VZCZCXYZ0009
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBW #0324/01 0571146
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 261111Z FEB 10 (CCY AD2B6109 TOQ2932-632)
FM AMEMBASSY BELGRADE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0934
INFO EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RUZEJAA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK

UNCLAS BELGRADE 000324 
 
C O R R E C T E D   C O P Y - ADDED ADDRESSEE 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
DEPT FOR EUR/SCE (P. PETERSON) 
DEPT FOR EUR/PPD (T. WEIK AND M. ALPERN) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV MARR PREL OEXC SCUL SR KPAO
SUBJECT: SERBIA: Recipe for a NATO Debate - Let Stand 10 Years Then 
Stir 
 
Summary 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) In recent months Serbian media and civil society have 
 
tossed a decade of taboos out the window by publishing letters, 
op-eds and articles that openly debate Serbia's future relationship 
with NATO, which they have portrayed for years as a "criminal 
organization."  Despite sharp emotional divisions between 
supporters and opponents of membership and the political 
opportunism driving much of the negative rhetoric, the debate has 
succeeded in laying out some basic facts about the alliance, and 
for the first time since the 1999 bombing campaign the public has 
been confronted with the heretofore unthinkable:  that Serbia might 
one day be a member.  Even the Russians seem concerned with the 
turn of events and have weighed in with their own op-eds.  For our 
part, Post has engaged early with the media and NGO community, 
encouraging objective discussion and stating publicly that NATO's 
doors are open.  End Summary. 
 
 
 
The Debate 
 
---------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Serbia's public debate over NATO membership is alternately 
irrational and sophisticated, a clash between anger over the past 
and longing for future relevance.  Opponents of membership paint 
NATO as an anti-Russian war machine, focus on the 1999 
intervention, and claim Serbia would be forced to recognize Kosovo 
in order to join.  Advocates note that Serbia will soon be 
surrounded by NATO members - some, even within the government, 
supporting Euro-Atlantic integration of the entire region - and 
appeal for a more pragmatic approach.  Increasingly, the arguments 
have become sober, analytic and economic. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In the absence of a clear long-term government policy, 
military analysts, academics and pro-western NGOs have all taken up 
the issue with zest, publishing op-eds and organizing roundtables 
and media events.  In one case, an NGO included the mother of a 
"NATO victim" at a panel discussion who advocated NATO membership 
as a way to expose the truth of Milosevic's crimes.  Another group 
invited Jamie Shea - notorious here as NATO's spokesperson during 
the 1999 Kosovo campaign - to speak via DVC to a young audience. 
In contrast, TV talk shows have been negative or inconclusive at 
best, with NATO opponents playing on emotions, abusing facts and 
attacking supporters as "NATO lobbyists."  Supporters have thus far 
been unprepared for this kind of live, gloves-off fight, a 
liability in this society where strong, emotional rhetoric is 
valued over mere logical argumentation and where most citizens get 
their news from television. 
 
¶4. (U) Probably the most important contribution to rational 
discussion of the issue has come from intellectual daily Politika, 
which has placed an even mixture of pro and con articles from 
analysts and activists alike.  Yet several other dailies, even 
including sensationalist and traditionally anti-western Press, 
Kurir and Glas Javnosti, have published NATO op-eds on both sides 
of the discussion. 
 
¶5. (SBU) In one bitter op-ed published in daily Politika, military 
analyst Miroslav Lazansky, the nephew of convicted war criminal 
Biljana Plavsic, who has built a career railing against the western 
military complex while privately seeking every opportunity to 
admire it in person, conjured the specter of NATO one day sneaking 
atomic weapons into the Serbian heartland.  A confident critic 
under normal circumstances, Lazansky's shrill tone shows that the 
apparent change in climate has touched a nerve among die-hard 
opponents. 
 
