Russia\u2019s media are currently in a lather about their nation\u2019s old friend Serbia becoming too chummy with the old adversary NATO. The mystery is: why?<\/span><\/p>\n

For all sorts of reasons, both domestic and diplomatic, Serbia is showing absolutely no hint of wanting to join NATO. It does want to join the European Union. Oddly, in a purely UK context, and as a Liberal, I am actively campaigning to have Britain leave the European Union; however, I understand Serbia\u2019s instinct for the economic security of a customs union. On the other hand, I\u2019m a long-standing political supporter of NATO\u2019s mission in Europe. And here again, I understand the Serbian government\u2019s very different view.<\/span><\/p>\n

For all sorts of reasons, both domestic and diplomatic, Serbia is showing absolutely no hint of wanting to join NATO.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vu\u010di\u0107 has said repeatedly that Serbia has no plans to join NATO. For its part, NATO has acknowledged this, stating only recently that it \u201cfully respects Serbia\u2019s policy of military neutrality.\u201d There is widespread support for joining the EU but almost no political support at all for NATO accession. Therefore, almost by definition, it will not happen. End of story, you might think.<\/span><\/p>\n

Except it\u2019s not.<\/span><\/p>\n

In February, the Serbian parliament ratified a new agreement on Logistic Support Co-operation. This appears at first glance to give NATO personnel operating in Serbia diplomatic-style immunity from local legal liability and wide-ranging exemptions from duties and taxes. The agreement is with the NATO Support and Procurement Organization (NSPO), and it states:<\/span><\/p>\n

This Agreement establishes the legal framework and foresees the basic principles for the support co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Serbia and NSPO in the specified areas including, but not restricted to, supply, maintenance, procurement of goods and services, transportation, configuration control, technical assistance and execution of Trust Fund Projects for which NSPA is the Executing Agent.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some of the Vu\u010di\u0107 government\u2019s political opponents have gone on the attack, loudly expressing the view that their nation is now under de facto NATO occupation.<\/span><\/p>\n

In fact the agreement is a tidying up of a series of agreements first signed in 2006\u2014by a Serbian government then led by the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS), which has been staunchly critical of the recent update. The original deal gave NATO troops free passage through Serbia for deployment in Kosovo where one of their tasks was to protect the area\u2019s Serb population. \u201cWe need NATO as an ally to keep our people in Kosovo safe,\u201d Vu?i? has said. The updated deal, far from supplying NATO with new rights, actually applies reciprocity for the first time, giving Serbia\u2019s own military the same rights as those already enjoyed by NATO.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nonetheless, there have been anti-NATO street demonstrations, cheered on\u2014quite surprisingly\u2014by the same DSS which signed the earlier agreement in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unsurprisingly, the Russian state media picked up on the controversy quickly. Moscow\u2019s Sputnik news agency, successor to the old propaganda outlet RIA Novosti, quoted a Serbian \u201cexpert\u201d named Dragana Trifkovic. \u201cI have to mention that this form of cooperation is far worse for Serbia than its NATO membership because Serbia is now de facto at NATO\u2019s disposal,\u201d Trifkovic says. \u201cOn the other hand NATO has absolutely no obligations towards Serbia, unlike the commitments that exist towards the member States.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

This is not the first time Trifkovic has surfaced in Sputnik\u2019s reporting. In November, she was quoted extensively about Russia\u2019s annexation of Crimea.<\/span><\/p>\n

„Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the United States has been redrawing the borders in Europe according to their needs, starting from the Balkans. Serbia was bombed just because it did not voluntarily consent to the American occupation,“ Trifkovic was quoted as stating.<\/span><\/p>\n

So we know where she stands.<\/span><\/p>\n

Serbia joined NATO\u2019s Partnership for Peace program in 2006 (under the DSS government). Like Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia, and the other Balkan nations, Serbia has more recently agreed to an Individual Partnership Action Plan with NATO. Some of these states, including Georgia, really do want to join NATO. But no one is forcing them. And no one is concerned that (for instance) Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan resolutely do not want to move in that direction.<\/span><\/p>\n

And no one is nudging Belgrade towards accession either. \u201cAmerica will never impose a security arrangement on another country,\u201d President Barack Obama declared in 2009\u2014in his famous \u201creset\u201d speech in Moscow. That principle appears to be holding.<\/span><\/p>\n

Serbia has declared herself militarily neutral. This makes sense for Serbia. Its cultural and historical ties to Russia are long and deep. Just before his death in 2010, the great Serbian thinker and political theorist Svetozar Stojanovi\u0107 wrote, \u201cIf it became a NATO member, it could not retain its close ties with the important group of nonaligned countries, nor could it preserve its reputation as a country that participates in UN peace missions on a principled basis.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

He added: \u201cPluralization\u2014instead of singularization\u2014of foreign and security policy is what gives \u2018intelligent power\u2019 to a small state such as Serbia.\u201d He was right. Nations like Serbia shouldn\u2019t need to choose sides.<\/span><\/p>\n

And they don\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

24. March 2016.<\/span><\/p>\n