Big questions for the “little Schengen” – Sunday

This was the case with Germany and the Marshall Plan, Vietnam and the reform of doi moi, the occupation of Japan by MacArthur.

It seems that the United States is trying to do something similar in Serbia.

US envoy Richard Grenell even offered the US to renovate the General Staff buildings in central Belgrade, which still stand as the Serbian version of the destroyed Dresden Fauenkirche.

These two buildings in the center of Belgrade may actually be renovated with American money, especially since they may have been built from them.

The agreement concluded in Washington is related to several historical reminiscences appropriate to the foreign policy turn in relations between the US and the former Yugoslavia, and now Serbia.

Most impressive in that regard is the 1948 strategic decision to support Yugoslavia, shaped by George Kennan, which was implemented in the following decades in various fields, from security and the military, to industry, agriculture and tourism. .

In terms of form and scope, the talks with the US delegation on September 21-22, and the opening of the US Development Agency office in Belgrade, are comparable to the activities of the US-Yugoslav Investment Corporation of 1968 to 1972.

By sending Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić a Camp David decanter, the US President sent an open partnership for the recently signed agreements in Washington to remind him of the famous peace agreement between Israel and Egypt concluded in 1978 at this president’s residence. American.

It seems the same to other analysts.

“If we draw historical analogies, the current agreements are similar to the Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and not just because Israel has done its part again. More importantly, the American president is again pushing for an extremely ambiguous agreement. , looking for points in the rating, the image of a peacemaker and the prospects that both countries at war are in an allied framework. “By solving certain problems, you leave others on hold and create new ones in the future, at the regional level or even continental, “said Russian expert Stanislav Smagin.

Like his predecessors, Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the governments of Serbia and Kosovo.

“I am sure I qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. We are stopping the mass killings between Kosovo and Serbia. They had been killing each other for many years and now they have stopped. I told them, friends, join us,” Trump said in North Carolina.

The stay of the US delegation in Pristina and Belgrade was to develop the normalization agreement signed in Washington.

Neither party spared enthusiasm and enthusiasm.

The American envoy Grenel gave everything a personal stamp.

While as ambassador to Berlin he looked worried and somber, here it was another Grenel, smiling and singing, who allows journalists to be suspicious of the whole idea, whereas suspicion and skepticism allow it and are healthy.

He announced that it is not about billions but billions, that the projects will not last a year but decades.

The core of the whole plan is the idea of ​​a mini Schengen zone, which will be made up of Serbia, Albania, North Macedonia and Kosovo, with the ambition to include Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This is practically the entire area of ​​the Western Balkans, as it is called in the terminology of the enlargement of the EU.

The origin of the idea of ​​a mini Schengen is related to the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić.

He presented the idea to the Prime Ministers of Albania, Edi Rama, and of North Macedonia, Zoran Zaev, on October 9 and 10 in Novi Sad.

In 2017 he proposed the customs union of the Western Balkan countries.

At the beginning of December 2019, a Balkan Dialogue was held in Berlin, organized by the East-West Institute (Cameroon Munter), the Fund for Political Excellence (Sonja Licht) and the Munich Security Conference (Wolfgang Ischinger), with the support of the Balkan Fund for Democracy and the European offices of the Fund. for an open society.

The conference, conceived as a closed internal debate, was attended by Stevo Penderovski, Hashim Thaci and Albin Kurti, and the highest representative of the Serbian side was Marko Đurić.

Also present at the meeting was Alexander Soros, who will later be credited with the idea, but former US envoy to the Balkans and chief planner of US policy towards the Balkans, Jim O’Brien, spoke about it.

Also present was the director of the Belgrade office of the Development Fund, John Jovanovic, who is also a member of the East-West Institute Board of Directors.

Following this meeting, at the end of December, the Pristina Gazeta Express recounted the diplomatic telegram from the Kosovo Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was delivered to it for inspection, with a new version of the origin of the Balkan Mini Schengen.

The document stated that the George Soros Open Society Foundation is behind the idea.

The idea was put on paper by former US Ambassador to NATO and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Soros’ son Alexander Soros.

Preparations for the implementation of this project began in September 2019, according to the Pristina document.