Supporting Objective Discussion 
 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Since the 10th anniversary of the NATO campaign in March 
2009, Post has been proactively engaged in supporting NATO public 
education projects, steering AEECA media training funds, democracy 
grants and Post resources towards the subject of Euro-Atlantic 
integration and NATO study tours.  Many of the dozen or so projects 
 
 
resulted in TV programs dedicated to the subject, and our efforts, 
combined with those of the Czech Embassy (NATO's Contact Point 
Embassy) and NATO PD, have contributed to the current 
re-examination of Serbia's "neutrality" stance.  In a September 
2009 meeting with the new editor-in-chief of Politika daily, we 
expressed our hope that the media would begin educating the public 
about NATO.  In October, the debate began with a trickle of letters 
and articles placed weekly in Politika presenting the alliance in a 
factual light, and hinting at Serbian membership as one possible 
future. 
 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) In November 2009, we placed an op-ed in Politika that 
gently challenged several hard-core NATO myths and encouraged a 
local NGO to tackle the sole negative response.  The debate soon 
took on a life of its own.  It reached a fever pitch in January 
when, after Defense Minister Sutanovac hinted that NATO might be in 
Serbia's future, a group of "200 intellectuals" held a press 
conference to condemn the government's alleged efforts to 
"secretly" bring Serbia into NATO, and called for an immediate 
referendum to allow the public to voice its objection. 
 
 
 
¶8. (SBU) Emboffs have been active at roundtables, and Ambassador 
Warlick made the U.S. position clear in her first press interview 
on February 8, saying "the U.S. fully supports Serbia's European 
and Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and is doing everything to help its 
efforts in that direction."  In several end-of-the-year interviews, 
then-Charge d'Affaires Jennifer Brush highlighted that "Serbia's 
NATO membership is the decision for Serbia to make," while 
stressing that other countries in the region have recognized the 
benefits of joining.  "We only hope for an open, honest and 
rational debate, based on facts not emotions.  NATO remains open to 
a deeper level of cooperation with Serbia on Serbia's timetable," 
Brush told Beta News Service.  The political and public affairs 
counselors have participated in a series of roundtable discussions 
around Serbia on the pros and cons of NATO membership. 
 
 
 
 
 
GoS:  One Step Forward (oops) One Back 
 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Mindful of the polls and fearful of attacks from the 
opposition, the government has been coy on the topic.  However, 
Defense Minister Dragan Sutanovac, known for his pro-NATO stance, 
has publicly painted NATO in friendlier colors, arguing the merits 
of closer collaboration and saying "NATO is no longer Serbia's 
enemy."  The initial firestorm that resulted from his comments 
implying Serbia might become a member appears to have led to a 
retreat from such public statements, but Sutanovac continues to 
advocate the need to achieve NATO military standards and expand 
Partnership for Peace (PfP) activities and Serbia's engagement in 
various UN peacekeeping operations. 
 
 
 
Referendum against NATO 
 
----------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U) The January 11 initiative by a group of 200 political, 
intellectual, and religious leaders close to former Prime Minister 
Vojislav Kostunica's Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) to demand a 
referendum on NATO membership had the unintended effect of 
promoting broader discussion.  The petition, read by Serbian 
influential intellectual and a member of Serbian Academy of 
Sciences and Arts Matija Beckovic at a press conference, says that 
Serbia has never belonged to a military alliance, recalls the 1999 
"criminal" NATO bombing of the country, and credits NATO with 
creating the "phony state" of Kosovo.  Signatories include 
Kostunica, Association of Journalists of Serbia Chairwoman Ljiljana 
Smajlovic, film director Emir Kusturica, writer Dobrica Cosic, and 
even Serbian Orthodox Church bishops Atanasije, Hrizostom, and 
Artemije. 
 
¶11. (U) In response, pro-NATO activists pointed out there was no 
 
 
referendum on neutrality before Parliament issued its neutrality 
declaration in December 2007.  Government officials hedged that 
there was no need for a referendum, since membership "isn't on the 
agenda," but that "one day" the people would need to be asked. 
 
¶12. (U) Political analyst Djordje Vukadinovic, close to DSS, told 
Blic that the initiative had been launched several months ago but 
was announced in January primarily in response to Defense Minister 
Sutanovac, LDP leader Cedomir Jovanovic, and several pro-NATO 
non-government organizations that expressed support for Serbian 
integration with NATO. Blic suggested that the referendum aimed to 
unite the opposition at a time when the Serbian Progressive Party 
(SNS) has called for elections.  "It is no secret that all parties 
in the ruling coalition are not united regarding the stance toward 
NATO, and the initiative might cause problems within the ruling 
coalition," Vladimir Goati, director of Transparency Serbia, told 
the paper. 
 
