g3983The latest events in Ukraine really showed us plenty of things, but perhaps most important thesis that stretches from the beginning of demonstration in Kiev, over referendum on Crimea, to the latest developments on the brink of war in Donetsk and Slaviansk the return of a multi-polar world order. Ukraine was accidentally or “intentionally” chosen to be the training ground for modern geopolitical chess game in which we can see the strength, power and influence testing between Russia and the United States. At the beginning of the year in conclusion of the text about  Russian missile diplomacy I mentioned this thesis about return of “multipolarity” and straightening poles on a global scale. As time passed, this thesis become increasingly clear and I think we’re much more in remind of the former Cold War rhetoric.

Barack_Obama_and_Vladmir_Putin_at_G8_summit_2013-1560x690_cReturn of Russia began with blockade of resolution about Syria intervention, and reached its zenith putting Crimea under its control. I think that in Russian case nothing is over yet, and that this is just the beginning. On the other side, the United States began to act like this long time ago and it is needless to enumerate: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine … Sympthomatic things about these events in Ukraine are the methods used for superiority. These methods of taking and putting under control the administrative buildings were used in Kiev, and the same were later used in  Crimea, as well in the Donetsk. Apparent intentions of pro – russian population that they can fight for their status only with the same methods as we saw in Kiev. Although the official position of Russia that are not involved in the events in Donetsk, it is obvious that they are on the territory of Ukraine represented via their secret services, either Russians and USA. The only who suffer in situation like this is Ukrainian people and their economy.

The last time when circumstances were such geopolitically like this, there has been formed “third block”, ie Non-Aligned Movement in 1961. year. This formula, which were first among equals applied by president of Yugoslavia  Josip Broz Tito, president of Egypt  Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of India Jawaharlal Nehru, president of Indonesia Sukarno and president of Ghana Kwame Nkrumah, proved to be very successful in the circumstances that prevailed at that time. Non-Aligned Movement member states were generally overwhelmingly positioned at the margins of the world impacts and the only affirmation within such alliances could bring their joint action to find collective interest and that their voice become honored by the great powers. Yugoslavia was particularly in a very specific situation of a “big gap” between East and West, either geographically and politically. Opting for one or the other completely, would mean economic collapse and political problems. The only logical solution was to remain non-aligned, or “neutral” in some way, and to get legitimacy and regard by others. President Tito of Yugoslavia as an good expert of his chances and “diplomatic fox” performed this maneuver with surgical precision and in the best possible manner in the interest of Yugoslavia.


You don´t need not be so smart to conclude how successful diplomatic formula should be applied to identical political and global circumstances nowadays. I say this primarily referring to today’s awkward diplomatic position of Serbia and even worse position of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which since its establishment in this form there is no consistent diplomacy or foreign policy as a consequence of its internal political relations. To put it mildly, situation in this area is chaotic and could be described as good joke.For Serbia we know that country is officially in the process of accession negotiations with the EU, as well with small steps towards NATO membership. These small steps are reflected especially in the sending of an officer of the Army of Serbia at the headquarter office at NATO Joint Force Command in Naples, as well as few official meetings of officials of NATO and the Serbian Army. This is supported also by the dispatch from Wikileaks, originally sent from the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade to hands of Hillary Clinton. In this dispatch Jovan Ratkovic said that as a former Minister of Defense, President Tadic knows the issue well. Tadic believes that Serbia cannot remain outside of NATO forever, but doesn’t say this often because of the political sensitivity of the issue. Ratkovic explained that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the citizens of Yugoslavia assumed that they would be among the first to enter both the European Union and NATO. It wasn’t until the wars of the Milosevic era and the 1999 NATO intervention that anti-NATO sentiment developed in Serbia. Ratkovic characterized current public support for Partnership for Peace participation and NATO membership as “surprisingly high” given Serbia’s history.” However, a little further eastern Serbia parallel builds strong ties with Russia, which the most visible evidence is the route of South Stream. In these circumstances, when it comes to complicating of situation in Ukraine and when UN General Assembly vote on the resolution which annexed the Crimea to Russia, inevitably comes up pressure on Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where both states generally were abstain from the voting.

