The first decade of the 21st century has seen Serbia's foreign policy labouring under the heavy burden of wars that were waged in the earlier decade over the split of the former state construction of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). But I am today as much convinced in the truth of the testimonies I made in May 1992 through an Appeal for Peace,[2] and in the first year of democratic changes in the country in 2000,[3] as I was then; namely, that peace and cooperation will prevail in this region and that the building of mutual confidence between nations in the former Yugoslavia will be the foundation of a reinvigorated spirit of cooperation. Even though for some it may be hard to understand that mutual cooperation is in everybody's interest in the region, it is important to continuously dedicate special attention to all projects that strive to contribute to fostering mutual confidence and cooperation. Apart from the non-economic elements (such as the preservation of multi-nationality and multiethnic diversity in the region, protection of minorities, societal democratisation, etc.) these initiatives include a number of economic requirements, such as the creation of market economies, which would be open for foreign trade and investment by the private sector, efficient and open customs regimes and liberal commercial regulations. Such goals are in line with European integration trends, and their realisation ought to be seen as a priority in all so called Western Balkan countries and as such in Serbia also.
Unfortunately, war has proved to be profitable for a few factions, even though they may hope to avoid their responsibilities, objective scientific analyses will detect them. This applies to negative nationalistic, political, military, economic and other factors, whether domestic or foreign.
Conversely, there is no doubt that history will positively assess those who did their best and endeavoured to stop the destruction and to secure negotiated solutions for life in peace for present and future generations.

Priorities of the Serbian Foreign Policy from 2000 to today

After the democratic changes of 2000 the priorities of Serbia's foreign policy have been focused on overcoming the isolation that the country had endured during previous years and on reintegrating it into the international community. These goals should be achieved through furthering regional cooperation and good neighbourhood relations, as well as building balanced relations with the global powers.
The successful realisation of these priorities is motivated by the determination of the democratic government in Serbia to secure lasting peace and stability in the region, as a vital condition of Serbia's European perspective. After a decade of conflicts and wars that were waged on the territory of the SFRY, strengthening peace and stability, stimulating the process of reconciliation and the active cooperation of the parties, who were until recently involved in conflicts, are imposed as imperative to the European future of the citizens of Serbia, as well as the former republics of the SFRY, the new neighbours.
During the past several years, all governments in Serbia had as their main strategic goal membership of the European Union, as well as conducting the necessary reforms in the military-security sector according to membership in the Partnership for Peace. While realising these goals, Serbia faces the serious challenge of protecting its territorial integrity and state sovereignty. The unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, as well as the recognition of this declaration by a number of states represents a great and sensitive moment that no other European state has faced in its recent history.
Serbia is open to bilateral political dialogue and apart from the central strategic priority of Serbia, the acceleration of EU membership, its vital national interest on the bilateral level is the improvement of its relations with other powerful factors of world politics. Its European aspirations include balanced relations with the USA and the Russian Federation, in which Serbia should not align itself with either side in order to fully realise the goals of interstate cooperation based on mutual interest. The stable and perspective position of Serbia in the region and Europe is possible only by fully improving its relations with these two major powers.[4]
Serbia has made great efforts in creating good relations with its neighbours in the region, who are either members or candidates for membership in the EU and NATO. Serbia has not neglected other important international factors across the world (most importantly China, India and Japan, but also the countries of Latin America, Africa and the Arab world) either; it has traditionally good relations with them and a history of interstate dialogue. These countries are continuously in the focus of the foreign policy activity of Serbia, and efforts are made to further improve the bilateral cooperation with these countries in all areas.
The achievements of the foreign policy priorities of Serbia are realised through its active role on the international scene. For the last year and a half two basic questions have dominated the foreign policy of Serbia and the bilateral and the multilateral contacts of Serbian officials, even more so than before: integration into the EU and the future status of Kosovo.

