Luarasi IRO

The author, Dael Dervishi, PhD, is Head of the Department of Public Law at Luarasi University and a Fellow at the McCain Institute, as well as at the Leadership, Diplomacy, and National Security Lab at Arizona State University.

 September 11, 2024

• Is the West prioritizing short-term stability in the Balkans at the expense of long-term democratic reforms?
• How do Serbia's foreign policy and ties with Russia impact its long-term strategy toward EU integration?
• How much do Serbia's policies influence the integration of Western Balkan countries into the European Union?

5 minutes read

In international relations, appeasement is a concept that has sparked long and complex debates. It refers to efforts to ease or reduce tensions with a potentially problematic state, often to preserve regional or global stability. However, history provides numerous examples of how appeasement efforts have often failed to prevent the escalation of conflicts and achieve lasting peace.

One of the most well-known cases of appeasement is the policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, particularly during Détente in the 1970s. The U.S. and its Western allies sought to reduce tensions through diplomatic agreements such as the Helsinki Accords and the SALT I and II treaties, aiming to avoid a nuclear conflict. Critics argued that this policy allowed Moscow to expand its influence in Eastern Europe and support Marxist movements in Africa and Latin America. It was only with Gorbachev's reforms in the 1980s that real change occurred, and tensions were reduced.

Another example of appeasement policy is the relationship between Western powers and Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s. To limit Iran's influence after the Islamic Revolution, many countries supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, despite his use of chemical weapons. Although this had some short-term strategic benefits, it failed to ensure long-term stability. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 escalated a new conflict, showing once again that appeasement policies often fail to address the core problems of authoritarian regimes.

There are many such examples. Even in the Western Balkans, a similar case occurred with the appeasement policy toward Slobodan Milošević. Initially, the West pursued such a policy during the dissolution of Yugoslavia to preserve stability, notably with the 1995 Dayton Agreement. However, Milošević continued his aggression, particularly in Kosovo, leading to NATO’s military intervention in 1999.

Appeasement Policies Toward Serbia: A New Perspective

In recent years, the term "appeasement" has gained new resonance in the context of the Western Balkans, as Serbia has become the subject of criticism regarding how the West, particularly the European Union and the United States, have chosen to approach the government of President Aleksandar Vučić. These policies have raised deep dilemmas in the West between maintaining stability in the region and promoting democracy.

Critics of Western policy towards Serbia argue that the appeasement of Vučić risks undermining democratic standards and long-term stability. Through these policies, Serbia has managed to benefit from good relations with the West without making significant political reforms or resolving sensitive issues such as Kosovo or its close ties with Russia.

In this context, it is important to remember that Serbia has historically pursued a balanced policy between East and West, a stance rooted in the period of Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslavia. Even today, Serbia maintains close relations with Russia and has refused to impose sanctions against Moscow, while continuing to seek EU membership.

International Reactions

The appeasement policy towards Serbia has been a subject of debate not only within the European Union but also in the United States. In May 2023, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Bob Menendez, sharply criticized President Joe Biden’s administration for its approach to Vučić, calling it a form of appeasement. According to Menendez, one-sided pressure on Kosovo and tolerance of Vučić’s links to organized crime were evidence of an appeasement policy that favors short-term stability over democracy and justice.

At the same time, in the European Parliament, MP Bueti criticized the European Commission’s appeasement policy towards Serbia, accusing Enlargement Commissioner Oliver Varhelyi of supporting authoritarian policies. These accusations reflect growing dissatisfaction within European institutions over how Serbia benefits from its status as an EU candidate without advancing democratic reforms.

The Kosovo Issue and Ongoing Tensions

One of the most sensitive issues in relations between Serbia and the West is that of Kosovo. While most Western countries have recognized Kosovo as an independent state, Serbia continues to oppose its independence. The EU has tried to mediate a dialogue between the two countries, but progress has been limited. Many analysts believe that the EU has made significant concessions to Serbia to maintain peace, creating the perception that Belgrade is being rewarded for not resolving sensitive issues. Despite diplomatic efforts, tensions between Serbia and Kosovo remain high, reinforcing the idea that appeasement policies have not addressed the real roots of the conflict.

Vučić and the Rise of Authoritarianism

Aleksandar Vučić, the current president of Serbia, has dominated the Serbian political scene for more than a decade. Although Vučić tries to present himself as a modernizer and a balanced leader, criticisms of authoritarianism and media control have increased. There is a growing perception that Serbia is heading toward a "controlled democracy," where independent institutions are weakened, and the opposition has little space.

Despite these criticisms, Serbia continues to benefit from the EU integration process, receiving funds and economic benefits without meeting European standards for democracy and the rule of law.

Serbia’s Relations with Russia and the Policy of Neutrality

One of the most complex issues in Serbia's relations with the West is its stance toward Russia. Serbia has maintained close ties with Moscow, especially in the areas of energy and diplomatic support, strengthened by historical and religious connections. Serbia has declared military neutrality, refusing to join NATO, though it cooperates with the Alliance through the Partnership for Peace. This stance reinforces its image as an independent player but raises questions about its path toward EU integration. Russia's influence, particularly in the Kosovo issue and the energy sector, makes it difficult for the West to exert significant pressure on Serbia.

Here are some key aspects to understand the intensity of relations between Russia and Serbia:

1. Political Influence. Russia’s political influence in Serbia is well-documented. It often manifests through support for nationalist parties and politicians who favor close ties with Moscow. President Vučić, while trying to balance relations with both Russia and the West, maintains close ties with the Kremlin, partly due to strong pro-Russian sentiments among some of the Serbian population. In return, Russia supports Vučić on key issues like Kosovo, bolstering his domestic legitimacy.
2. Media and Information Warfare. Russia wields significant influence over Serbian public opinion through state-sponsored media outlets like Sputnik Serbia and RT (Russia Today). These outlets spread pro-Russian narratives, often critical of the European Union, NATO, and the West, while promoting the idea of a strong Slavic brotherhood. These platforms reinforce anti-Western sentiments and nationalist rhetoric, spreading narratives aligned with Russia's foreign policy interests.
3. Economic Influence. Russia exerts considerable economic influence in Serbia, mainly through its control of energy resources. Serbia is heavily dependent on Russian natural gas, and the Russian state-owned company Gazprom holds a significant stake in Serbia’s gas company, Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS). This gives Russia substantial leverage over Serbia’s energy security, particularly in times of geopolitical tension.
4. Military Cooperation. Russia has been a key military partner for Serbia, providing weapons, military training, and strategic cooperation. Serbia has received military equipment such as MiG-29 fighter jets, T-72 tanks, and Pantsir-S1 air defense systems from Russia. Joint military exercises, like "Slavic Brotherhood," further strengthen military ties between the two countries.
5. The Kosovo Issue and Russian Diplomatic Support. One of the most visible areas of Russian intervention in Serbia is its support for Serbia regarding Kosovo’s independence. Russia has consistently backed Serbia on the international stage, opposing the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state. With its veto power in the UN Security Council, Russia has blocked efforts for Kosovo's membership in the UN, reinforcing Serbia's position in international forums.
6. Cultural and Religious Influence. Russia uses the shared heritage of Orthodox Christianity to strengthen its soft power in Serbia. The Serbian Orthodox Church maintains close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church, and Moscow uses religious and cultural diplomacy to foster a sense of common identity between the two nations. This connection is particularly evident in projects such as the funding of the Cathedral of Saint Sava in Belgrade, which serves as a symbol of the deep religious and cultural ties between Russia and Serbia. These religious and cultural ties help reinforce Russia’s image as a natural ally and protector of Serbia against the West.
7. Hybrid Warfare and Intelligence Activities. There have been instances where Russia has engaged in covert operations to destabilize the Balkans, including Serbia. In 2016, for example, Russian agents were involved in a coup attempt in Montenegro, aiming to prevent its NATO membership. Though this didn’t occur in Serbia but in a neighboring country, it demonstrated Russia’s readiness to influence Balkan politics.

Appeasement or Diplomacy?

These developments raise a fundamental question: Is the appeasement policy towards Serbia a strategy to maintain stability in a complicated region like the Balkans, or a failure to uphold democratic standards and the rule of law? For many critics in the EU and the U.S., the tolerance of Serbia’s actions and the lack of sufficient pressure for necessary reforms are examples of appeasement policies that ultimately favor short-term stability over long-term democracy.

On the other hand, increased international pressure on Serbia could further strengthen anti-Western sentiments among the Serbian people and increase support for Vučić and his authoritarian policies. Moreover, this pressure could also push Serbia closer to Russia and China, creating an even wider gap between it and the West.

Thus, appeasement policies toward Serbia create a divide between those who support a softer approach to maintain stability and those who advocate for greater pressure to push democratic reforms. Due to its geopolitical position and its role as a key actor in the region, Serbia influences not only the internal stability of the Balkans but also the EU's perception of the entire region. The West views the Western Balkans as divided between two primary factors: the Albanian and the Serbian.

When it comes to EU integration, it seems unlikely that either Albania or Serbia will join the EU before the other. Whichever country becomes an EU member first would likely use its veto power to block the other’s accession due to unresolved issues, such as Kosovo. At the same time, it is difficult to envision the full integration of the Western Balkans into the EU without Serbia’s inclusion. If Serbia were to remain outside this process, it would create a “ghetto” in the heart of Europe, hindering not only Serbia’s progress but also negatively impacting the stability and development of the entire region. Only through deep democratic reforms and the resolution of open conflicts can Serbia and the other Balkan countries move toward a shared and stable European future.