Tonino Picula, MEP European Parliament Rapporteur for Serbia

The fundamental reasons for the scepticism towards Serbia are Belgrade’s relations with Russia and China, the stagnation and even deterioration of relations with Kosovo, as well as poor progress in fulfilling obligations from Cluster 1, which encompasses the rule of law, media freedom and the fight against crime and corruption ~ Tonino Picula

Tonino Picula, a Croatian diplomat and long-serving Member of the European Parliament, has been appointed as the new EP Rapporteur for Serbia. He says that his main goal will be “pursuing work in good will”. Speaking in his first interview with CorD Magazine, Picula adds that his role as a rapporteur has been defined by the rules of procedure of the European Parliament and expresses his hope that he will be able to cooperate successfully with all relevant actors – from politicians and civil sector, to the business community and academia.

The European Commission recently confirmed, for the fourth time, that Serbia has met all technical conditions for the opening of Cluster 3. However, and despite this, the EU has once again delayed this step in response to opposition from eight member states. Given that key EU countries like Germany, France and Italy support Serbia’s progress, do you believe the EU will soon reach a consensus? What is needed to overcome the remaining political obstacles?

— The opposition of some member states can be viewed primarily through the general political will regarding this step. The opening of the cluster is not only closely related to the areas concerned, but rather the broader political picture is, of course, taken into account, as it also sends a broader political message. There are several reasons why this happened. In recent months, Serbia has participated in the BRICS summit with its representatives, while the country’s prime minister met with the Russians during the visit of President Von der Leyen. Therefore, the issue of sanctions against Russia, alignment with CFSP/CSDP, and a lack of progress in the dialogue with Kosovo, are all causes of concern.

These are all serious commitments that must be implemented at some point, as many member states will continue to insist on these very issues. I hope that Belgrade’s response will be to work on strategically important reforms and not just another tactic to avoid them.

How do you view the current dynamics of negotiations between Serbia and the EU, and what key reforms do you expect Serbia to implement in order to advance on its accession path?

— There are no encouraging signs to prompt more positive assessments thus far. Let us not forget that Serbia’s path to the EU has been stagnant for literally three years now, as the last chapters were opened at the end of 2021. The problem of compliance with EU foreign policy and sanctions against Russia will not disappear.

Accordingly, there is the question of Belgrade’s geopolitical orientation, as well as the lack of progress in relations with Kosovo. As for internal political aspects, there is first of all the rule of law and media freedom. These are all key parameters for progress in accession negotiations. These obligations, especially as regards the reform agenda, must be implemented, because EU member states will continue to insist on these issues.

Do you share the view that the acceleration of Serbia’s accession depends solely on the introduction of sanctions against Russia and the normalisation of relations with Pristina?

— So, the fundamental reasons for the scepticism towards Serbia are Belgrade’s relations with Russia and China, stagnation and even deterioration in relations with Kosovo, as well as poor progress in fulfilling obligations from Cluster 1, which encompasses the rule of law, media freedom and the fight against crime and corruption.

I believe that every country striving to join the EU has to take seriously the need for full alignment with EU policies, particularly sensitive ones and those that said country has accepted as a commitment. This is something that it’s impossible to ignore or marginalise on the path towards the EU.

I am closely monitoring the sociopolitical situation in Serbia, particularly in the context of the recent tragedy in Novi Sad, for which citizens are rightly demanding accountability

But more than that, the latest European Commission report contains arguments that cannot be reduced only to Kosovo and Russia. These arguments are clearly indicated as reasons why Serbia’s EU accession journey is stagnating. First of all, internal conditions in Serbia and problems with the rule of law, the media and the lack of reforms dictate Serbia’s pace towards the EU.

There is also the issue of harmonisation with the common foreign and security policy, which isn’t merely a matter of imposing sanctions on Russia, but also covers relations with third countries, visa policies etc. Quite simply, Serbia’s road to the EU is long and this is a project that takes time.

How would you assess the current situation regarding the rule of law in Serbia, and which areas do you think should be improved further in order for the country to achieve European standards?

— In line with the European Commission report, I am not satisfied with the current situation and the limited progress, if any, achieved. I believe there is much room for improvement.

Furthermore, I am closely monitoring the sociopolitical situation in Serbia, particularly in the context of the recent tragedy in Novi Sad, for which citizens are rightly demanding accountability. I believe it’s difficult to expect any major progress from the authorities in Serbia in the near future following their frequently offensive behaviour, which is applied not only to internal political opponents, but also to European politicians. The videos of the fight from the Assembly were disturbing, and were followed by the postponing of the meeting with MEPs in Strasbourg within the framework of our joint parliamentary delegation.

I am afraid that it is difficult to be an optimist in such a situation and that major steps are needed to achieve progress.

How do you view Serbia’s role in maintaining regional stability in the Balkans?

— I think Serbia has a crucial role regarding stability in the region, but its actions often aren’t satisfactorily constructive when it comes to some neighbouring countries, in particular Kosovo, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I believe Serbia needs to engage more as a genuinely positive player in the region, by providing true reconciliation policies and restraining from promoting failed concepts of the “Serbian world” and other nationalist tendencies that dominate tabloid headlines.

Your appointment has prompted much discussion about the direction you will personally take regarding relations between the European Parliament and Serbia. What can we expect?

— Progress on the EU accession path depends not on me, but primarily on the behaviour of the Serbian authorities, because the criteria and objectives are very clear.

My role as rapporteur is defined by the rules of procedure of the European Parliament. In this sense, I will try to meet with all relevant political interlocutors, social actors, civil society organisations, local government representatives, business community leaders and academia. I hope for good and inclusive cooperation over the next five years.

I will, of course, be pleased if Serbia takes the necessary steps to progress, but this depends primarily on the political will in Belgrade. I am currently preparing my first step – namely preparing a draft report on the situation in Serbia after the Commission presented the candidate country package.

From my side, my main goal will be to pursue work in good will and sincere cooperation with all relevant political actors. The rest is up to others.