The Black Sox in Belgrade

This interview provoked a reaction, published originally in the Podgorica daily Pobjeda, from former Montenegrin Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the United States Miodrag Vlahović, who is now President of the Helsinki Commission in Podgorica. He has contribued previously to peacefare.net

Your Excellency, Dear Ambassador Hill,

Your last interview with “Voice of America” ​​is full of wrong theses, incorrect and incorrect interpretations which, once again, confirm your policy of appeasing and pandering to Aleksandar Vučić, i.e. the official policy of Serbia, and seriously calls into question the motives and intentions behind such a position of yours and your public statements.

Your reluctance to publicly criticize the politics personified by Vučić in any way is taking the form of a caricature. It is fascinating that even in the last brutal threats and insults, which were sent, one after the other, to Montenegro and North Macedonia by the President of Serbia Vučić, then the Minister of Defense Vučević and, finally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Dačić, you do not recognize anything controversial! For you, that is not an attempt to destabilize the region? What are the reasons for your attitude, which honestly surprises and worries all sincere American friends in Montenegro, but also in all other countries of the region?

If what three Serbian officials publicly said is not a problem, then neither is your repeated advocacy for the so-called “Open Balkans”, which three of the six Western Balkan countries never agreed to – and one of the two main promoters (i.e. Prime Minister Rama) recently clearly and definitively gave up – “is not in dispute”. That is why it’s amazing. Indeed, for what reason do you unnecessarily and futilely insist for months on that unregulated and imposed form of co-operation, which all our (and your) European friends and allies have clearly said was not compatible with the European agenda of the Western Balkans, not even with the Berlin Process itself? What is your interest in it? Obstructing the European integration of the Western Balkans, in order to satisfy the appetites of the nationalist politics of official Belgrade? That’s the goal?

What worries us the most in your interview is the statement that the policy that is now identified with you, having in mind everything you say and do (although Mr  Escobar, Mr Grenell and one of your predecessors in Belgrade, Ambassador Montgomery, belong to the same “school of thought”) is good and correct, even if it doesn’t produce results?!

We must, with all due respect, correct you here. It is not true that such “Pax Americana” does not produce results in our region. The truth is quite different: the policy you promote causes very bad consequences. It destabilizes the Western Balkans. It creates and maintains crises and prevents some open issues and antagonisms from starting to be resolved, finally. Examples, we are sure, you know more and better than us, are there: the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo, and events and trends in our country, Montenegro. That is why your policy is deeply flawed. It threatens to completely compromise the decades-long positive and effecient engagement of the United States in our region.

We, in Montenegro, not only because of the process of restoration of our independence, will never forget the great friendly support and help that we continuously received from your country.

And for this reason, your policy of appeasing and yielding the regime of Aleksandar Vučić is wrong. And worse than that: it is doomed to fail.

This failure will cost Serbia itself dearly, as well as all its neighbors.

We will not, in this address, spend time and energy on analyzing whether and how much it is about your personal intervention and your preferences, and how much it is the politics of Washington. This, we are sure, is better understood and known in the State Department itself. Your colleagues and your superiors will be able to recognize how successful your publicly declared intention to “separate Serbia from Russia” can be and how much and for how long it could cost other countries in the Western Balkans. And how much it can affect the stability and security of the region as a whole.

It seems to us that it is also not true that “there are no results”: the consequences of your policy are exactly the opposite of those that you publicly project. Therefore, it is not a stagnation. It is a regression.

For us in Montenegro, but also for all democratic and pro-Western political forces in the Western Balkans, including, especially, our friends in Serbia, the statement that “you cannot compare Milošević and Vučić” is, to say the least, surprising. And offensive to all of us.

You cannot compare the head of a regime, who ended up in The Hague, with his Minister of Propaganda, who we remembered for his brutal attacks on the free media and for his warmongering and xenophobic statements, including those that it is necessary to “kill a hundred Bosniaks for every lost Serb”?! It is enough to remember the name and fate of Slavko Ćuruvija, whom Minister Vučić openly threatened…

Or, instead of unnecessarily reminding you about things that you know better than us, we should ask you: do you see similarities between the fate of Ivan Stambolić and that of Oliver Ivanović? This tragic coincidence is even greater and more tragic than the one between Vučić and Milošević. You don’t need to answer that question, of course. The obvious does not need an explanation.