Serbia's Integration into the EU and the Kosovo Question

Serbia is currently not recognised as a candidate country, but only as a "potential candidate country". On November 7th 2007 Serbia initiated a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the European Union. The official signing was expected to take place this year and it happened on April 29th 2008 when Deputy Prime Minister, Božidar Djelić signed the SAA in Luxembourg. The signing of the SAA was opposed by the governments of the Netherlands and Belgium while the Government of Spain lobbied on behalf of Serbia. Opposition to the signing of the SAA was present in Serbia too, as Serbia's government was carrying out its technical term of office during the election campaign. Opposition was expressed by Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica who does not recognise the SAA and regards its signing as an anti-constitutional act. The SAA was not recognised by the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), Koštunica`s Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS), the New Serbia (NS) and the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS). Namely, the SAA refers to a Serbia without Kosovo which is a UN protectorate according to UN Resolution 1244 and an independent state since 17 February 2008. So, the central topics of the election campaign were the SAA and the EU and the Kosovo issue.
In such a situation it seemed that signing the Agreement could further aggravate the already split Serbian society. On the one hand it raised the fear of strengthening the so called anti-European forces in Serbia and of jeopardising the ratification of the SAA in Serbia's Parliament. On the other, signing the SAA was a clear sign to Serbia that the EU supports its integration process and the reinforcement of the pro-European block of parties led by the Democratic Party headed by Boris Tadić, the president of Serbia.
Continuing the negotiations on the SAA, after a one-year suspension, and the signing of this document, as well as the process of negotiations on the future status of Kosovo under the mediation of the former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari (Marti Ahtisari), and later the Troika, [5] determined the dominant energy and effort invested by all levels of state governance in Serbia. The European perspective and the compromise regarding the future status of Kosovo, based on international law, were many times emphasised by Serbian officials as necessary conditions for securing lasting peace and stability in the region.
There is also another question that is interesting for research, and it is whether Serbia would move away from EU membership and form even closer ties with the Russian Federation based on the Kosovo issue.
According to George Friedman "Kosovo's independence declaration is an important event for two main reasons. First, it potentially creates a precedent that could lead to redrawn borders in Europe and around the world. Second, it puts the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany in the position of challenging what Russia has defined as a fundamental national interest - and this at a time when the Russians have been seeking to assert their power and authority. Taken together, each of these makes this a geopolitically significant event." [6]
Kosovo has historically been a part of Serbia that due to demographic developments has become predominantly Albanian. The Serbian community has become a minority and due to other factors (mainly economic) the migration from Kosovo hit more the non-Albanian nationalities and ethnicities. At the same time a separation movement gradually prevailed, and the quest for a Republic of Kosovo instead of a status of Autonomous Province was strengthened. Milošević's regime oppressed those quests, even withdrawing the existing autonomous status (gained with the Constitution of Yugoslavia in 1974). These tensions have contributed the most to raising nationalism on both sides and as a whole in the then Federation. The short sighted politics of the regime thought to solve the question by repression in the 1990's, giving the United States and NATO an excellent excuse for an air campaign against the country in 1999 until it capitulated and allowing the entry of NATO troops into the province of Kosovo. Kosovo then became a NATO protectorate, but was formally a province of Serbia.
The powers believed that the new government following the democratic changes in the country would be far more interested in the benefits of EU membership than they would be in retaining control of Kosovo. On the contrary, in the course of almost eight years nationalism trumped economic interests and the majority of the Serb population (and voters) never accepted secession.
The argument used in favour of secession is that the oppression of the late 1990s, which necessitated intervention by outside military forces to protect the Albanian population in Kosovo, made returning Kosovo to Serbian rule impossible. But some countries, such as Russia, China, Spain, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus, reject this reasoning. These countries themselves have their own areas dominated by ethnic minorities, which have demanded or potentially could demand autonomy, secession or integration with a neighbouring country. At the same time, there is the question of whether larger powers have the right to redraw the boundaries of smaller ones without a decision by the United Nations. Also, the repression and atrocities committed under the rule of the authorities of the former state do not justify secession, as Yugoslavia has now been dissolved, and the Republic of Serbia is headed by new leaders.
But, the latest prime minister of Serbia, Vojislav Koštunica has demanded an end to any progress on ties with the European Union unless Brussels drops its support for Kosovo's independence. With the split between the Koštunica and Tadić coalition, Serbia's president dissolved parliament and called elections for May 11th to try to overcome divisions about relations with the European Union following the secession of Kosovo.

New Prospects

The pro-European Union alliance led by Boris Tadić, Serbia's president, won over the hard-line nationalists in snap elections on May 11th. Hopefully this will ease the peaceful settling of the artificially made dilemma between the two different issues, the EU accession and the status of Kosovo.
Apart from political relations, dominated by these two issues, special efforts have to be made to improve international economic cooperation, broaden the trade of goods and attract foreign investors to the Serbian economy. Most of these efforts have to be oriented towards the neighbouring countries in the region, bearing in mind the existing state of economic relations and the broad trade of goods between the countries of the former Yugoslavia and other Balkan countries.
It is important to improve economic cooperation with the EU members too as some of these countries are the most important foreign trade partners of Serbia. Special attention has to be given to the improvement of economic relations with Russia, whilst taking into consideration the level of cooperation that already exists, especially in the area of energy, like the treaty on cooperation in the energy sector. Economic cooperation with other regions and countries (the Near East, Central Asia and the Far East, especially with China, India, Japan, etc.) is also of the utmost importance.
This orientation needs to get an influential research basis in Serbia.
I do believe that mutual understanding, confidence and cooperation among nations can be the only right way forward for strengthening peace and progress, that is to say, to obtaining spiritual richness, tolerance and sustainable economic development for all citizens living in the whole Western Balkans and Southeast Europe and as such, for Serbia.

[1]Edita Stojić - Karanović, Ph.D., Research Professor, Director of the Institute of International Politics and Economics, Belgrade, Serbia, http://www.diplomacy.bg.ac.yu/pdf/Edita_Stojic_Karanovic_CV.pdf
[2]Appeal for Peace issued on May 9, 1992 by the Centre for Neighbouring Countries and Regional Cooperation of the Institute of International Politics and Economics - being the founder of the Permanent International Scientific Forum "Danube - the River of Cooperation" http://danubedita.tripod.com/archive/appeal_1992.htm
[3]Edita Stojic-Karanovic, Regionalne inicijative za obnovu Balkana i jugoistočne Evrope na kraju 20. veka (Regional Initiatives for the Reconstruction of Balkan and Southeast Europe at the end of the 20th Century), chapter (pp. 108 - 120) in Problemi Srpske Politike, Centar za menadžment / The Management Center, Beograd 2000, ISBN 86-83289-01-X, pp.256 http://www.cbs-css.org/pdf/issues.pdf
[4]H.E. Ambassador Čedomir Radojković, Opening Speech at the international conference held in the Institute of International Politics and Economics on May 28 - 29, 2008, under the title "Elements of Serbia's Foreign Policy Strategy - Political and Economic Aspects. More at: www.diplomacy.bg.ac.yu
[5]When the Troika of the EU, Russia and the United States in July 2007 agreed to find a new format for the talks, Ahtisaari announced that he regarded his mission as over, as neither the UN nor the Troika had asked him to continue mediations in the face of Russia's persistent refusal to support independence for Kosovo.
[6]George Friedman's article "Kosovar Independence and the Russian Reaction" http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/kosovar_independence_and_russian_reaction, February 20, 2008