VP Biden’s speech at the State dinner in Belgrade last week included a reference to Serbia’s leading role as a regional stabilizer. Newspaper articles in the US used phrases like “new relations” and a “new page”. “Serbia Welcomes Biden on Balkan Tour” stated The New York Times.

To many in DC this was a surprise.  The visit itself and the value of someone like Biden leading it were questioned.   At a relevant conference only two weeks before his visit at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars arguments were made that  neither Biden nor Secretary Clinton should actually visit the country because of their principle roles in several episodes of the wars in former Yugoslavia.  Serbians would not welcome anyone but Obama, and he was too busy dealing with areas of major concern for US policy and would not be available for the trip.

This was the discussion in one of the few think tanks in Washington that actually sees Serbia as a partner and explores scenarios for faster integration of the country to Euro Atlantic structures.

The problem in DC is that most Southeast Europe experts come from the Clinton era and have made a career in the field using strong anti Serb language which was the appropriate vehicle for acceptance at the time. To understand the long-held anti-Serb attitude in the city, one needs only to look to the Easter Monday conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) titled “Completing America’s Mission in the Balkans”.

At the conference, policy experts focused mostly on Kosovo but when the role of Serbia was discussed the tone came straight out of the late 90’s.  The first issue addressed was General Mladic, presented as a criticism to President Bush’s administration efforts to reengage and increase cooperation in the security and military areas starting in 2006.  It is hard to understand what is the benefit for the region as a whole by promoting the Mladic argument at the top of the US-Serbia discussion agenda but even harder to explain the discussion relating to “regret”.  Even if Mladic was arrested does the Serb society have enough regret about their role in the Balkan atrocities of the 90’s?  Do Serb citizens understand their crimes?  Have they repented?

It is in many ways convenient to assume the moral high ground in any discussion.  There is an unquestionably strong moral argument to arrest Mladic, nevertheless the overall premise is based on a simplistic but also trouble-free view relating to the state of Serbia.  Simplistic because it assumes that if Serbia wanted it would deliver Mladic to the Hague court tomorrow – trouble free because Serbia is too small of a villain with no immediate need for rapprochement and no vocal opposition to the counterproductive arguments against it.

Several expert views in the city are pushing the Mladic and “regret” agenda and unfortunately the individuals expressing these views are in many cases not lobbyists.  They truly believe what they are saying and are sincere about their positions.  They seem well intentioned and truly concerned about the wellbeing of the region and its future development but also blinded by their moral stance and unable to understand that there is no sense of talking about regional stability and economic growth with Serbia excluded from the discussion.

It is not clear how influential these experts would be in future Washington debates on the role of Serbia or if they would alter their stance incorporating more constructive criticism of the process.  What is clear following Biden’s visit (the highest US official to visit Belgrade since Jimmy Carter in 1980) is that the Obama administration has the willingness to engage a reformed Serbia and clearly sees the necessity of Serbia’s inclusion in any future arrangements that would guarantee regional stability and growth.

A second series of arguments that is present in Washington but also several European capitals is the perceived choice provided to the Serbian people.  The choice of diverting paths, the first looking West while the second linking them to Russia – as if good relationships with Russia and membership of the EU are contradictory.

Almost all the Southeast Europe states that have had a history under Ottoman rule have a relationship with Russia which played some role in their independence movement.  For Serbia the relationship is reinforced with a common religion and notions of a Slavic brotherhood past but that link remained “historical” during the Cold War with Yugoslavia outside Russian influence and with a clearly more “western” orientation than many of the East European states that are now part of the EU.

With a perception of unfair and unequal treatment by the international community still present it is telling that in December 2008 only 13% of Serbians stated that they do not support the country’s accession into the EU with over 60% being strongly in favor.  Looking at the numbers relating to attitudes of the younger generation is even more revealing.  Isolated for many years, the generation of Serbs born in the war has experienced a life of exclusion, never having enjoyed the freedom that their parents had during the cold war. Contrary to the common belief that this generation is more active in the “national” cause, the 18-29 age group actually seeks faster integration with the west with over a 12% difference when compared with the rest of the population.  In the end, the basic values and outlook of the Serbian people have always been European something visible in every aspect of life from culture to history to politics.

This should be the starting point of any discussion considering the future of Serbia — the question should not concern diverting paths but rather a mechanism for faster inclusion.  The US administration has made an extremely important first step and it is time for the EU to accelerate the process of inclusion by making a similar leap and lifting visa requirements for Serbs before the end of the year. The old soviet system perceived the ability to interact and compare so threatening it had walls built to prevent it while the EU seems to be creating one as if it wished to actually create an opposition to EU values goals and aspirations by blinding a generation of Serbs.

All things considered it is doubtful General Mladic would be traveling……