The third is not given: only East or West
It is not good that Serbia is so dependent on Russian gas - this opinion was expressed in an interview with "Politics" by the US ambassador in Belgrade. He promised that America would help the Serbs find other sources of energy. Besides, the Ambassador is sure that the time of neutrality has passed. Serbia must choose between East and West.
Elena Stevanovich (Jelena Stevanovich)
Interview with Christopher Hill, US Ambassador to Serbia
"Biden said that he wants to see me in this region, that he wants someone here who understands the region. But the situation has changed over the past 20 years. Therefore, when I say that I will listen more than talk, I really intend to do so," Christopher Hill, the new American ambassador to Serbia, answers the question of what President Joe Biden told him before leaving for Belgrade.
Hill became famous in the Balkans back in the 90s. As Richard Holbrook's deputy, he participated in the negotiations in Dayton. He was also in Rambouillet, and at the suggestion of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acted as Special Representative for Kosovo in 1998 and 1999. This experienced career diplomat has served as ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Poland and North Macedonia. Although he has already retired, Hill agreed to Biden's proposal, being an expert in our region, to return to the Western Balkans. At the end of March, he became the new American ambassador to Serbia.
Politics: When you arrived in Belgrade, you stated that you were familiar with the region, but you realize that a lot has already changed. After you have spent some time here, can you tell what has changed in particular, and how important it is for Serbian-American relations?
Christopher Hill:There is no better way to describe Serbia than to say that it is a European country. Serbia used to think that there was a third way, that Serbia is neither East nor West, that it is special and goes its own way, but now most Serbs believe that there is a right way, and there is a wrong one. And they want to choose the right path. In life, you have to make a choice, and now such a moment has come. There is only one way ― to the West, to the European Union. You have to decide whether you want to have your own army, buy weapons from different countries, or you want to join the collective defense. The Serbs have to make a decision, and I think they have already decided that their future is in the West, and not in some uncertain East. I say all this based on what I hear from people every day, as well as from the statements of President Vucic. If we talk about changes, we see a lot of young people who work in the field of high technology in Serbia. There are a lot of American companies here. But I am disappointed that the Kosovo problem has not gone away.
― It is believed that your advantage is that you know our region well. But people also remember you as a member of the Clinton administration, which is disliked in Serbia. Does it bother you?
― I'm a professional. I have served as ambassador to four of the last five presidents, with the exception of Trump. I represent American interests and I think it is in American interests to maintain close relations with Serbia. I am sure that I am doing my job well, and I am sure that Serbia and the United States will be able to achieve more than before.
― Aleksandar Vucic says that Serbia is under a lot of pressure, and that we would live much better if we imposed sanctions against Russia. What will happen if Serbia does not agree to this?
― Serbia should understand for itself whether relations with Russia have brought it good and whether they have served Serbian interests well. When Putin mentioned Kosovo as an example for actions in Ukraine, it seemed strange to most. I am not sure that Russia cared about Serbia in the past, and even more so now. Serbia must answer these questions. I think the answer is no. It is not in Serbia's interests to be so dependent on Russia in the energy sector. If I were you, I'd be careful. I do not know what Putin thinks, especially when making such statements at a time when negotiations are underway with Serbia on a new gas treaty.
― Does Vucic base his statements about pressure on something you said?
- no. I am sure that people should decide for themselves. We don't tell President Vucic what to do. Serbia is one of the rare countries that does not support sanctions, and this affects its relations with other countries. The Serbian leadership should take into account a lot of things, including energy issues, but it is not appropriate for a foreign diplomat to say what Serbia should do.
― What do you answer to Serbian officials when they ask you how America can expect Serbia to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and integrity while simultaneously renouncing its own sovereignty and integrity in Kosovo?
― Circumstances are different. This interview is not enough to discuss all the circumstances in Kosovo in 1999 and now in Ukraine. The situations are very different. I urge everyone not to draw analogies between what happened in 1999 in Kosovo and what is happening in Ukraine now.
