The candidacy of Serbia’s foreign minister, Vuk Jeremić, for the
presidency of the United Nations General Assembly shows that its foreign
policy is not based upon a long-term strategy, but is instead
contingent upon daily politics and a lack of vision about how to
strengthen its international position. On January 24th, Vuk Jeremić, Serbia’s foreign minister, acknowledged
that his country had nominated him as a candidate for president of the
sixty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly. To
understand the motivations for such a move and its future implications,
it is necessary to simultaneously consider both Serbia’s internal and
foreign affairs.
The upcoming elections had a strong bearing on such a decision,
especially given Vuk Jeremić standing as one of the most popular
officials of the Democratic Party (DS), particularly amongst
“patriotically-oriented” voters. However, though relatively popular with
the public, Jeremić is highly criticized by parties from both the
governing coalition and opposition. The opposition, especially the
Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) and the Serbian Radical Party (SRS),
blame Jeremić and the foreign ministry of leading a policy of deception
regarding the defence of Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo; often citing
the controversial EU-Serbian resolution in the UN from September 2010
and the Advisory Opinion of the Internatinoal Court of Justice (ICJ). On
the other hand, the EU-enthusiasts – the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
and a number of high officials of the ruling DS – blame Jeremić for
failing to obtain EU candidacy status due to his apparent “strong
stance” on Kosovo.
Jeremić’s political figure and his career,
however, have never been shaped independently by himself, but have
rather been linked to Serbia’s president, Boris Tadić, who was Jeremić’s
psychology teacher in high school. It is often rumoured that the main
foreign policy strategies and decisions are formulated within Tadić’s
cabinet, with Jeremić being their solemn executor. The recent failures
of Serbian foreign policy – with respect to both Kosovo and the EU
candidacy status – are now compensated by new diplomatic “activities”
that might be favourably received by potential voters, and the candidacy
for the post of president of the sixty-seventh session of the United
Nations General Assembly is one such activity.
In the world of
foreign affairs and international relations, the Serbian bid is indeed
controversial. Though a purely technical post, the presidency of the
General Assembly carries a certain prestige and responsibility. In order
to establish a set criteria for electing a new General
Assembly president, several proposals appeared in the past few years;
the most recent being issued in 2007 by the Institute for Global Policy.
The potential candidate should fulfil four-set criteria – i)
availability to devote full-time attention for many months, ii)
political independence, iii) multilateral leadership experience and iv) a
thorough understanding of the UN Charter. Taking into consideration
Jeremić’s current political position, the questions to be considered are
whether he would be able to fulfil the unofficial criteria, and what
will be the reaction of the international community.
With general
elections in Serbia slowly approaching, it would indeed be peculiar if
Jeremić gets elected for the post and at the same time potentially loses
his ministerial seat in Serbia; which would only create a further rift
between him, a future foreign minister from the opposition and the new
government. Moreover, Jeremić’s public duties in Serbia are not solely
limited to foreign policy; as president of the Serbian Tennis
Association, his position is even more complicated.
Jeremić,
however, is not the only candidate for the post, with Lithuania having
also nominated a candidate. When comparing the Lithuanian approach to
that of Serbia, certain differences are very pronounced. First,
Lithuania had informed the states of the Eastern European group of its
intention to nominate a candidate back in 2004, and formalized this move
on 27th June 2011 by nominating Dalius Čekuolis. Čekuolis, the current
permanent representative of Lithuania in the UN, is an experienced
diplomat who also held the position of under-secretary of foreign
affairs, and served as president of the United Nations Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC) from 2007 to 2008. Lithuania anticipated
Serbia’s announcement of candidacy by eight months and, by having
nominated a highly-skilled candidate, Jeremić’s chances of success are
certainly diminished.
In order to be elected, a candidate must
attain a majority of the vote in the General Assembly, which is not
going to be an easy task for Serbia. The late candidacy means less time
for lobbying and diplomacy. Indeed, a number of states have already
declared their opposition; most notably, two of Serbia’s neighbours –
Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina – with the Croatian foreign minister,
Vesna Pusić, explaining that an agreement with Lithuania was reached
last summer. Of the great powers, Russia stated its support for Serbian
candidacy, whilst the EU leading powers – Germany and France – do not
view the candidacy favourably.
If Serbia’s efforts to have a
candidate elected for the post fail, Serbian diplomacy will suffer a
huge blow which will indirectly affect its already weakened position in
the UN – particularly its voice regarding the Kosovo dispute. On the
other hand, should Serbia manage to attain the post – yet a change of
Government occurs in the meantime – Serbia will not be able to realise
the fruits of that position due to a potential conflict between
Jeremić and any future government formed by the current opposition.
Serbia’s
candidacy demonstrates that its foreign policy is not based on
long-term strategy, but is rather contingent on daily politics and a
lack of vision about how to strengthen its international position. What
Serbia most certainly needs is greater involvement in the UN, including
participation in UN-led peacekeeping operations. Such engagement would
improve Serbia’s chances of drawing the Kosovo dispute back from the EU
to the UN arena, where it can count on the support of more powerful
allies, and where UN Security Council Resolution 1244 is likely to be
better respected.
No comments:
Post a Comment