In the end: there is also no need to explain to you, as an American, what this “Black Sox” from the title can be associated with. And you know that better than we do, too.

Your engagement in Belgrade and its consequences can actually make it unnecessary for us to send you the message that was sent when some were deeply disappointed with their sports and social role models and idols: “Tell us that’s not true!”

Therefore, you don’t need to make excuses for us. You should say and do what would confirm the reasons and principles by which the politics and diplomacy of the United States of America were recognized in our part of Europe.

We still hope that you are ready for such a change.

Best wishes and sinecere regards,

Miodrag Vlahović

Here is the Hill interview with VoA, courtesy of Googletranslate:

Voice of America: The President of Serbia, Mr. Vučić, met with the President of Ukraine, Mr. Zelensky, this morning and said that they had a “good and open conversation.” Last night, however, we heard the news reported by the Serbian media, referring to a Russian media outlet, that Vučić insisted that the joint declaration of the leaders of the Western Balkan countries from the summit in Athens did not contain a call for the introduction of sanctions against Russia. Do you see it as Vučić’s balancing act?

Hill: You will have to ask Mr. Vučić, but our position is very clear: everyone should join the sanctions against Russia, especially countries that aspire to join the EU. We think it’s the right thing to do. Many small countries have imposed sanctions even though it harms them, but they did it anyway because it is in their higher interest and in the interest of a larger group like the EU. We would like Serbia to do the same and for it to be part of its path towards the Euro-Atlantic system. When it comes to the meeting with Zelensky, I was extremely pleased when I saw that the Serbian and Ukrainian presidents sat down to talk. Serbia and Ukraine have a long history, they always got along well, had good relations, and that’s why I think it’s important that they met, exchanged opinions and talked about what the future brings. Because there will be changes, this war will not last forever and we will see how things will develop. But I believe that the past months were important for the people of Serbia to see what Russia is really like, and that Serbia should move west, towards Euro-Atlantic systems.

Voice of America: Speaking of Serbia’s approach to the West and Russia – the US recently imposed sanctions on the director of the Security and Intelligence Agency, Alexander Vulin, a man with close ties to Russia. Are you disappointed that he is still sitting as director of the Serbian secret police, as if nothing happened?

Hill: I don’t like that at the beginning of this conversation I have to talk about things on which we disagree with the Serbian authorities, but yes, we have a problem with him, with his determination, and our position is that he should be sanctioned. And I see that this attitude is not shared by the authorities in Serbia, but our attitude is very clear… Disappointment means that your expectations have not been met. I would say that I am a realist and I do my job, and my job is to promote the close ties between the USA and Serbia, as well as for the two countries to be on the same side.

Voice of America: Mr. Vučić often says that the sanctions were introduced only because of Vulin’s close ties with Russia and because Serbia did not impose sanctions on Moscow. And that the other allegations – about drug trafficking, arms and corruption, are secondary or unfounded. How about that?

Hill: I want to say that we imposed sanctions on Mr. Vulin only because of Mr. Vulin, and I think that in general we have maintained a good relationship. Sanctions are not against the institution, but against the individual. This is a process that happens in Washington, not in the embassy, but from what I understand it was a fair process, where different activities were taken into account and a decision was made… I assure you that the people who decide on this in Washington are working they carefully consider the evidence and make decisions based on it.

Voice of America: Several dozens of parliamentarians from the USA and European countries appealed in a letter to the West to change its policy towards Serbia, claiming that the current policy does not work and that the Western approach to Vučić is “soft” in the context of Kosovo. Do you consider your policy successful if you consider that the situation in Kosovo has escalated several times in the past year, that Serbia is not closer to the EU, that neither the Ohrid Agreement nor the European proposal on Kosovo are implemented? Where is the success?

Hill: First, you don’t make policy because it’s successful, but because it’s right. When we formulate policy, we weigh our interests and the idea of whether it is the right thing for our government to do. Of course we would like the Brussels dialogue to take place much faster, we support Mr. (Miroslav) Lajčak because we think that is the right approach. And we would like to see an agreement based on the formation of the Union of Serbian Municipalities, so that the Serbs in the north of Kosovo know what the rules of the game are and what their lives will look like, that is very important to us. We recognize Kosovo and we would like it to join international organizations because we think it is the best for Kosovo, but also for the stability of the region. That’s our policy, and I think it’s the right one regardless of whether it’s successful or not. The game is not over.

