Gusenbauer: EU should be as dedicated to Serbia as Serbia is to the EU

This is an interview with former Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer published on Dec. 23, 2013 in the Serbian Weekly Novi Magazin. The interview was conducted via email, after Gusenbauer was appointed to serve as an advisor to Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic, in charge of improving the image of Serbia in the world. We discussed the burning issue at that time, which was the decision of the European Union Council of Ministers to propose launching accession negotiations with Serbia. 

Photo credit: © European Communities, 2007 / Source: EC - Audiovisual Service / Photo: Etienne Ansotte

EU foreign ministers have agreed that the European Commission should start negotiations with Serbia in January. The very first intergovernmental conference should be held on Jan. 21. What does this date actually mean for Serbia? What does the negotiations opening mean? Should we be 100 percent sure that the negotiations will be launched on Jan. 21?

Gusenbauer: The official start of the negotiations on January 21 is already the result of enormous endeavors. We should not forget from where we come from. Therefore, the official start has not only a material but even more a symbolic meaning. When we learn from the experience of other countries that recently joined the EU (Poland, Slovakia, Romania, etc.) we will understand how long and difficult this process will be. Bearing in mind the increasing enlargement fatigue in the EU, Serbia cannot expect a quicker accession than others.

Germany and Great Britain insist on signing a legally binding agreement on comprehensive normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo? How would you interpret such condition? What kind of issues should such an agreement cover?

Gusenbauer: The Brussels agreement constitutes a major, I would even say "historic" achievement for the political stability of the region. Unprecedented progress has been made. However, the elections in October 2013 showed how much still has to be done on the ground. I am firmly convinced that sooner or later, Serbia and the Kosovo will enjoy normal relations. I believe that by allowing the principles of the Brussels agreement to further develop, we will see the normalization more as a result than a precondition of this process.

What is your opinion about the process related to the normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo? What do you think of the efforts of the Serbian government to solve this problem? What will be the most challenging issue in the future? What kind of advice would you give to Serbian ministers?

Gusenbauer: The Serbian government has made an enormous effort to contribute to the Brussels agreement and is clearly dedicated to the process of normalization with the Kosovo. There are clear signals from the Serbian government to overcome the remaining political obstacles. However, the greatest challenge for both Serbia and the Kosovo is the improvement of the economic situation. Only if jobs and life chances are provided for the young generation, political stability will be achieved.

What is your opinion on the commitment of the Serbian government to push Serbia towards EU? Whose contribution has been the biggest so far?

Gusenbauer: Serbia's intention is honest and clear. The government understands that the European integration lays the foundation for sustained political and economic progress in the Western Balkan. The Serbian negotiation team is working highly professional and with enduring passion. I would like to see that the European Union is as dedicated to Serbia than Serbia is to the European Union.

You said once that improving the image of Serbia should be one of the pre-conditions for entering the EU. Has Serbia been successful in improving its image?

Gusenbauer: Serbia is constantly improving its image. Bold reforms to fight corruption have been highly appreciated all around Europe.

In your opinion, what should Serbia do to improve its image?

Gusenbauer: Serbia's image can be further developed by continuous reforms to improve the political and juridical system. The enforced rule of law should also foster investment and business activities.

Successful European companies that invest in Serbia are your best ambassadors.

What should be top priorities for the Serbian government in terms of its foreign policy? Should Serbia balance between Russia and the EU, or should it be, let's say, more friendly to the EU than to Russia?

Gusenbauer: The Serbian government has taken a clear decision to become a member of the EU. To achieve this goal represents the top priority of Serbia's foreign policy. But even as a future member state it will be important to enjoy widespread international relations. As Serbia will be firmly anchored in Europe, its relations with the Gulf states, Russia, USA and many others matter even more.

Austria represents one of the most stable countries in the world. What has contributed the most to such an image?

Gusenbauer: Austria enjoys an uninterrupted economic success story since the end of World War II. We have de facto no youth unemployment, no strikes and social peace. The standard of living for the average Austrian is relatively high. We are living in peace with our neighbors and appreciate the political stability of the EU.

Füle: A valuable progress has been achieved since December

Stefan Füle is a diplomat from Chech Republic who served as the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy from 2010 to 2014. I conducted this interview with Mr. Fule in February 2012, right before the EU member states were about to make a decision on Serbia's EU candidacy, which was one of the major steps towards the EU membership. The interview was published in Novi Magazin weekly, where I held a permanent job position from 2011 till 2014.