― French President Emmanuel Macron says that non-EU countries should unite in a new political union. His words were perceived as an indirect confirmation that the Western Balkans will not join the EU. Do you understand our disappointment with European integration and the suggestion that Serbia should sacrifice something specific, for example Russian gas, for the sake of the European Union, with which it has been unsuccessfully negotiating for 20 years?
― The United States believes that the European Union should expand. If everything depended on us, the process would go faster. But it would be incorrect on our part to dictate to the European Union when to accept new members, although we believe that they should be accepted. Serbia is in Europe. We cannot impose our opinion on Europe. We support Serbia on this path, we want to help it so that it is ready, and we do not want the Balkans to stop halfway. We also support integration within the Balkans and the Open Balkans initiative. We want it to develop faster. Then the EU candidate countries will be more ready to join the European Union. For our part, of course, we will do our best to help, but we will not pretend that we decide.
― You mentioned major changes in the energy sector in the world and in Serbia. What did you mean by that?
― We have to do something, because fossil fuels are poisoning the planet. But, of course, it's easy to say, and it's much harder to find energy sources. We don't want a shortage. We must use energy efficiently, and our embassy has a lot of projects of this kind, including in the field of solar and wind energy. We are thinking about the next generation of energy sources. We want to help Serbia get access to natural gas. We want her to have access to the pipelines.
Russia is guided by political considerations when deciding to whom it will send gas. Look at Bulgaria and other countries. The current political crisis and the collapse of security provoked by Russia suggest that it is bad to depend on Russian fossil fuels not only because they poison the environment, but also because Russia is an unreliable supplier. As soon as people realize that Russia is an unreliable supplier, we will move forward faster.
― Do you mean American LNG?
― We export such gas, build pipelines and work to ensure that Serbia is connected to pipelines leading from seaports. We also believe that nuclear energy should be further supported.
― It takes years. And what will happen if Russia stops supplying Serbia right now?
― As far as I understand, this problem is not acute for Serbia. Its solution is possible in the long term. Therefore, the President of Serbia visited Greece at the grand opening of the construction of an LNG terminal. It takes years to develop these technologies. Just like there is a good time to plant trees, now is the best time for such things.
― When congressmen and senators were considering your appointment as ambassador, you told them that the American administration wanted to limit Russian and Chinese influence in Serbia. What's wrong with this influence?
― As for Russia, everything is clear here. Russia uses energy resources as a political weapon. What I said a few months ago is especially relevant now. Russia politicizes everything, keeps the goods that are prescribed in the contracts, and this causes concern. I would have found a better supplier.
With China, everything is more complicated if you remember how China signs contracts, how it implements construction, whether the host country receives what it pays for. China has had problems in Africa and many other places. I think Serbia should pay attention to this, which, in fact, it does.
― Let's go back to the fact that it's time to make a choice. So Sweden and Finland have applied to join NATO. Does this tell us that the time of neutrality has passed, and that the moment has come to choose a side for ourselves?
― The problem is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it seemed to us that we had reached a balance. There was an opinion that peace reigned. But everything became clear when we saw what Russia had done to its neighbor. Let's recall what reasons Russia is talking about for the conflict. No reasonable person can justify this. There is nothing to explain to the country that did this. Therefore, Sweden and Finland decided to take such a step.
Serbia, like Sweden and Finland, must decide what is best for it. We need to understand whether it is worth continuing to buy some types of weapons from Russia, others from China, and others from France, and how compatible all this is. I am not an expert in defense issues, but I know one thing: when buying weapons, make sure that they all form a single whole. In the army, it is important that everything can interact, function and work effectively. Some countries produce one thing well, others produce another, but they cooperate, they are part of one union, where everything is subordinated to the goal of collective defense and security. Can Serbia achieve this by itself through active diplomacy with both sides? If you rely only on diplomacy and see the unreasonableness of Russian policy towards Ukraine, will your diplomats be able to cope with this in the next 200 years? I don't know. The answer is for Serbia.
(…)