Kosovo was warned that “if it does not react in time,” there is a real danger that mutual recognition, as a final result of the agreement between Serbia and Kosovo, will be replaced by equal representation on similar platforms. “

This will allow Serbia to advance on its European path, without recognizing Kosovo.

Soros attended the second Mini-Schengen Summit organized by Zoran Zaev in Ohrid.

According to Macedonian media, the Shkiptare newspaper later reported that he was also in Tirana and Belgrade and that he was trying to win over Kosovo for this idea, but Thaci rejected the proposal.

Soros harshly criticized French President Macron for blocking the opening of EU accession talks for Macedonia and Albania, accusing him of Albanophobia and opposition to enlargement.

At a meeting of Balkan leaders held during the Munich Security Conference in late January 2020, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama got into an open dispute with officials of the German Foreign Ministry over their refusal to support the idea of ​​a mini-Schengen.

European capitals, and especially Berlin, do not like this American plan for various reasons.

First, it is seen that the United States seeks to impose its concept of regional integration that is not in line with European ideas; second, it functions as a replacement for European integration for the Western Balkan countries, and third, it provides cover for undemocratic processes in the region and a possible border shift, which the EU strongly opposes.

In early October, a program called the European Investment Plan for the Western Balkans is expected to be presented, which is expected to contain at least six billion euros in aid for the Western Balkans.

The plan was accepted at the May EU Summit hosted online by Zagreb as part of its EU presidency.

It is believed that the EU structural funds will also be open to non-member countries, because the EU is in the great defense against the flood of Chinese investment within the 17 + 1 initiative.

EU representatives claim that some of the projects planned in Washington are already funded by the EU.

European Commission enlargement spokesperson Ana Pisonero said many of the projects listed in Washington are already covered by the Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF), which has been in place since 2009.

“For example, the EU has provided technical assistance for the entire Peace Highway and has already approved investments for the first sections of the road in Serbia and Kosovo,” said Pisonero.

There is another important reason for American interference in this way, and not just elections.

Mini Schengen is undoubtedly an American hinterland. It connects two American strategies: European and Middle Eastern.

Five days after the United States liquidated Iranian General Qasim Suleimani, the US president declared that he would “ask NATO to become more involved in the Middle East process.”

The United States and southern European countries such as Italy and Spain have long advocated for increased NATO involvement throughout the Mediterranean.

On the contrary, other countries, such as France, have rejected NATO as a military entity with no diplomatic experience in solving problems in the Middle East.

Furthermore, under Erdogan’s presidency, Turkey has systematically tried to block NATO activities in the region that are not in line with its own strategy, such as NATO cooperation with Israel or Egypt.

Earlier, when it was decided to withdraw 30,000 US troops from Germany, the question of future US NATO strategy was raised.

The first contingent of nearly 12,000 US troops is expected to arrive in Italy at the end of September.

They do not come to defend Italy from a hitherto unknown threat, but to strengthen the false wing of NATO, but also to approach another military association that has been trying to remove its diaper for years without success.

It’s about the NATO idea of ​​the Middle East.

Instead of the cold war concept of a clash of armies in Germany, the line of separation was entrusted to the east.

It now runs from the Baltics, joining the initiatives of the Three Seas and the Visegrad Group, to the southern shores of the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, which include the mini Schengen zone.

In any case, the Balkans seem to be playing a role again in the new US wedge strategy, as they did 70 years ago, but it must count on disagreements with the EU.

Stanislav Smagin believes that “Europe led by Germany” is the loser of the Washington agreements.

He says that Europeans have tried to preserve their role as key mediators in the Kosovo solution; in particular, “while they welcomed with words the inclusion of Kosovars in the old world friendly family,” they “diligently slowed down the process in practice, constructing many protection mechanisms in a preventive manner.”

Now the ball has returned to Trump’s backyard, including general Balkan affairs, Smagin estimates.

Although “it is not possible to speak of an explicit victory of Serbia”, because there are those who think that these agreements are not good, the president of Serbia should be recognized because he still walks successfully “between the rocks of internal politics and various difficult external places. “estimates Smagin.

Related texts: