SERBIA: Recipe for a NATO Debate - Let Stand 10 Years Then

UNCLAS BELGRADE 000324 C O R R E C T E D C O P Y - ADDED ADDRESSEE SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/SCE (P. PETERSON) DEPT FOR EUR/PPD (T. WEIK AND M. ALPERN) E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV MARR PREL OEXC SCUL SR KPAO SUBJECT: SERBIA: Recipe for a NATO Debate - Let Stand 10 Years Then Stir Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) In recent months Serbian media and civil society have tossed a decade of taboos out the window by publishing letters, op-eds and articles that openly debate Serbia's future relationship with NATO, which they have portrayed for years as a "criminal organization." Despite sharp emotional divisions between supporters and opponents of membership and the political opportunism driving much of the negative rhetoric, the debate has succeeded in laying out some basic facts about the alliance, and for the first time since the 1999 bombing campaign the public has been confronted with the heretofore unthinkable: that Serbia might one day be a member. Even the Russians seem concerned with the turn of events and have weighed in with their own op-eds. For our part, Post has engaged early with the media and NGO community, encouraging objective discussion and stating publicly that NATO's doors are open. End Summary. The Debate -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Serbia's public debate over NATO membership is alternately irrational and sophisticated, a clash between anger over the past and longing for future relevance. Opponents of membership paint NATO as an anti-Russian war machine, focus on the 1999 intervention, and claim Serbia would be forced to recognize Kosovo in order to join. Advocates note that Serbia will soon be surrounded by NATO members - some, even within the government, supporting Euro-Atlantic integration of the entire region - and appeal for a more pragmatic approach. Increasingly, the arguments have become sober, analytic and economic. ¶3. (SBU) In the absence of a clear long-term government policy, military analysts, academics and pro-western NGOs have all taken up the issue with zest, publishing op-eds and organizing roundtables and media events. In one case, an NGO included the mother of a "NATO victim" at a panel discussion who advocated NATO membership as a way to expose the truth of Milosevic's crimes. Another group invited Jamie Shea - notorious here as NATO's spokesperson during the 1999 Kosovo campaign - to speak via DVC to a young audience. In contrast, TV talk shows have been negative or inconclusive at �0A;best, with NATO opponents playing on emotions, abusing facts and attacking supporters as "NATO lobbyists." Supporters have thus far been unprepared for this kind of live, gloves-off fight, a liability in this society where strong, emotional rhetoric is valued over mere logical argumentation and where most citizens get their news from television. ¶4. (U) Probably the most important contribution to rational discussion of the issue has come from intellectual daily Politika, which has placed an even mixture of pro and con articles from analysts and activists alike. Yet several other dailies, even including sensationalist and traditionally anti-western Press, Kurir and Glas Javnosti, have published NATO op-eds on both sides of the discussion. ¶5. (SBU) In one bitter op-ed published in daily Politika, military analyst Miroslav Lazansky, the nephew of convicted war criminal Biljana Plavsic, who has built a career railing against the western military complex while privately seeking every opportunity to admire it in person, conjured the specter of NATO one day sneaking atomic weapons into the Serbian heartland. A confident critic under normal circumstances, Lazansky's shrill tone shows that the apparent change in climate has touched a nerve among die-hard opponents. Supporting Objective Discussion -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Since the 10th anniversary of the NATO campaign in March 2009, Post has been proactively engaged in supporting NATO public education projects, steering AEECA media training funds, democracy grants and Post resources towards the subject of Euro-Atlantic integration and NATO study tours. Many of the dozen or so projects resulted in TV programs dedicated to the subject, and our efforts, combined with those of the Czech Embassy (NATO's Contact Point Embassy) and NATO PD, have contributed to the current re-examination of Serbia's "neutrality" stance. In a September 2009 meeting with the new editor-in-chief of Politika daily, we expressed our hope that the media would begin educating the public about NATO. In October, the debate began with a trickle of letters and articles placed weekly in Politika presenting the alliance in a factual light, and hinting at Serbian membership as one possible future. ¶7. (SBU) In November 2009, we placed an op-ed in Politika that gently challenged several hard-core NATO myths and encouraged a local NGO to tackle the sole negative response. The debate soon took on a life of its own. It reached a fever pitch in January when, after Defense Minister Sutanovac hinted that NATO might be in Serbia's future, a group of "200 intellectuals" held a press conference to condemn the government's alleged efforts to "secretly" bring Serbia into NATO, and called for an immediate referendum to allow the public to voice its objection. ¶8. (SBU) Emboffs have been active at roundtables, and Ambassador Warlick made the U.S. position clear in her first press interview on February 8, saying "the U.S. fully supports Serbia's European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and is doing everything to help its efforts in that direction." In several end-of-the-year interviews, then-Charge d'Affaires Jennifer Brush highlighted that "Serbia's NATO membership is the decision for Serbia to make," while stressing that other countries in the region have recognized the benefits of joining. "We only hope for an open, honest and rational debate, based on facts not emotions. NATO remains open to a deeper level of cooperation with Serbia on Serbia's timetable," Brush told Beta News Service. The political and public affairs counselors have participated in a series of roundtable discussions around Serbia on the pros and cons of NATO membership. GoS: One Step Forward (oops) One Back -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Mindful of the polls and fearful of attacks from the opposition, the government has been coy on the topic. However, Defense Minister Dragan Sutanovac, known for his pro-NATO stance, has publicly painted NATO in friendlier colors, arguing the merits of closer collaboration and saying "NATO is no longer Serbia's enemy." The initial firestorm that resulted from his comments implying Serbia might become a member appears to have led to a retreat from such public statements, but Sutanovac continues to