Photo credit: © European Communities, 2009 / Source: EC - Audiovisual Service / Photo: Christian Lambiotte

Ten days before the decision of EU member states whether Serbia will be granted candidacy for EU membership or not, everyone notes that valuable progress has been made in relation to December 2011, when Belgrade was not given "the green light." The interview with the Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Füle was conducted on Tuesday, Feb. 21, while this edition of Novi Magazin was being prepared for publishing, and the outcome of the talks between Belgrade and Pristina in Brussels was still uncertain, as well as the questions if the agreement will be reached and whether this will be enough for the candidacy. The conclusion to be drawn is simple - Füle is optimistic, but with a grain of salt.

Serbian authorities are expecting that the candidacy for the EU membership will be recommended at the Council of Ministers meeting at the end of February. Nevertheless, those are just expectations, but are they realistic?

Füle: Last December, the European Council set out clear and achievable conditions for Serbia to be granted candidate status at the end of this month. Of course, it requires serious efforts to fulfil them, but it is not unrealistic to expect that Serbia is making those efforts.

What conditions does Serbia need to fulfil in order to become a candidate for EU membership?

The Council will examine whether Serbia has continued to show credible commitment and has achieved further progress in moving forward with the implementation in good faith of agreements reached in the dialogue with Pristina, including on Integrated Border Management, has reached an agreement on inclusive regional cooperation, and has actively cooperated to enable EULEX and KFOR to execute their mandates.

Do you expect that Serbia, beside the candidacy, will get a date for the beginning of pre-accession negotiations?

The next logical step after achievement of candidate status is indeed the opening of accession negotiations. But Serbia will have first to make sufficient progress in meeting the key priority outlined in the Commission's opinion on its membership application, and take further steps to improve its relations with Kosovo. The Commission stands ready to recommend opening of accession negotiations as soon as sufficient progress will have been achieved.

In your opinion, has Serbia made any progress since the last European Council meeting in December 2011?

Regarding the dialogue with Pristina, there has been some valuable progress. The entry into force of the agreement on freedom of movement on 26 December was a significant step forward. Before that, work had started on civil registries and since September the acceptance of customs stamps allows a regular although nascent flow of goods from Kosovo to enter Serbia. This is a good start and I encourage all parties concerned to invest further efforts in building up progress in implementation.

What does the candidacy mean for Serbia and its citizens?

For the people of Serbia it would be a strong signal that the EU wants to welcome them as fellow EU-citizens. It will also represent an important political signal that Serbia is moving to the next phase of its European integration process. Together with the Stabilization and Association Agreement, which should soon enter into force, candidate status will move the relations between the EU and Serbia to a higher and deeper level. From an economic perspective, candidate status is a significant milestone which will help to attract more foreign investments and create jobs in Serbia. As we said in our evaluation already last year Serbia has remarkably intensified its reforms and taken great strides in its European integration process and I hope the dynamics of the reform efforts will continue.

Greece needs less austerity and more growth

The economic crisis in Greece has led to a destabilization of the political system and social turbulences in the country. Othon Anastasakis, the Director of South East European Studies at University of Oxford and an expert on Balkan issues, in an interview with Novi magazin speaks about the negative results of the crisis and austerity in Greece, as well as about a possible way out of the crisis. I conducted this interview in March 2012. 

In the article you wrote for CNN, you said that the increasing dependency of Greece on external funds to survive had led to an unprecedented degree of national humiliation and destabilization of the political system. Serbia is dependent on the EU and other external funds. Do you think that Serbia might face similar challenges in the future?

Greece is an exceptional case in that it combines many problems of massively increasing debt, very high fiscal deficit and lack of competitiveness. For five years, Greece's economy has been in recession and this has resulted in major political, social and economic problems. Greece has been the centre of world attention and its economy has threatened to derail the wider European economy, the future of the euro and Europe's potent position in the world.

Serbia is not yet a member of the Eurozone and that gives the country more flexibility to manage its fiscal planning and to devalue its currency for more competitiveness. But Serbia is also part of the European periphery and as such it shares some similarities with the European South, with a strong and clientelistic state, more corrupt practices, a less competitive economy, a spending economic pattern and massive dependency on foreign direct investment. Similarly Serbia shares the high levels of unemployment with other Southern European countries with a potentially explosive society which is disaffected and alienated from its political class.

With these in mind, there are common issues and problems between Serbia and Greece but the degree of international pressure and dependency does not have the same impact as is the case of Greece.