Criema voting

Bosnia & Herzegovina and Serbia were the only abstain countries in the Balkans, which in general means that you are not declared. All other countries in the Balkans and from former Yugoslavia voted for this resolution. With this “garbled” move Serbia wanted to preserve good relations with the “booth sides” but after a while we can certainly expect this to bring new problems for Government because EU did not expect that, and in these circumstances, “to be abstain” means having position that not coincide with the same position within the EU. In Bosnia & Herzegovina abstain is almost standard story because three members of the Presidency who is in charge of foreign policy in general, could not agree on voting. Because of all the above mentioned, and primarily because of the “neo – multipolarity” and the complexity of the position in which are Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, I am very confident that both countries should clearly and diplomatically bring focus to change the status of observer and gain full membership status in the Non-Aligned Movement. Already in advance within the EU, on the possibility of these idea they did not take it too kindly and even emphasize that Serbia is no longer “non-aligned” and have to decide, although the EU itself is in the same position as the former Yugoslavia once. The attitude of the United States passed by the current Ambassador to Belgrade Michael Kirby showed us other side when he said :

“And for me, it will be interesting to contemplate that Serbia will do it, because it is a successor of Tito’s Yugoslavia, which was the founder of the Non-Aligned Movement. There is some ritual sense about the Non-Aligned Movement that will not take any side. This is something that Serbia has in its history, and perhaps in its future “

Except remark that Serbia is treated as successors of the former Yugoslavia, full membership in Non – Aligned would have greater maneuver space for Serbian nowadays situation. Deeper engagement and mobility in Non – Aligned movement could regain some old traditional friendship and improve economical situation, especially in the countries of growing African economies. On the other hand there would be possible to make ​​legitimate retreat towards NATO and also to confirm neutrality of Serbia declared by its National Assembly in Constitution. Besides this enhanced and a full engagement of Serbia would bring new energy to the Non-Aligned Movement and give more on the scale of importance. This would be also a great opportunity for Bosnia and Herzegovina to include itself seriously in international circles and to become more influent in the outer policy. With its comparative advantages Bosnia & Herzegovina could to accomplish primarily some economic benefits as well as Serbia, and moreover could be placed as partner with stance equally towards all, without any repercussions because all countries are aware of its constitution and complexity. Except this, Bosnia and Herzegovina should be completely demilitarized in the future, but this is not the subject of this analysis. My opinion is that with very quick turnaround to the Non-Aligned Movement, the position of Serbia would be much better, especially at the principles of greater development of economic diplomacy, without major political stories, and the situation at the global level itself brings us to this possible solution. This would also help to some stabilization in the Balkans relations between these two countries, as well as within Bosnia & Herzegovina itself, where there would not be different pressures and ugly methods tore down the position of the Republic of Srpska which guaranteed by the Dayton agreement and the focus should be shifted from political and constitutional questions to and only to economic development. When all is summed up, it seems that an indirect hint from Ambassador Kirby in general does not seem so bad, and how we are going to do, time will tell us in the future.

Preko Ukrajine do “nesvrstanosti” – nova stara šansa za Srbiju i BiH


*If you want this text in English just click HERE !

Najnovija dešavanja u Ukrajini pokazala su mnogo toga, a možda najvažnija teza koja se proteže od samog početka demonstracija u Kijevu, preko referenduma na Kirmu, pa do najnovijih dešavanja na ivici rata u Donjecku i Slavijansku je povratak multipolarnog poretka u svijetu. Ukrajina je slučajno ili “namjerno” izabrana da bude poligon za modernu geopolitičku šahovsku partiju u kojoj se odmjeravaju snaga, moć i uticaj između Rusije i SAD-a. Ovu tezu povratka “multipolarnosti” i ravnanja tasa na globalnoj vagi već sam spomenuo početkom godine u zaključku teksta o ruskoj raketnoj diplomatiji. Kako vrijeme odmiče, ovo postaje sve izvijesnije i mislim da nas mnogo toga podsjeća na onu nekadašnju hladnoratovsku retoriku.


