The anti-lithium protests may have served, to some extent, as a lifeline for the opposition, shaken after the collapse of the Serbia Against Violence coalition and the electoral debacle in June.
However, at the same time, they have plunged a significant part of the opposition into another trouble: the entire opposition is now labeled as anti-Western, which threatens to sever the already tenuous connections with the voters they seek to address.
One of the key contributions to the spread of such beliefs came from the American ambassador, Christopher Hill, who, along with the assertion that “there is no doubt that Serbia is moving towards the West” (which must be credited to the authorities), stated that among those protesting against lithium “there are many who support Russia.” The ambassador, however, refrained from claiming that the entire opposition had taken an anti-Western stance, but it wasn’t necessary—this contextualizes the protests not in ecological terms but in a geopolitical context, which appears clear to many. “Evidence” for the conclusion about the anti-European sentiment of all participants can easily be found in parts of speeches heard at anti-lithium gatherings, especially if one is superficial and uninterested in understanding the complexities of the situation faced by the government’s opponents. Or, if one supports the authorities.
Diplomatic activities
To put it in black and white terms, the situation seems simple: the West is interested in Serbian lithium, the authorities are ready to supply it, and the opposition opposes this; therefore, the opposition is against the West.
Is it really that straightforward? And is it even possible, under current circumstances, to maintain a clear pro-European orientation, preserve old voters (who are already disheartened and often disappointed), while also attracting necessary new supporters—especially if they have been exposed to anti-European propaganda for years and now receive new reasons to develop animosity toward the part of the world seeking lithium?
In pro-European opposition parties, there is a claim that there is no possibility of abandoning the stance they have held—unlike Aleksandar Vučić—since they entered the political arena. They strive to prove this in practice, through diplomatic activities aimed at reminding their Western counterparts of European values and the actual state in Serbia. For example, the Deputy President of the Freedom and Justice Party, Borko Stefanović, was in Poland just before the visit of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to the President of Serbia, where he stated that “the entire region and Serbia cannot enter the EU with people like Vučić in power.”
However, Vučić has managed once again to stir up stories about a “turn towards the EU” by avoiding a public invitation from Vladimir Putin to attend the BRICS summit in Kazan. With an already expressed willingness to meet European lithium needs, many believe this is enough to ensure the continuation of the Western support he clearly enjoys.
Lithium is neither a shortcut nor an obstacle to EU accession, says Zoran Lutovac, leader of Serbia’s oldest clearly pro-European party. “The Democratic Party is unequivocally pro-Western oriented but is decidedly against the Jadar project for lithium mining. And this does not conflict with one another. On the contrary,” says Lutovac, who has five arguments to support his claim.
Vučić is trading
“European values include respecting the will of the citizens, and the citizens do not want lithium mining. In no democratic state would it be possible for the authorities to ignore the will of the vast majority of citizens,” he states. There is also point two: “Vučić wants to trade: I give you lithium, you give me support to continue autocratically ruling Serbia. Lithium for stabilocracy is an anti-European formula.” Thirdly, supporting Vučić means there is no chance for us to enter the EU, as it implies failing to meet EU criteria: “It is not in Vučić’s interest to fulfill those criteria because then he loses power. Free and fair elections mean losing power, just like free media or free institutions.” Therefore, Lutovac states under point four, Serbia urgently needs to be admitted to the EU to escape this “vicious circle.” And finally: “The notorious lie of this regime is that there is no EU without lithium. That notorious lie is aimed, on one hand, to deepen europhobia and euroskepticism, while on the other to shake those who support European integration.”
Even significantly younger pro-European organizations than the Democrats see no reason to doubt their geostrategic orientation. “It’s hard to say that the Green-Left Front or, say, our colleagues from the Movement of Free Citizens are against the EU, but we recognize that what is in the interest of certain parts of the European Union is not in the interest of Serbia, which, of course, does not mean that we are against the EU,” says Radomir Lazović, co-president of ZLF. “On the contrary, we will work to explain to them that such a mine is not in line with the European green agenda and that is why we oppose it.”
According to Lazović, ZLF believes that alongside extra-institutional struggle through protests and blockades, as well as working through institutions such as submitting proposals for laws and criminal charges for violations, the issue of international relations and international struggle is the third key area in the fight against the harmful lithium mine.
Progressive spin
“We have managed to gain the support of the European Green Party, which consists of greens from over 40 European countries, which clearly shows that not all voices in the EU are in favour of this mine, and recently we also received support from the European Left. Their key message is that the Rio Tinto project is not a just green transition, because one part of Europe cannot be devastated for the interests of industry in another part of Europe. They have also clearly stated that all profits will remain with Rio Tinto, while all risks will fall on the citizens of Serbia,” says Lazović. He adds that ZLF has also initiated a series of meetings with ambassadors and representatives of the EU and member states in Serbia:
“We presented them with the resolute stance of the citizens of Serbia against the mine, but also sought support for the implementation of all ODIHR recommendations for free elections and warned that the law has already been violated because there is no change of all REM members, which would be a key first step towards improving the media landscape in Serbia.”
However, it is not only the domestic public that is exposed to manipulation and spins. Pavle Grbović, leader of the Movement of Free Citizens, points out that the story of an anti-European opposition is “a classic spin that SNS is serving to the international community at closed meetings, while simultaneously sending Aleksandar Vulin to Moscow and Beijing to convey the message that the protests are financed and organized by the West.”
Neither is true, says Grbović, and it only serves to divert attention from the essence. “Citizens are protesting due to justified fears for their country. This fear is further heightened by the violation of all democratic procedures and the devastation of institutions—the very values on which the EU is founded. And that essence cannot be disrupted by occasional statements at mass protests, as it is statistically logical that at large protests you have representatives of various ideologies. The Movement of Free Citizens will remain consistent in both goals, namely defending our interests and protecting our resources, while also integrating into the European family of the most successful countries. These goals are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary,” insists the leader of PSG.
Impossible Mission?
It once seemed impossible for a student of Vojislav Šešelj and the Minister of Information under Slobodan Milošević, after the fall of that regime and society’s confrontation with its catastrophic effects, to become an unchallenged, long-lasting ruler with strong support from the West. All of this, despite pronounced authoritarianism, a policy that is both pro-Russian and pro-Western, and the propagandistic pumping of pro-Russian sentiment in society. But it happened. Yet not by itself.
(Radar, 29.10.2024)
https://radar.nova.rs/politika/opozicija-anti-eu/
This post is also available in: Italiano