Voice of America: What do you say about the statements that Vučić is destabilizing the region? The Minister of Defense of Serbia recently said that North Macedonia and Montenegro could be “hit on the head” by the recognition of Kosovo, which some in Montenegro interpreted as a threat. Do you consider it an attempt to destabilize the region?

Hill: I don’t see it as an attempt to destabilize the region, and I certainly don’t think that Mr. Vucevic wanted to be understood that way. I would certainly like to see better relations between the Balkan countries and I think that the Open Balkans is a good step in that direction, as well as the Berlin process… I would like to see more support from other countries in the region, but also from the West where everyone understands that these countries must cooperate and that way they will be better partners or members of the EU.

Voice of America: In the 1990s, the West had a harsher approach towards Serbia. You also met Slobodan Milošević, now you are working with Vučić, can you compare them, to say who is easier to cooperate with?

Hill: I can’t compare them, they are very very different, and the time is different. And I can’t talk about the similarities and differences between the current president and someone like Milosevic, I’ll leave that to you and the historians.

Voice of America: The situation in Kosovo seems calmer than it has been in recent months. Did you find a common language with Mr. Kurti, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, to work on solving the problem together? I am asking you because you told us in an interview in June that you are not sure that Mr. Kurti is an American partner. Have you moved on from that point?

Hill: What I can tell you is that we are working closely with Serbia to solve the problem, we think it makes sense for Serbia and Serbian-American relations, and I will leave it to others to answer this question. My opinion is well known.

Voice of America: Do you think that the situation in Kosovo is more peaceful or do you think differently?

Hill: I’d say it’s August and a lot of people are on vacation, we’ll have to see how it goes in September. I believe that this is an issue that requires urgent resolution and that progress is needed. Although we now know what the “ingredients” are for a peaceful future – the formation of the ZSO, Kosovo’s access to international organizations, we know what we need to do, we just need to put the pieces together. It’s like a big puzzle that you put on the table and then put the pieces together.

Voice of America: Do you expect a crisis in September?

Hill: I can’t predict a crisis, but what I can see is a new attempt to solve the problems. Everyone had a chance to think during the summer and I hope we can improve. Serbia is the largest country in the Balkans, it has ambitions to get closer to the West, it has ambitious economic plans, Expo 27 is coming up, if I were Serbia I would like to solve the problem with Kosovo, to show that I still support the Serbian community in Kosovo, but, finally, to see what are the broader, strategic moves that need to be made to get closer to the West.

Voice of America: You recently tweeted a video that some saw as controversial because Mr. Željko Mitrović, the owner of TV Pink, appears in it. Pink was seen as a generator of violence because of reality shows that are violent, you can often see a dirty campaign against the opposition, it is about pro-government television. With the understanding that the American goal is to bring Serbia closer to the West, do you think that this should be done with the help of people who represent everything that America does not advocate?

Hill: I think your question assumes that the US ambassador here has a lot of tools in his hands and thinks “look, it would be easier if we recruited TV Pink into our process.” But that’s not how it works at all. Pink TV made a decision, not because of me, but because they think that the future of this country is in the West. It is up to them to decide how they present themselves to the viewers. If you are a foreign diplomat here, you assess how things are. And I have to tell you – one of the things that you don’t value much, and yet many in Serbia would raise that question – is honesty. What I’m looking at is what they actually do, what they say, what the news looks like to them, whether they’re looking for violence and whether they’re pro-Russian – speaking of violence. And what you see is television presenting arguments in favor of Serbia in the West. They recently sent a team to Ukraine, not only to visit Kiev, but you see Serbian journalists in the trenches with Ukrainian soldiers, reporting on the worst war in decades. I’m not here to judge, I’m not here to talk about what they did in the past, I’m just looking at what they’re doing now. And now they are presenting arguments that I think should be presented more often in Serbia – that Serbia is a country in the heart of Europe and that it should be part of the Euro-Atlantic structures.

Voice of America: Do you think this statement of yours will create the impression that you are defending TV Pink?

Hill: I don’t mean to defend anyone. I defend the idea that Serbia should look forward and I hope that others will see it that way. I’m not defending anyone, I’m just stating the facts. Do you want people to look forward, or keep looking back? I would like people to look forward.