Povratak Rusije je započeo sa blokadom intervencije na Siriju, a svoj zenit je dostigao stavljanjem Krima pod svoju kontrolu. Mišljenja sam da za Rusiju još ništa nije gotovo, te da je ovo zapravo tek početak. Sa druge strane SAD su počele odavno i suvišno je nabrajati: Jugoslavija, Irak, Afganistan, Libija, Ukrajina… Ono što je simptomtično događajima u Ukrajini su metode koje se koriste. Ove metode zauzimanja i stavljanja pod kontrolu administrativnih zgrada su korišćene u Kijevu, a iste su kasnije korišćene i na Krimu kao i u Donjeckoj oblasti. Očigledne su namjere proruskog stanovništva da se za svoj status mogu izboriti samo ukoliko uzvrate istim metodama. Iako je zvanični stav Rusije da nisu uključeni u dešavanja u Donjecku, očigledno je da su na teritoriji Ukrajine u velikom broju prisutne službe kako Rusije tako i SAD – a.

Poslijednji put kad su okolnosti u geopolitičkom smislu bile ovakve došlo je do formiranja “trećeg bloka”, odnosno Pokreta nesvrstanih 1961. godine. Ova formula koju su prvi među jednakima primjenili predsjednik SFRJ Josip Broz Tito, predsjednik Egipta Gamal Abdel Naser, predsjednik Indije Džavaharlal Nehru, predsjednik Indonezije Sukarno i predsjednik Gane Kvame Nkrumah, pokazala se kao jako uspješnom u okolnostima koje su tada vladale. Države članice Pokreta nesvrstanih su uglavnom velikom većinom bile na marginama svjetskog uticaja i jedino afirmacijom unutar ovakvog saveza mogle su zajedničkim djelovanjem da nađu svoj interes i da njihov glas postane poštovan od strane velikih sila. Jugoslavija je posebno bila u jako specifičnoj situaciji i u velikom rascjepu između istoka i zapada, kako geografski tako i politički. Opredjeljivanje za jedne ili druge u potpunosti, značilo bi ekonomski krah i političke probleme. Jedino logično rješenje je bilo ostati nesvrstan, odnosno “neutralan” u neku ruku, a da to bude legitimno i poštovano od strane drugih. Predsjednik Jugoslavije Tito kao dobar poznavalac prilika i diplomatski lisac je ovaj manevar izveo hirurški precizno i na najbolji mogući način u interesu bivše Jugosavije. 


Ne treba biti previše pametan da bi se zaključilo kako uspješne diplomatske formule treba primjenjivati na identične političko – globalne okolnosti. Ovo govorim prvenstveno misleći na današnju nezgodnu diplomatsku poziciju Srbije i još lošiju poziciju Bosne i Hercegovine, koja od svog osnivanja u ovom obliku nema konzistentnu diplomatiju ni spoljnju politiku kao posljedicu svojih unutrašnjih odnosa. Blago rečeno stanje u ovoj oblasti je haotično i ravno domenu pošalice. Srbija je zvanično u procesu pretpristupnih pregovora sa EU, a isto tako malim koracima i prema članstvu u NATO. Ovi mali koraci se ogledaju u slanju jednog oficira Vojske Srbije na štabnu dužnost u Komandi združenih snaga NATO u Napulju, kao i sastancima zvaničnika NATO saveza i Vojske Srbije. Ovome u prilog ide i depeša sa Vikiliksa, originalno upućena iz ambasade SAD u Beogradu na ruke Hilari Klinton. U ovoj depeši se spominje da je Jovan Ratković, savjetnik za spoljnu politiku bivšeg predsjednika Srbije Borisa Tadića, prenio ambasadorki Meri Vorlik lična uvjeravanja predsjednika Tadića da Srbija neće moći „zauvijek” da ostane van NATO-a, kao i da je podrška srpskog naroda Partnerstvu za mir i članstvu u NATO-u „iznenađujuće visoka”. Ipak, malo istočnije Srbija paralelno gradi i jake veze sa Rusijom, čiji je najvidljiviji dokaz trasa Južnog toka. U ovim okolnostima kada dolazi do složnjavanja situacije u Ukrajini i glasanja Generalne Skupštine UN o rezoluciji kojom se Krim pripaja Rusiji, neminovno dolazi i do pritiska na Srbiju i BiH, a gdje obe države uopšte nisu uzele učešće u glasanju. 

