Final Remarks and the closing of the Conference were preceded by the presentation of the statement of Serbian civil society organizations, read by Jelica Minić, President of the European Movement in Serbia. The statement urged the international community to act on the situation in Serbia, through ensuring the implementation of five key points. 

Bojan Elek, Deputy Director of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, stated in his closing remarks that the Conference had the very difficult task of trying to understand and begin to reconstruct the global order from disorder, which is unvailing before all our eyes.  

While summing up the whole conference he pointed out the wide array of topics that were discussed – from the European Political Community, state capture, unmasking election meddlers, the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, to feminist foreign policy, cyber security, and philanthropy. Mister Elek added that this conference was special because of the first “Lighthouse Award“ ceremony. 

Srđan Cvijić, President of the International Advisory Committee of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, started the final address of the Conference by expressing sorrow that only one representative of the government attended the Conference, added that „the regime actively tries to make our job more difficult“ and expressed the wish that all invited persons will be allowed to come to the conference in the following year. He thanked all the partners who helped the organization of the Conference, from civil society organizations to media and individual speakers and participants. Finally, mister Cvijić thanked the staff that organized the Conference for their hard work and unrelenting support.   

The post Final Remarks and Closing of the Conference  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The last panel of the Belgrade Security Conference 2023 titled “Greater and Better EU: 20 years from Thessaloniki Summit” was moderated by Milica Delević, Director for Competitiveness, Governance and Political Affairs, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and was focused on discussing the challenges of the future of the enlargement process and the new candidates’ readiness for the membership. 

Tetyana Kovtun, Executive Director, Reforms Delivery, Office of the Cabinet of Minister of Ukraine, stressed that the EU enlargement was an existential issue for Ukraine and that the aim of this process was to remain sovereign and independent. Kovtun pointed out that the support for EU integration inside Ukraine increased over the last few years and that even though Ukraine is at the beginning of its EU accession process, it hopes that the negotiations will be opened this December. She also noted that Ukraine will continue its fight for EU values.  

H.E. Emanuele Giaufret, Ambassador and Head of the Delegation of European Union to the Republic of Serbia, stated that the enlargement question had never been more imperative since the Thessaloniki Summit, as a result of Ukrainian suffering, and that the Western Balkans had a huge opportunity. He expressed the need for parallel deepening and widening of integration and stressed that the objective of the European enlargement had two aspects: it is a geostrategic decision, but it is also about providing people with a better life. The Ambassador continued by stating that this could only be achieved “if the citizens understand the specific moment in which we live”.  

Jovana Marović, Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of European Affairs, Republic of Montenegro, emphasised that the new momentum for the Western Balkans meant business as usual˝ since she did not see the political will to seize the moment. She stated that it was not possible to have deadlines in the EU enlargement, but that it was possible to have roadmaps. She added that she believed that Montenegro could be ready for accession by 2030, but that there was only one enlargement process which meant that all candidates should help each other.  

Vladimir Međak, Member of the Main Board, European Movement in Serbia, said that the EU was currently thinking about things that the civil society and experts had been talking about for five to six years. He continued by saying that this particular enlargement would need to have out-of-the-box solutions since regular ones are not working. Međak raised the question of the role of media controlled by the regime in influencing public opinion on the EU and added that “what the population thinks about the EU is what the government wants them to think”.  

The post Greater and Better EU: 20 years from Thessaloniki Summit  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

This panel discussed what cybersecurity is and explored strategies for building the necessary capabilities to bolster cybersecurity in the Western Balkans, as well as to define the new and emerging terms of cyber diplomacy and cyber security. 

Karsten Diethelm Geier, Senior Advisor for Cyber Diplomacy, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, started the panel with an explanation of a cyber diplomacy concept: “It is an area of international relations dealing with pivotal areas of electronic communications”, he stated. Answering the question if it would be easier for the countries of the Western Balkan to have one framework that aligns them with the EU framework, he explained that the future of the WB countries was in the EU’s hands and that cyber regulations needed to align to EU regulations, structures and institutions. He explained the necessity of a country having cyber security architecture but also informing others of the way it is used, to ensure a system of stability and predictability. 

