Diplomatic Post: A Letter to European Friends Regarding the Funeral of a War Criminal

Diplomatic Post

A Letter to European Friends Regarding the Funeral of a War Criminal

By Miodrag Vlahović

The situation was, unfortunately, painfully obvious.

The clumsy statements made by the EC spokesperson and by President Ursula von der Leyen herself regarding the state funeral of war criminal R.M. were deeply disappointing.

It was to no avail that both officials revised their remarks a day later, faced with an avalanche of uncomfortably negative comments from all quarters—and not just from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their revised statements were bolstered by Me Kaja Kallas, as well as Commissioner Marta Kos, who stated she “could not look the Mothers of Srebrenica in the eye…”

We will not waste time discussing the political and diplomatic acumen of these Brussels officials, nor their style.

It is precisely their “shock” that serves as the key to understanding the failure of European policy toward Vučić’s Serbia—and, by extension, toward the entire Western Balkans.

Pandering to Hatred and Nationalism

The reactions from official and unofficial Serbia—spanning a vast percentage of politicians and political parties, the intellectual and academic community, the media, and the omnipresent Church of Serbia—come as absolutely no surprise; thus, there is no room for shock. Everything is entirely expected and logical when one looks back at the last decade and a half (without even going back to the early 1990s)—ever since the regime of Aleksandar Vučić has been at the helm of Serbia, installed, let us not forget, with the West’s blessing.

The consequences of this fifteen-year appeasement of a fiercely nationalist-chauvinist and destructive policy stem, of course, from concrete reasons—ranging from the economic interests of major powers (Rio Tinto and similar projects and deals) to the indirect sale of Serbian military equipment to Ukraine. The European signatories—of what would unfortunately prove to be a worthless document known as the Budapest Memorandum—continue to turn a blind eye to Serbia’s actions because of its artillery ammunition. Everything else has become secondary.

The real consequences of such a superficial policy are visible to anyone willing to see them.

First, Serbian political society has imploded—crumbling under the pressure of a regime that propagates dangerous forms of nationalism and revanchism, as well as the worst kind of historical revisionism. And all this has occurred without any significant or effective European reaction—or rather, it has happened precisely because of that lack of response. (Let us not forget that American policy from the Obama era onwards contributed significantly to this, though that is a separate topic.)

Second, as a direct result of this appeasement of Serbian nationalism, any serious opposition in Serbia has been virtually destroyed; it has been forced to become a victim itself of the “refusal to give up Kosovo” narrative and the fixation on the alleged endangerment of Serbs in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Opposition figures who are genuinely pro-European and civic-minded poll at less than 1% in Serbia. This represents a European failure as well.

Third, Europe’s permissiveness toward malignant Greater Serbian nationalism has direct negative repercussions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (and not just in the Srpska entity) and, naturally, in Montenegro.

Serbia is indeed the largest and most important country in the region, yet its size and significance manifest in a way that generates instability and perpetual regional crises—all with the EU’s tolerance and support!

Finally, and fourthly, A. Vučić’s primary initial “task” was Kosovo. Fifteen years and many problems later—including state-sponsored terrorist attacks, the assassination of political opponents (Oliver Ivanović), and the gross manipulation of Kosovo Serbs—Vučić’s policy has transformed the independent Republic of Kosovo into a mental, psychological, and political psychosis and a state of paralysis. It has become a regime-imposed and forcibly cultivated collective mega-trauma—serving as the justification, pretext, and explanation for every misdeed and crime committed by the current Serbian government—with no prospect of this burden and problem being resolved in the foreseeable future.

That is why the “shock” expressed by European officials is a thoroughly unconvincing and unintelligent (public) reaction. This is simply the standard state of affairs in Serbia.

The EU’s Serb-centric policy in the Western Balkans must have established limits. It is unconvincing, misguided, and harmful.

Clearly, this point is not getting across. The evidence, after all, lies in the nationalist hysteria and the state funeral for a war criminal—things that, apparently, were not visible from Brussels at first glance!

A Misguided Policy in Montenegro

Montenegro is, therefore, in a significant aspect of its existence, a victim of this European—or rather, Brussels-based—fixation on Serbia.

It took the death of a Hague convict serving a life sentence for certain phenomena—otherwise obvious—to be seen more clearly in Montenegro as well. The majority of the ruling coalition mourns their hero. Their feigned European orientation has given way to the need to display their “Serbdom.”

