peacefare.net

Appeasement without limits

This interview, which I did Tuesday for Anja Ivanović at Podgorica daily Pobjeda, has attracted some attention, so I am posting here the original English version:

Q: The Minister of Serbian defense, Miloš Vučević, stated that the recognition of Kosovo will come back to haunt Montenegro and North Macedonia, much like it has for Ukraine and to all those who promoted Kosovo as an independent state. US ambassador in Serbia Christopher Hill did not make any criticism on this statement but said that he does not see the statements of Serbian officials as an attempt to destabilize the region. What kind of policy do you think Hill is demonstrating with such an attitude toward Belgrade’s propaganda? Why do you think Hill didn’t criticize Serbia at all?

A: US policy now favors Belgrade. Washington is silent on many things: corruption at high levels in Serbia, Serbian threats of the use of force, a Belgrade-sponsored attack on NATO troops, Vucic’s refusal to commit to implementing agreements reached recently in the Belgrade/Pristina dialogue. You will have to ask Ambassador Hill and Deputy Assistant Secretary Escobar why. My impression is that they have convinced themselves they can bring Serbia towards the West, despite a good deal of clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. They also appear to be prioritizing Serbia’s allowing arms supplies to get to Ukraine.

Q: Do you believe that the absence of a critical attitude of the American ambassador is proof of a “soft policy” towards Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić? What do you believe needs to happen to change Hill’s approach?

A: Yes, US policy towards Serbia is now all about appeasement. I don’t see this changing while present personnel are in place.

Q: Is it possible that Hill, who openly supported the “Open Balkan” initiative, abstains from reacting to the disputed statements of Serbian officials because of possible privileges in the Initiative “Open Balkan”?

A: So far as I am aware, Open Balkans is a dead letter. Nor do I think it offered much to the US. American support for it was part of the appeasement policy.

Q: This month, US and EU officials sent a letter in which they called for a change of soft policy towards Serbia and Aleksandar Vučić in relation to Kosovo. Do you think that this approach by Hill confirms their request? Is Hill opposing US officials with this statement?

A: The “officials” you mention were legislators. They would like a dramatic change in the current approach. I see no sign yet that US and EU executive branch officials will give it to them. Much more pressure will be required.

Q: The former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro and the first Montenegrin ambassador in Washington, Miodrag Vlahović, assessed in an Open Letter (published by Pobjeda) to the US Ambassador in Belgrade, Christopher Hill, that the “Pax Americana” policy promoted by His Excellency Hill through concessions and pandering to the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, was “deeply wrong and compromises decades of positive and effective US engagement in the Balkans.” Do you have comment about Vlahović letter?

Q: I think Ambassador Vlahovic is correct.