Irina Rizmal, Manager, PwC’s CEE Cybersecurity & Privacy practice, stressed how important cyber diplomacy was in the 21st century. She stated that it could help alleviate and stop the conflicts. Rizmal talked about cybersecurity in the WB and emphasized that the pinpoint and the problem is implementation. Serbia has put a draft law on information security but “everything looks good on paper, what we lack is implementation”, said Irina.  She claimed, however, that even if we had the most expensive cyber solution, it is to no avail if the management does not perceive cybersecurity as something of great importance. 

Vladimir Radunović, Director of Cybersecurity and E-diplomacy, Diplo, explained that most of the cyber incidents were cross border – it is a mix of technology, legal and political aspects, therefore there needs to be a “whole of the state – whole of society” approach. Radunović added that international law was still unclear on whether a cyber-attack could trigger a defense, lethal response of an individual state. The problem that he sees is the absence of a political discussion on cybersecurity in the Western Balkan. He agreed with Irina Rizmal that implementation is even more demanding than planning. He explained that the Western Balkan countries could sign the OSCE Confidence Building Measures, the EU’s toolbox for cybersecurity, or accept UN norms dealing with the subject, but the biggest obstacle is implementing them effectively. 

The moderator, Amer Kapetanović, Head of the Political Department, Regional Cooperation Council, added that the normative framework for cyber diplomacy should not only include developed countries in this discussion but that no country should be left behind. 

The post The Western Balkans: Cyber Diplomacy for Cybersecurity  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The aim of the panel titled “The Green Energy Transition in Serbia and Europe” was to discuss the issues related to lithium extraction as one of the key challenges that the EU and the rest of Europe are facing. The moderator of the panel was Stevan Vujasinović. 

Szymon Kardaś, Senior Policy Fellow within the European Power programme, European Council Foreign Relations, emphasised the importance of lithium as energy storage and pointed out that some projections expected the demand for lithium to increase 40-fold by 2040. He noted that 95% of the total production of lithium reserves is located in four countries (Australia, Chile, China, and Argentina). When it comes to the EU countries, the biggest deposit is located in Germany and the Czech Republic, and 1.3% of global lithium reserves are in Serbia. He highlighted three points in favour of lithium mining. First, the a need for political will, not only domestically, but will to cooperate externally. Second, the need to think about gaining the final “synergy effect”, and third, the need for cooperation to strengthen ties in Europe and inside the EU. He also added that Green Transition can only be successful if it is just, i.e. inclusive. 

When asked about the situation regarding Rio Tinto and sources of lithium in Serbia, Jovan Rajić, President of the Board of Directors, Renewables and Environmental Regulatory Institute (RERI), stressed that decisions related to this project needed to be considered in accordance with the best interests of citizens affected, and with Serbia’s national interests. He further explained the lack of communication and respect towards the interest of citizens, giving additional examples of the Ling Long factory in Zrenjanin and many others in Serbia. Rajić encouraged the development of communication between the official state organs and the public and urged the Government not to undermine the intelligence of the public as they did in the past.  

Johanna Sydow, head of the International Environmental Policy Division, Heinreich-Boll Foundation, explained that states were now seeking to be more independent from China regarding raw materials, one of the most important ones being lithium. She continued to point out that we will need to change our consumption pattern and invest more in public transport as we should not replace every fossil fuel-based car into an electric car. Mining always has irreversible environmental impacts and should be held at a minimum. 

Summing up, the moderator used the metaphor of the “pressure cooker” of energy transition that is galvanising the citizens, to explain that the pressure on the regulatory system can be relieved by introducing checks-and-balances (strong regulation), as well as international cooperation. 

The post Challenges of the Green Energy Transition in Serbia and Europe  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The panel under the title “Feminist Foreign Policy in Times of War: From Policy to Action” was moderated by Marie Jelenka Kirchner, Associate Researcher, Institute for Democracy Societas Civilis, Skopje. The panel tackled the topic of feminist foreign policy, its definition, as well as the question of which countries already implemented this view on the global world. 

When asked about the definition of feminist foreign policy from the view of the German approach to it, Serafine Dinkel, Associate Fellow, German Council on Foreign Relations, pointed out that the purpose of the feminist foreign policy was to be a vehicle for the protection of the most vulnerable marginal groups. She connected the feminist movement with security issues and gave examples of attacks on hospitals, sexual violence, and discrimination in occupied zones as instances of the struggle of marginalized groups in times of war. Dinkel defined feminist foreign policy as the redefinition and reflection on the previously set goals, which include holding governments accountable and protecting human rights. She pointed out the miscommunication between the feminist guidelines in the decision-making process and the practical politics of the governments.  