advocate the need to achieve NATO military standards and expand Partnership for Peace (PfP) activities and Serbia's engagement in various UN peacekeeping operations. Referendum against NATO -------------- ¶10. (U) The January 11 initiative by a group of 200 political, intellectual, and religious leaders close to former Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica's Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) to demand a referendum on NATO membership had the unintended effect of promoting broader discussion. The petition, read by Serbian influential intellectual and a member of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Matija Beckovic at a press conference, says that Serbia has never belonged to a military alliance, recalls the 1999 "criminal" NATO bombing of the country, and credits NATO with creating the "phony state" of Kosovo. Signatories include Kostunica, Association of Journalists of Serbia Chairwoman Ljiljana Smajlovic, film director Emir Kusturica, writer Dobrica Cosic, and even Serbian Orthodox Church bishops Atanasije, Hrizostom, and Artemije. ¶11. (U) In response, pro-NATO activists pointed out there was no referendum on neutrality before Parliament issued its neutrality declaration in December 2007. Government officials hedged that there was no need for a referendum, since membership "isn't on the agenda," but that "one day" the people would need to be asked. ¶12. (U) Political analyst Djordje Vukadinovic, close to DSS, told Blic that the initiative had been launched several months ago but was announced in January primarily in response to Defense Minister Sutanovac, LDP leader Cedomir Jovanovic, and several pro-NATO non-government organizations that expressed support for Serbian integration with NATO. Blic suggested that the referendum aimed to unite the opposition at a time when the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) has called for elections. "It is no secret that all parties in the ruling coalition are not united regarding the stance toward NATO, and the initiative might cause problems within the ruling coalition," Vladimir Goati, director of Transparency Serbia, told the paper. Russia's Counter-Offensive -------------- ¶13. (U) Russian officials have become increasingly vocal on the subject. "I do not believe that the Serbian people wish to join NATO," Politika quoted President of the Russian Parliament Committee for International Relations Konstantin Kosachev on January 13. In a February 6 interview with daily Blic, Russia's Ambassador to NATO Dmitriy Rogozin said the fact that most NATO member states have recognized Kosovo is an "obstacle" for joining NATO. "Belgrade will have to officially recognize Pristina's sovereignty, which will also change the stances of Moscow," he said, adding that"If Serbia wants to join NATO, it will have to give up Kosovo." If Serbia insists on joining NATO, "Russia would be forced to reexamine its stand towards Kosovo," because, Rogozin said, "Russians cannot be bigger Serbs than Serbs." ¶14. (U) This statement triggered a rare, if restrained backlash. "It becomes clear that the Russian stance towards Kosovo is not a position that comes from a great friendship or love [for Serbia], but from their own interest," Filip Ejdus, a member of the Forum for International Relations said a Blic article entitled "Is Moscow Blackmailing [us]?" NGO activist Miljenko Dereta echoed that Russian "blackmail" aims only to protect Russia's political and economic interests in the region. ¶15. (SBU) Russian Ambassador to Belgrade Alexander Konuzin then escalated the rhetoric. In a tough February 12 Politika op-ed, he appealed to Serbs' deepest notions of collective identity and history to generate negative emotions. Konuzin writes: "NATO members... fail to point out one membership condition that is unacceptable for any Serb: Serbia's accession to the military alliance in its 'castrated' form without Kosovo. It would be the accession of a 'broken Serbia' that is to renounce its history and the sacred tombs of its heroic ancestors who laid down their lives to establish the Serbian nation." Referring to the 1999 campaign, he wrote: "It was the first time a European country was bombed after World War II. And it was a Slavic country, an Orthodox country. They didn't just bomb Serbia, they bombed every Serbian family, and not only with bombs but also politically and morally. The political bombers are still cruising above the country." As a solution for Serbia's strategic security goal, Konuzin offered President Medvedev's vision of Serbia in a new, Russian-proposed European security architecture. Though appealing to the average Serb, this op-ed was nonetheless risky, since it cynically brought emotion into an increasingly objective debate among intellectuals, and invited an attack in the same paper by an otherwise anti-NATO columnist, and even a few sharp comments on Politika's website such as, "Russia wants to fight NATO down to the last Serb." Tadic Brings Clarity -------------- ¶16. (U) After this op-ed appeared, on February 15 President Tadic joined the debate. There will be no parliamentary election before the government's term of office expires in 2012, during which time the question of Serbia's membership in NATO will not be raised either, he clarified. He also dismissed calls for a referendum, saying "You don't hold a referendum on what you don't want." Serbia will continue to develop its relations with NATO in the coming period as it has so far, through the Partnership for Peace [PfP] program, he added. Comment -------------- ¶17. (SBU) Without clear political will from the government and even tacit support from relevant opposition parties, moving public opinion on NATO will be a long, difficult slog. Emotions are deep. Yet this debate itself, and even the glimmer of support shown by polling results, are encouraging signs. Recent polls found that although over 50% of respondents were opposed to joining NATO, 20% were in favor and 30% undecided. Kosovo is a dominant factor in keeping those numbers from increasing. Still, two years ago few would have predicted Serbia would declare EU membership as a strategic goal, as is the case today. In fact, there does seem to be a growing quiet consensus within the current government that Serbia's long-term future lies in becoming not only a member of the European Union, but a part of the broader Euro-Atlantic security alliance as well - precisely in keeping with its more robust stance in support of NATO membership for Bosnia and other countries in the region. Whatever trajectory Serbia may be on - even if it is less a matter of "if" but "when" - it will be important for U.S. interests and those of our allies to continue to explore ways to deepen Serbia's PfP engagement, reinforce the principle of NATO's open door and sustain our activities in the areas of education, engagement and consistent public diplomacy. End Comment. WARLICK