Criema voting

BiH i Srbija su bile i jedine zemlje na Balkanu koje se uopšte nisu izjasnile. Sve ostale zemlje Balkana i bivše SFRJ glasale su ZA ovu rezoluciju. Srbija je ovim “nemuštim” potezom htjela da sačuva dobre odnose i sa “jednima i sa drugima” što nakon nekog vremena svakako može da joj donese probleme jer u EU to nisu očekivali, a u ovim okolnostima “biti odsutan” znači imati neki stav koji se ne poklapa sa stavom unutar EU. U BiH je standardno jer se tri člana predsjedništva koje je zaduženo za spoljnju politiku uopšte nisu mogla dogovoriti oko glasanja. Zbog svega gore navedenog, a u prvom redu zbog “neo – multupolarizma” i kompleksnosti pozicije u kojoj se nalaze Srbija i BiH, uvjeren sam da bi obe zemlje trebale jasno diplomatski da se usmjere i da iz statusa posmatrača dobiju status punopravnog člana u Pokretu nesvrstanih. Već unapred unutar EU na mogunost ove ideje ne gledaju blagonaklono i čak naglašavaju Srbiji da više nisu “nesvrstani” i da moraju da se odluče, iako se i sama EU nalazi u poziciji kao i bivša SFRJ nekad. Stav SAD prenio je sadašnji ambasador u Beogradu Majkl Kirbi koji je izjavio

“A za mene će biti interesantno da posmatram kako će Srbija to učiniti, budući da je naslednica Titove Jugoslavije, koja je bila osnivač Pokreta nesvrstanih. Ovde postoji ritualni osećaj da pokret nesvrstanih ne staje ni na čiju stranu. To je nešto što je istorija Srbije, a možda i njena budućnost”

Osim toga što se Srbija tretira i kao naslijednica bivše SFRJ punopravnim članstvom imala bi veći manevarski prostor za situaciju u kojoj se sad nalazi. Dubljim angažmanom u Pokretnu nesvrstanih mogla bi povratiti neka stara tradicionalna i ekonomska prijateljstva, pogotovo u zemljama rastuće afričke ekonomije, a sa druge strane napravila bi se legitimna odstupnica prema NATO savezu i potvrdila bi se neutralnost koju Srbija deklarativno nosi u svom Ustavu. Osim toga pojačan i punopravan angažman Srbije dao bi i Pokretu nesvrstanih novu energiju i više na značaju.  Ovo bi takođe bila sjajna prilika za Bosnu i Hercegovinu da se postavi ozbiljnije u međunarodnim krugovima i da “prikoliko” postane faktor u spoljnjoj politici. Svojim komparativnim prednostima mogla bi da ostvari pre svega ekonmske benefite kao i Srbija, a osim toga mogla bi da se postavi partnerski i jednako prema svima, bez da iko napravi zamjerke jer su svi svijesni njenog uređenja. Uz ovo, Bosni i Hercegovini bi dobro došla i totalna demilitarizacija u budućnosti, ali to već nije predmet ove analize. Smatram da bi se veoma brzo zaokretom ka Pokretu nesvrstanih olakšala pozicija Srbije i popravila pozicija BiH pogotovo na principima većeg razvoja ekonomske diplomatije bez velike politike, a i situacija na globalnom planu nam sama nameće to kao moguće rješenje. Ovo bi takođe pomoglo i stabilizaciji nekih odnosa na Balkanu između ove dve države, kao i unutar same BiH, gdje se ne bi raznim pritiscima i ružnim metodama rušio položaj Republike Srpske garantovan sporazumom u Dejtonu i gdje bi se fokus unutar BiH prebacio sa političko – ustavnih pitanja na ona razvojna i ekonomska. Kad sve saberemo, izgleda se ovaj indirektni savjet ambasadora Kirbija uopšte ne čini tako loš, a kako se mi činimo, vrijeme će pokazati.