Elena Stavrevska, Lecturer in International Relations, University of Bristol, emphasized that the agenda consisted of 10 resolutions and stood on 4 pillars: participation, protection, prevention, and recovery. She said that national plans had been adopted in the Balkan countries, but raised the question of their purpose. Stavrevska pointed out that the domestic level needed to connect with the global in the context of hypercapitalism and emphasized that if a country had declared feminist foreign policy, it did not mean that it is like that in practice. Feminist foreign policy cannot call itself feminist without fighting the climate crisis, these issues need to be taken together. Different types of experiences, needs, and priorities have to be included not only in Feminist Foreign Policy but in every policy. 

Karolina Leaković, International Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of Croatia, shared her perspective on the approach to feminist foreign policy in the Balkans. She looked back on the feminist movements and feminist approach in politics during the times of the former Yugoslavia, emphasizing that the feminist label was lost after its dissolution and continued to be present only in Slovenia. Leaković pointed out that, once the feminist foreign policy started being created in the Balkans, all the socio-economic aspects of the region and the historical events should be taken into consideration for the policy to be successfully integrated. She stressed the issue of political leaders lacking cooperation regarding regional policy in general, and especially a feminist one.  

The post Feminist Foreign Policy in Times of War: From Policy to Action  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The panel “Zeitenwende: A U-turn Nobody Predicted” examined the internal political situation in Germany and its policies towards the war in Ukraine and foreign and defense policies, after the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Olaf Scholz announced a “180-degree course correction” in Germany’s traditionally cautious foreign and defense policy in his Zeitenwende speech in 2022. The moderator of this panel was Anna Kuchenbecker, Senior Director, of Strategic Partnerships, European Council on Foreign Relations. 

Christoph Matschie, Former Member of the German Bundestag and chairman of the Board, of the Ernst Abbe Foundation, commenced by analysing the first part of Scholz’s speech and pointed to three things. First is the fact that Germany was able to support Ukraine from the beginning of the war and that there is “no doubt Europe will continue to extend this support”. Second, Germany managed to free itself from energy dependence on Russia, find new partners, and roll out additional renewable sources. Lastly, he reminded the audience that it was necessary to step up German defense capability and that there were still many obstacles, but that good political decisions were made. As for long-term relations with Russia, he stated that it would depend on when the war ends, stressing that there will be no cooperation with the current regime in Russia. 

Rachel Tausendfreund, Senior Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States, followed up on the previous statement and pointed out that Germany has become the second-largest supplier of arms to Ukraine, and that there was also a shift in public opinion. She stressed that the Zeitenwende was real but more leadership is needed. According to Tausendfreund, Germany is dealing with challenges of decoupling, enlargement, and security only getting bigger. “I do not get the sense of urgency within the coalition that was reflected in Zeitenwende speech. In part, because of AFD far-right party”. 

Answering the moderator’s question of what he sees as the lessons learned, Florian Bieber, Professor of Southeast European History and Politics and Director, of the Centre for Southeast European Studies at the University of Graz, emphasized that the EU enlargement process needed to be re-imagined, more German leadership was needed, and the question of post-conflict challenges would need to be addressed. The word Zeitenwende opened up a space for debate. He expressed his belief that the logic of the Zeitenwende was a willingness to take risks.  

The post German Zeitenwende: The U-turn is real, but more leadership is needed   appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

Moderated by Rosa Balfour, the Director of Carnegie Europe, the panel titled “The US and Europe: What Transatlantic Alliance the World Needs?” dealt with the question of the European security architecture, its current state, and the possible scenarios that might play out in the near future. The panelists exchanged analysis about NATO’s influence in the year following the war in Ukraine and how the big powers, such as the US, EU, and China, shape security in the world. 

Answering the question of what has changed throughout the past year about European security, Eric Nelson, Associate Director of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, explained that there had been a major shift in the level of NATO’s influence in the field and that NATO was more relevant than ever. He mentioned Finland and Sweden leaving their neutral stance. He pointed out that NATO was a complimentary actor to the security of the EU, as they have an obligation to protect Europe’s foundation of prosperity.  