Do you think that states dependent on external funds are losing their sovereignty?

I do not think that states which are dependent on external funds are necessarily losing their sovereignty. From Greece's experience, states lose their sovereignty when they allow themselves to spend much more than what they produce and get into deeper debts and when their political elites are very bad managers of the economic resources of the country. Greece lost its sovereignty long before the start of the economic crisis in 2009, when the country was increasing its debt levels and was growing its public deficit so high that the country run out of independent choices. The post-2009 economic dependency and vulnerability to international markets was the outcome of a long process of economic mismanagement and missed opportunities for reform.

In your opinion, what will be the outcome of the Greek debt crisis?

So far and for the time being, Greece is not allowed by Europeans to default or leave the euro because this would be a very expensive and potentially a disastrous option. So the Troika (IMF, European Central Bank and European Commission) have been sustaining the country economically by dripping funds aiming to marginalise the problem and make it less contagious to other European states. Some think that the recent debt restructuring and the new bailout package will not remedy the situation but is a slow death which will eventually lead to the country defaulting on its payments due to the unstoppable recession that austerity is generating. Others believe that the country has gained a breathing space and has the chance to survive. I believe that the country may have a chance to recover as long as there is a reorientation of the current policy towards less austerity and more growth. It is the non-stop ruthless austerity which has led the country to an unprecedented recession, not to mention ofcourse the slow reaction and wavering of Greek politicians to grapple with the situation.

You mentioned that the national parliament, the symbol of representative and competitive democracy in Greece, has become "purely symbolic and procedural in the way it votes for its austerity laws." Has the parliament lost its primary role?

Paradoxically, even under conditions of immense external pressure, the Greek parliament continues to be at the centre of the decision making process and the main arena for the party political debate. So it could be argued that the economic crisis has led to the strengthening of the national parliament in that the government need political parties to vote and legislate the toughest of austerity measures and all the required reforms. At the same time, the debates in the parliaments have become more polarised and are conducted under the pressure of revolting masses in the streets. Also the political class in Greece has lost its appeal and popularity and has been undermined by recent developments. The downfall of Papandreou and Berlusconi in Italy is clearly a victory of the markets over national parliaments in Italy or Greece, no matter how justified or useful this change may have been.

Let's talk about South-East Europe... In your opinion, what major challenges will the region face in the future?

First and foremost, like many other peripheral countries of Europe, the region needs a sustainable growth strategy different from that pursued during the 2000s when the region was growing largely on consumerist investment. Secondly, the region needs to solve the various bilateral problems which haunt many of its states and avoid being hostage to remaining problems of nationalism, territorial questions and ethnic politics. Finally, the biggest challenge which is common to all states is the European integration and membership in the EU bearing in mind that this in itself is not the solution to all the problems of the region but the beginning of new responsibilities and enhanced need for reform. South East European governments and political elites have to become more responsible and rational in their choices and calculations, and avoid taking their people down populist, clientelistic or nationalistic paths.

Do you think that the Western Balkan countries will become EU members soon or is there a European plan B for that region?

The accession of Croatia in 2013 and the recent candidacy of Serbia show that there is no plan B but a path dependency pattern of enlargement and accession to the European Union. The Western Balkans is a firm part of Europe, it has often been characterised as the EU's "unfinished business" and as such it should be expected that the region will be part of the European Union in the future. What remains uncertain is how long this process may take as a result of all the pending bilateral, ethnic and nationalistic issues in most of the region's national agendas. What this crisis has revealed is that the EU has the power to impose decisions on members or candidate countries but it does not have to power to implement them and this is a responsibility that lies with national governments and their people. The European Union has two faces: it is the ideal world of norms and values and financial support for the weaker, but it is also a world of power politics and the stronger versus weaker states, and the sooner the countries of the region understand this reality the better.

Serbia has become a candidate country. What does that actually bring in the country's foreseeable future?

Becoming a member of the EU leads unavoidably to the loss of sovereignty in many policy areas which are traditionally regarded as the domain of the national governments. But this is also a necessary process in order for the European states to survive in an increasingly competitive world. Serbia can benefit from the European Union as long as it plays by the established EU rules and learns how to create alliances with other similarly minded countries when negotiating such rules. But being an EU candidate or member is not a one way street and there are winners and losers of such a process. In the end, it should be evident that in a peaceful Balkan region which is part of a peaceful and cooperative Europe, the benefits are much bigger than the losses.