 
 
Russia's Counter-Offensive 
 
-------------------------- 
 
¶13. (U) Russian officials have become increasingly vocal on the 
subject.  "I do not believe that the Serbian people wish to join 
NATO," Politika quoted President of the Russian Parliament 
Committee for International Relations Konstantin Kosachev on 
January 13. In a February 6 interview with daily Blic, Russia's 
Ambassador to NATO Dmitriy Rogozin said the fact that most NATO 
member states have recognized Kosovo is an "obstacle" for joining 
NATO.  "Belgrade will have to officially recognize Pristina's 
sovereignty, which will also change the stances of Moscow," he 
said, adding that"If Serbia wants to join NATO, it will have to 
give up Kosovo."  If Serbia insists on joining NATO, "Russia would 
be forced to reexamine its stand towards Kosovo," because, Rogozin 
said, "Russians cannot be bigger Serbs than Serbs." 
 
 
 
¶14. (U) This statement triggered a rare, if restrained backlash. 
"It becomes clear that the Russian stance towards Kosovo is not a 
position that comes from a great friendship or love [for Serbia], 
but from their own interest," Filip Ejdus, a member of the Forum 
for International Relations said a Blic article entitled "Is Moscow 
Blackmailing [us]?"  NGO activist Miljenko Dereta echoed that 
Russian "blackmail" aims only to protect Russia's political and 
economic interests in the region. 
 
 
 
¶15. (SBU) Russian Ambassador to Belgrade Alexander Konuzin then 
escalated the rhetoric.  In a tough February 12 Politika op-ed, he 
appealed to Serbs' deepest notions of collective identity and 
history to generate negative emotions.  Konuzin writes: "NATO 
members... fail to point out one membership condition that is 
unacceptable for any Serb:  Serbia's accession to the military 
alliance in its 'castrated' form without Kosovo.  It would be the 
accession of a 'broken Serbia' that is to renounce its history and 
the sacred tombs of its heroic ancestors who laid down their lives 
to establish the Serbian nation."  Referring to the 1999 campaign, 
he wrote:  "It was the first time a European country was bombed 
after World War II. And it was a Slavic country, an Orthodox 
country.  They didn't just bomb Serbia, they bombed every Serbian 
family, and not only with bombs but also politically and morally. 
The political bombers are still cruising above the country."  As a 
solution for Serbia's strategic security goal, Konuzin offered 
President Medvedev's vision of Serbia in a new, Russian-proposed 
European security architecture.  Though appealing to the average 
Serb, this op-ed was nonetheless risky, since it cynically brought 
emotion into an increasingly objective debate among intellectuals, 
and invited an attack in the same paper by an otherwise anti-NATO 
columnist, and even a few sharp comments on Politika's website such 
as, "Russia wants to fight NATO down to the last Serb." 
 
 
 
Tadic Brings Clarity 
 
 
 
-------------------- 
 
 
¶16. (U) After this op-ed appeared, on February 15 President Tadic 
joined the debate.  There will be no parliamentary election before 
the government's term of office expires in 2012, during which time 
the question of Serbia's membership in NATO will not be raised 
either, he clarified.  He also dismissed calls for a referendum, 
saying "You don't hold a referendum on what you don't want." 
Serbia will continue to develop its relations with NATO in the 
coming period as it has so far, through the Partnership for Peace 
[PfP] program, he added. 
 
 
 
 
 
Comment 
 
 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶17. (SBU) Without clear political will from the government and even 
tacit support from relevant opposition parties, moving public 
opinion on NATO will be a long, difficult slog.  Emotions are deep. 
Yet this debate itself, and even the glimmer of support shown by 
polling results, are encouraging signs.  Recent polls found that 
although over 50% of respondents were opposed to joining NATO, 20% 
were in favor and 30% undecided.  Kosovo is a dominant factor in 
keeping those numbers from increasing.  Still, two years ago few 
would have predicted Serbia would declare EU membership as a 
strategic goal, as is the case today.  In fact, there does seem to 
be a growing quiet consensus within the current government that 
Serbia's long-term future lies in becoming not only a member of the 
European Union, but a part of the broader Euro-Atlantic security 
alliance as well - precisely in keeping with its more robust stance 
in support of NATO membership for Bosnia and other countries in the 
region.  Whatever trajectory Serbia may be on - even if it is less 
a matter  of "if" but "when" - it will be important for U.S. 
interests and those of our allies to continue to explore ways to 
deepen Serbia's PfP engagement, reinforce the principle of NATO's 
open door and sustain our activities in the areas of education, 
engagement and consistent public diplomacy.  End Comment. 
WARLICK