Thomas Countryman, the Board Chairman of the Arms Control Association, mentioned three key points in demonstrating the importance of NATO’s essential presence. First, he pointed out that Russia’s invitation to Ukraine unified and expanded NATO, to defend European democracies. Second, the war has put more focus on establishing adequate defense spending mechanisms, and third, Russia is systematically breaking international humanitarian law by intentionally and massively attacking civilians. 

Rachel Rizzo, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, gave an insight into what the aims of the Biden administration were before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Four main goals characterized the administration: to reassure anxious allies, to turn attention to the Indo-Pacific region, to “park Russia” – meaning to disregard it as a policy priority and to create a foreign policy that will adhere to the middle class. With regard to 2024 and future elections, she expressed fear that Biden might be the last transatlantic president. 

Milan Nič, Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Order and Governance in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, German Council on Foreign Relations, analysed the current Balkan situation, stating that the seeds of the conflict in Banjska, had been planted way before the current escalation. He noted that one of the consequences of the ongoing war in Ukraine was that it diverted the attention of NATO from other conflicts. He mentioned the examples of Nagorno Karabakh and Northern Kosovo, stating that even Kosovo Serbs are currently relying on NATO.  

In conclusion, the discussion on the transatlantic alliance between the US and Europe highlighted the increasing importance of NATO in the evolving European security landscape, with a major shift in its influence following the war in Ukraine. 

The post The US and Europe: What Transatlantic Alliance the World Needs?  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

On the 3rd day of the Belgrade Security Conference, the opening panel was titled “Reflecting on Progress: 25 Years of Good Friday Agreement”. The debate focused on the challenges of the Agreement, what Brexit brought to the table, and conclusions that could be drawn for conflicts around the world. The moderator of the panel was Sofija Todorović, Programme Director of Youth Initiative for Human Rights.  

Peter Shirlow, Director of the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Irish Studies, explained that it was important to understand that most of the Northern Irish community did not support the violence. The positive effects of the Good Friday Agreement are easily evident in terms of de-weaponization, and a drop in violent tendencies by 90% since 1972. He noted that Belfast has come a long way since the signing of the Agreement, both socially and economically. The speaker highlighted the role of civil society, women’s associations, and peace groups that tremendously contributed to ending the clash. When asked about the negative consequences of the Agreement, he noted the lack of opinion of younger generations on constitutional questions. “It’s not that they don’t care about the past, but the past is represented in a binary way. However, the reality in which they live is not binary”, Shirlow explains. The Northern Irish media is also at fault for this, as it still contains binary content that is no longer relevant. 

When asked about the efforts that had been made towards the agreement before it was signed, Sally Axworthy, Head of Negotiations and Peace Processes Department, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, pointed out that many details, including the idea of power-sharing, had been hammered-out well before the two sides approached the negotiating table. She called the Agreement creative, having important points both parties sought during the conflict, with the point of self-determination being the crucial one in maintaining the peace. She emphasized the role of international partners in creating the Good Friday Agreement, including the USA, Canada, Finland, and South Africa with President Nelson Mandela playing the key role.  

David Cooney, Special Envoy of the Government of Ireland, gave a short explanation of what preceded the Good Friday Agreement, which dated back to the creation of Protestant Irish communities and Catholic Irish South which brought to the partition of two communities. Additionally, he explained that those partitions led to further discrimination of the Catholic Irish in Northern Ireland in terms of job opportunities and similar issues. Ultimately, once the protests in the 1960s were initiated by Catholic Irish, the entry of the British army led to a campaign of violence by nationalistic forces. He emphasized the importance of the Good Friday Agreement being able to end the bloodshed, with political issues continuing to be hot topics in the region. Cooney, when asked about the impact of Brexit on the Agreement, pointed out the crucial role of the EU accession of both Ireland and the UK as contributors to strengthening the previously signed Good Friday Agreement. He stressed the potential issues regarding border questions which were the key factor in keeping the peace on Irish island alive. He also stated that resolving a conflict is much easier when both countries are members of the European Union.

The post Reflecting on Progress: 25 Years of the Good Friday Agreement  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

 The moderator, Paul Helsloot, Director of Strategy, Reaserch and Political Affairs, Amnesty International the Netherlands, started a conversation centred around the pressing challenges faced by human rights activists and the possibility of sparking hope of developing strategies for solving these problems.  

