A Decade of Serbia’s EU Accession Process: Implications for Sino-Serbian Political Relations

Mitić, Aleksandar (2024) A Decade of Serbia’s EU Accession Process: Implications for Sino-Serbian Political Relations. In: The 4rd “Dialogues on China” International Academic Conference: Harvesting the winds of change: China and the global actors. Institute of International Politics and Economics, Belgrade, pp. 511-527. ISBN 978-86-7067-339-7

Text iipe_dijalozi_kina-2024-4-2-ch25.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (202kB)

Abstract

A decade into Serbia’s EU accession process, risk-prone contingencies have strained and stalled Belgrade’s relations with Brussels. The question of the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija, which most EU countries recognise as an “independent state”, remained a fundamental stumbling block, just as it had been since the outset of Belgrade’s “European path” a quarter of a century ago. Furthermore, within months of opening the accession talks in January 2014, Serbia’s ambitions entered a “perfect storm”. First, the EU introduced sanctions against the Russian Federation over the Crimean referendum, putting high pressure on Belgrade’s (non-)alignment with the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Then, in July 2014, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced an EU “accession pause” due to “enlargement fatigue”. These developments opened the door for Serbia’s “eastbound hedging”, which paved the way for unprecedented political and economic interaction with the People’s Republic of China, particularly in light of the conflict in Ukraine. Serbia comprehensively boosted cooperation with China, resulting in the signing of the Free Trade Agreement and the elevation of the partnership status to the level of “China-Serbia community with a shared future in the new era” in 2024. Nevertheless, for a country surrounded by the EU and NATO member states in the middle of global tectonic geopolitical tensions and transitions, strategic hedging has its limits. Western calls to Serbia for de-hedging, alignment, and bandwagoning multiply, setting high hurdles for Serbia’s proclaimed policy of military neutrality and political independence.

Actions (login required)

View Item