They are aided in this by the Church of Serbia, which is once again revealing itself as an extremist organization promoting a Taliban-esque version of Orthodoxy—militant, anti-civilizational, and brutally xenophobic.

Together—politicians of the ruling coalition, their parties, and their church—they pursue an anti-Montenegrin policy, regarding both national identity and everything concerning Montenegro’s state and institutional integrity.

The Government of Montenegro—which does not include a single minister who would identify as Montenegrin (!)—pursues a policy that is a mix of improvisation, populist moves driven by daily politics, and a concerted effort to grab as much as possible—and as quickly as possible—through shady deals, tenders, and state loans.

The response of EU officials to all this is—support for Serbian nationalists in Montenegro!

Since Commissioner Kos does not pursue a personal policy, but rather the one outlined by the EC, her escapades with the Speaker of the Parliament—the Chetnik duke Mandić—are not (merely) her own clumsy improvisations; rather, they are an expression of the policy dictated by Brussels. Unfortunately.

In other words: the entire Montenegrin political experience since August 2020—and especially since Brussels accepted Mandić, the leader of the aggressive neo-Chetnik NSD, as an authentic and legitimate champion of Montenegro’s EU membership aspirations—demonstrates that Montenegro is perceived as part of a “compensation” to (Greater) Serbian nationalism (i.e., to Serbia), following its defeat in the wars of the former Yugoslavia and the “loss” of Montenegro in 2006 and Kosovo in 2008.

Surprisingly—or perhaps not—Mesdames von der Leyen, Kallas, and Kos are not “shocked” by developments in Montenegro, even though a vast segment of the ruling structures embraces the exact same ideology as their leader in Belgrade.

What does shock European officials in Montenegro, unfortunately, is the presentation of arguments such as these! They find that unacceptable.

It is tragicomic when such views are branded with the stigma of “extremism.” That is why we often see Ms. Kos embracing extreme neo-Chetniks, while—much more rarely, and in a strictly formal and official manner—she meets with representatives of the pro-European civic opposition.

This is a bad, flawed, and unsustainable policy—because its premises are deeply mistaken.

European Challenges and Enlargement

The consequences of such an EU policy could be detrimental for Europe, but catastrophic for Montenegro.

Chetnik duke Mandić is now awaiting a vote on his dismissal. Yet, there hasn’t been a single word from Brussels regarding this matter.

However, the Head of the EU Delegation in Podgorica, Austrian Ambassador Johann Sattler, did comment – on the plastic bollards on Podgorica’s streets! This is deeply compromising for European policy, which—in the Montenegrin case—completely ignores the incompatibility of celebrating war crimes and war criminals with European values. Or have we, naively, misunderstood what European values ​​actually are?

It is therefore logical to say that the European agenda in Montenegro has been turned upside down: proven Eurosceptics, nationalists, Putin and Vučić supporters, Western-haters, and religious zealots are now the “recognized” leaders of European policy, while authentic, confirmed civic-minded Europeans are viewed as suspicious opposition figures and intellectuals prone to “extremism”?!

Following the state funeral of a war criminal in Belgrade, European diplomacy must find European answers and deliver European messages if it wishes to avoid another historic fiasco in the Balkans.

Let us not forget that the political situation in Germany and France may also be a factor here. The rise of the AfD and Le Pen’s National Front poses a danger to leading European nations and the EU itself, but it also spells a verdict for the Western Balkan countries and their European aspirations. Can we afford to turn a blind eye to this?

In that unwelcome and dangerous scenario, European officials would be genuinely and deeply shocked by the ease with which Mandić, Spajić, and the other “champions” of EU integration in Montenegro would switch to a different historical track …

For their role models and idols are not Jean Monnet or, say, Mario Draghi; their deepest convictions align with the Trump/Putin mold—that of European nationalists and “sovereignists.”

That is why they give no thought to current French and German ideas regarding alternative EU accession models or the limits on veto rights. Such topics are simply not discussed in Montenegro.

They are far more interested in repeating empty phrases and echoing what they hear from the Commissioner and the Ambassador. It sounds good, and it costs nothing.

And when those EU officials praise them for it, the circle is complete. Not even the glorification of the worst war criminals and genocide can spoil it; forced optimism reigns supreme.

It is unpopular—and forbidden—to shatter that idyll. It is “un-European,” they say!