ibid.).
One of the most important tasks of the state should be to develop a clear foreign policy strategy with which to harmonize the National Security Strategy. Ensuring an open and transparent process of drafting a new National Security Strategy with the participation of a wide range of actors (such as state bodies in the security sector, independent state institutions, civil society sector, universities) should be among the government’s priorities. It is necessary to define a predictable and clear security policy and coordinate further reform of the security sector in order to respond to the set goals and challenges that the country is facing.
3. Conclusion
Modern scholars claim that after September 11, 2001, international politics clearly turned into the world politics, while the science of international relations began to develop in the direction of the science of world politics. In a conceptual, methodological, and even terminological way, the science of international relations is increasingly transformed, along with its analytical instruments. This is not the result of a simple process of modernization of the world and science, but the result of awareness and critique of previous prevailing theories in this field, so we can single out the following: idealistic, realistic, liberal, Marxist and constructivist theories. Therefore, a general term is used to describe the world in the process of globalization, that is a world that strives for interdependence (Baylis and Owens 2007). However, much of contemporary research on globalization often speaks to the abuse of the globalization process for the purpose of national political and economic interests.
Although Serbia’s interests are consistent with its internal and foreign policy strategy, the interests of these four abovementioned powers in Serbia are clearly different. The EU remains the greatest player in the country, primarily (but not exclusively) focused on the economy and human rights as a part of the ongoing accession process. The US interest is mainly focused on the issue of security, with a special emphasis on terrorism and human trafficking. Taking into account the attitude according to which Serbia is seen as a gateway to Europe, China is investing its capital in concluding large agreements in the field of infrastructure, and (with a delay) in security. In that sense, China realizes its political interests. Finally, Russia’s interest in pursuing its foreign policy relates to energy policy and the provision of foreign policy support for the implementation of major energy agreements. Despite relatively small economic resources, unlike those available to the EU or China, Russia manages to maintain certain influence in this area. The main constraint to the development of a strategic partnership with Serbia is the lack of a long-term, comprehensive and clear action program on the Russian side. Many initiatives are emerging ad hoc and lack adequate political and socio-economic infrastructure. This reality has enabled Serbia to play freely on the map of its neutrality, delicately balancing between these four powers until the interests coincide (Directorate General for External Policies, Policy Department).
In fact, this state of affairs would mean, given the short term (next three to five years), that Serbia can continue to balance between these four powers (as well as with Turkey, as the new regional power), simply because the interests of each power are different. From the EU’s point of view, for example, the presence of Chinese investments in the country is not worrying, provided that procurement rules are respected and public subsidies are avoided. Such a situation may seem controversial and contradictory when the geopolitical consequences of the increased interest in Serbia are taken into account, but in reality, Serbia has shown that it has the ability to cope with challenges (Ibid.). The current great value of Serbia for the EU is reflected in its geopolitical position, and not in its economic potential.
The EU should also ensure that it does not lose its reputation as a guardian of certain principles such as the rule of law (independence of the judiciary, constitutional rights and the fight against corruption), transparency and democracy (free elections, peaceful transfer of power). In order to restore the trust of the Serbian people, not only politicians, the EU should be more open in its attitude towards the fight against corruption and nepotism, as well as to express its opposition to the authoritarian aspirations of the governments of individual member states and candidate countries more clearly and transparently. The EU has late become aware of the potential that Serbia has, especially in terms of its historical drive to become the dominant power in the Balkans. Recognizing the needs of Serbia as well as its aspiration to be influential in the Western Balkans can greatly contribute to a better direction of the EU accession process and a reduction in the declining trend of interest in its membership. This would not necessarily mean ignoring the goals and interests of other countries in the Western Balkans, but it would ultimately prove that the EU’s goals are in line with Serbia’s goals (Ibid.).
*This paper is a product of research based on theoretical and methodological considerations and does not represent the position of the institution in which the author is employed.
References:
Arlinda Rrustemi, Rob de Wijk et al., Geopolitical influences of external powers in the Western Balkans, The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, 2019.
David Dašić, Diplomatija – ekonomska, multilateralna i bilateralna, Multidisciplinarni centar za podsticanje integracionih procesa i harmonizaciju prava, Beograd, 2003, p. 54.
Per Hogselius, Arne Kaijser and Erik Van der Vleuten, Europe’s infrastructure transition: Economy, war, nature, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2015.
Smith J. Baylis & Owens, The Globalization of the World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, New York, N.Y, Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 3-10.
Blagoje Babić, “Geo-economics – Reality and Science”, Megatrend revija, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2009, p. 43.
Congressional Research Servicehttps://crsreports.congress.govR44955
“Confucius Institutes Around the World – 2018.” https://www.digmandarin.com/confucius-institutes-around-the-world.htm
Directorate General for External Policies, Policy Department, “Serbia’s cooperation with China, the European Union, Russia and the United States of America, AFET, 2017.
Dusko Dimitrijevic, “Achievements and Challenges for China Investments in Serbia”, Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu, Beograd, 2018, pp. 98.
Elena G. Ponomareva, “Quo Vadis Serbia”, Russia in Global Affairs, No1 2020, January-March.
Ljubica Vasic, “The Impact of the Relations Between The United States of America and the Russian Federation on Serbia’s EU Accession, Megatrend Review, Volume 15, No. 3, 2018.
Predrag Simić, „Kriza globalizacije i međunarodni odnosi“ u: Srbija u evropskom i globalnom kontekstu, ur: Radmila Nakarada, Dragan Živojinović, Faultet političkih nauka, Beograd.
Vincent Lagendijk and Frank Schipper, “East, west, home’s best: the material links of cold war Yugoslavia, 1948-1980”, Icon, 2016.
Vulin, 2019. Ministar Vulin: The Minister Vulin: Our arming for peace. MoD of the Republic of Serbia, 30 July
Wang Jisi, “China’s search for a grand strategy: A rising great power finds its way”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2011.
https://crsreports.congress.govR44955
https://www.digmandarin.com/confucius-institutes-around-the-world.htm
