Four Pillars Strategy & The Future Of Serbia's Foreign Policy

Date: December 6th 2024

Аuthors:
Vuk Velebit, Pupin Initiative
Andrej Cvejanov, Pupin Initiative

One President’s Four Pillars, Another President’s Neutrality and Sovereignty

There is little continuity one can observe when comparing Serbia's current and previous ruling structures, which is something both sides are proud of for different reasons. If there is one field where continuity is visible, it is foreign policy. While changing global circumstances in the present are making every country's leadership, including that of Serbia, reassess their foreign policy strategy, it is important to take a look into the existing continuity in order to better understand the foundations for Serbia's foreign policy in incoming years.

Boris Tadić, then-president of the Democratic Party, proposed the Four Pillars policy in 2009, with the EU as the key partner and the United States, Russia and China as the three most important partners outside of Europe. It was a sound strategy for the time, and it didn't raise many questions most of the last decade and a half. While most work on the ground was done with the EU because of the extensive negotiation process, the importance of Russia and China was rooted in their support for Serbia in the UN, with cultural and economic ties in second place. Aleksandar Vučić continued the balancing act Tadić described as the Four Pillars strategy, with an increased focus on military neutrality and sovereignty in his foreign policy narrative.

Serbia's Foreign Policy After EU Accession - Should We Think About It?

The rapid change of geopolitical circumstances is evident both in Serbia and around the world  - Serbia's membership in the EU is now in sight, with unprecedented frequency of calls for accelerating the seemingly everlasting process by both sides. Brussels is under pressure to strengthen its footing when it comes to defense and energy because of looming disruptions in global supply chains. That is impossible without Western Balkans in the EU. There has also been a previously unseen frequency of European officials' visits to Belgrade, and they were clear about their goals: Bringing Serbia closer to the EU.

Why Serbia Needs a Foreign Policy Strategy

One of the dominant matters in Serbia's alignment with European policies is foreign policy. It is hard to objectively describe Serbian foreign policy because of the glaring absence of a codified, written strategy. It's easy to come to a wide range of conclusions about Serbia's alignment depending on whether the viewer is focused on officials’ statements, narratives in the media, votes in the UN, energy and economic relations. After all, Serbia is a country that can pride itself on good bilateral relations with countries in all corners of the world. However, in order to maximally utillise these relations while aligning itself with the EU, Serbia has to come up with a well-defined strategy. It is necessary for several reasons:

1. Lack of a foreign policy strategy creates space for various malicious interpretations undermining the Serbian government.

2. Foundations of the Four Pillars strategy are incompatible with Serbia as an EU member, and there is a need for a new vision of Serbia's relations with Russia and China, with clearly set red lines aligned with Serbia’s interests.

3. Opposition to Serbia’s EU membership in the Union will largely stem from uncertainties about its foreign policy alignment and having a codified strategy would help dispel these concerns.

4. Reform of Serbian diplomacy under minister Marko Đurić calls for a comprehensive strategy as a guideline for a more efficient, modern and professional diplomatic corps that's ready to tackle pressing issues.

5. Foreign policy needs to be communicated domestically with more clarity and beyond occasional televised addresses to the Serbian people in order to increase trust in a foreign policy aligned with the EU.

The Future of Four Pillars and America’s Place In It

One noticeable “hole” in the Four Pillars foreign policy in practice is the fact that bilateral relations with the US have been somewhat overlooked in the last fifteen years when compared to Serbia’s special relationship with Brussels and strategic partnerships with Russia and China. Strategic relations with the United States are necessary for Serbia to be able to consider the United States as one of its foreign policy pillars, and the Pupin Initiative published a proposal for the establishment of strategic dialogue between Serbia and the United States.

Serbia’s EU membership would drastically change the nature of the Four Pillars approach as envisioned by Boris Tadić in 2009, with the European Union becoming Serbia's “umbrella” instead of a foreign actor. Looking at Serbia’s votes in the UN since the war in Ukraine began, it's evident that Serbia's cooperation with Russia and China in international forums is noticeably more modest when compared to the days of the balancing act.

Is the Four Pillars policy becoming less and less possible to implement? It appears so. It would be silly to suggest that Serbia's EU membership means relations with Russia and China will be over. The nature of cooperation with Russia and China would have to change and be focused on areas where there's no threat to European interests in security, energy and trade. While the balancing act is getting tougher to implement, the Four Pillars policy will unofficially remain in power as long as the Russian and Chinese vote in the UN General Assembly remains crucial for the question of Kosovo.

On the other hand, Russia and China aren't the only countries in the world Serbia has traditionally friendly relations with. Because of Yugoslavia's legacy of non-alignment, Serbia is well regarded in many countries in the global south where Western European powers aren't as well-received because of their colonial past. That is an asset Serbia shouldn't overlook and leveraging these global connections should be a significant part of Serbia's future foreign policy strategy.

Bringing Serbia Closer to the West - It Takes Two to Tango

Some critics view the recent All-Serbian Assembly as the revival of the idea of a Great Serbia, but it is a misinterpretation of an issue which needs to be resolved in order to fully restore balance in the Western Balkans. Many people of Serbian ethnicity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo don’t feel they are being treated equally, and this impacts the direction of Serbia’s foreign policy. A large part of the population of Western Balkans countries also has Serbian citizenship, with strong family and community connections across borders, meaning that preservation of rights of people of Serbian ethnicity in the region is probably the most important issue directing the Serbian foreign policy.

Moving past the status quo in Kosovo is the only way for Serbia to get the maneuvering space it needs in order to set a concrete direction of its foreign policy in the future, bringing it closer to the West. This means that establishment of the Community of Serbian Municipalities and defense of Kosovo Serb’s human rights should be among the priorities for Western powers when it comes to their engagement in the region. There is a visible effort to accelerate Serbia’s EU membership negotiations, but it appears that foreign policy alignment will be lagging behind as long as the current state of affairs in Kosovo continues and Western Balkans’ issues remain being observed through the lens of 1990s.

Serbia can’t be the only one changing its course - Western powers need to show a better understanding of changing political realities in the Western Balkans and Serbia’s position, which is incomparable to the situation from three decades ago. The West needs to signal its readiness to accept Serbia as an ally and show consideration for Serbian people’s interests, starting from Kosovo, where the Serbian minority is currently facing oppression and human rights abuses unseen since the pogrom twenty years ago.