Aron Demeter, Head of Research and Communications, Amnesty International Hungary, explained the concept of SLAPP lawsuits, which are aimed at activists and journalists to silence them. He stated that the use of SLAPP lawsuits is not very common in Hungary, since the Government owns various media and passes laws that encourage self-censorship among activists and journalists. Mr. Demeter also praised the judiciary in Hungary for being the last standing institution protecting the rule of law in this country. 

Roberta Taveri, Senior Programme Officer Europe Media Freedom at ARTICLE 19 Europe, highlighted that civil society organizations have recognised the problem of SLAPP lawsuits and have started to research it. She emphasized that the European Union was trying to put forward a directive that would regulate and limit these lawsuits and that it has already given several recommendations to member states since it has identified a need to include safeguards in national legislation.  

Mark Taylor, Senior Program Manager, The Docket Initiative, Clooney Foundation for Justice, stated that Russia was an extreme example, as “every new crisis brings new regulation to silence dissent”. While talking about corporations using SLAPP lawsuits, he put forward the example of the Wagner mercenary group suing activists in courts in the United Kingdom. He also raised awareness of the use of SLAPP methods of silencing dissent. 

Milan Filipović, Research Director at the Lawyers‘ Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM) pointed out YUCOM has a large database of attacks on civil rights defenders and added that physical attacks would always galvanise the public, therefore, attacks are increasingly being conducted through SLAPP lawsuits. He praised the persistence of activists who endure legal prosecution that can last up to a year. Mr Filipović also commented on hate speech on social media, as well as hate speech used by Government officials and tabloid media. 

The post Silencing Dissent: Fight for Human Rights in Central and Eastern Europe and Western Balkans  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The roundtable discussion on the Turkish influence in the Balkans and all the factors that influence the creation of its foreign policy was moderated by BCSP’s Senior Researcher Srđan Hercigonja, while Professor Birgul Demirtas gave an insightful presentation. 

Hercigonja gave a detailed introduction on the specifics of Turkish influence in the Balkans, separating it from the activities of other actors, such as China, Russia, or the UAE. He highlighted that the reason behind initiating the panel is the marginalisation of Turkish foreign policy towards the Balkan region in the current analytical discourse.  

According to Professor Demirtas, the impact of Global politics on Turkish foreign policy is evident in the 2000s. As the world moves from the Cold War and unipolarity to a multipolar and multi-complex environment, regional powers gain more strategic autonomy in their foreign policies. She explained that, during the Cold War, Turkish foreign policy had many restraints, and long wished to be recognised as a global player.  

In academic literature and the speeches of Turkey’s leaders, the term “middle power” is often used, and a tendency towards niche policies such as migration.  Some of the key narratives imply that Turkey is surrounded by internal and external enemies. We can observe an introduction of the term “Turkish century” for the 21st century, a time of great assertiveness and development, an increasing status of Turkey in global politics. Its current foreign policy is coloured by sentiments of the Ottoman past.  

Birgul Demirtas continued to elaborate how the JDP has been a hegemonic party since 2002 and is trying to create a unique, “sui generis” identity of Turkey – a balance of multiple identities, as an Asian, European, Mediterranean, but as Balkan country as well.   

The Exaggeration of Turkey’s potential, and strong links between foreign and domestic policy, are especially evident during elections. She explained that “when we have elections, we have a crisis in foreign policy. As soon as elections are over, the crisis is gone”. 

Where does the Balkan fit here? Turkey perceives itself as part of the Balkans, not an external actor. Professor thinks this distinguishes Turkey from other actors. At least 20% of the Turkish population has some origins from the Balkan countries, and they represent an important political force, as they tend to impact foreign policy through the work of NGOs and political representatives. One example is Diyanet, which sees itself as a global actor and has wide relations. The Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TiKA) has over 20% of its investments located in the Balkans. Turkey is also present through cultural, economic, and gastronomic diplomacy. 

The professor concluded by stating that personal relationships among political leaders significantly contribute to an increasing Turkish presence, and she put special emphasis on humanitarian and business relations, as well as municipality and sister-city relations (over 32% of sister-city relationships are with Balkan cities).  

The post Turkey in the Balkans: Security Provider or Instability Exporter?  appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.