Hill: Lithium is future, Serbia has opportunity, but it’s up to Serbs

Hill added that people have the right to assemble freely, but that some of the protesters against lithium mining were pro-Russian and worried about Serbia turning toward the West. He said Serbia seems to be positioning itself in the West, and is moving in a good direction. The ambassador also spoke about the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, rule of law, Serbian media and possible visa-free travel to the US for Serbian nationals.

N1: You came to Serbia as an ambassador just over two years ago. You said at the time, because you haven't been in this region for almost 20 years, that you are surprised that Serbia didn’t go further to the West. After these two years, how do you see your work at that time, and have you managed to make some progress in your idea that Serbia should join the West?

Hill: That’ll be up to other people to decide if I’ve made progress, but I have no doubt this is a Western country. It obviously, like the rest of us, has a lot of political issues that Serbs are going to have to grapple with and ultimately resolve. But I think it’s a country where people are looking West, there’s a lot of complexity to this that some other countries don’t have. To some extent Serbia definitely came out of something called Yugoslavia, and there were different perspectives on the world. I think we still see some of that. But in my view, it’s moving further West than it has in the past. I think some of the relationships that are being developed, including with the United States, but also with France and other countries, are clearly a sign that the country is moving, from my point of view, in the right direction.

N1: But those are mostly political deals. In the case of France, we are talking about deals regarding Rafale jets, but in the relationship with the United States, in what points you are seeing progress?

Hill: First of all, just driving here to your studio you could see a number of buildings that are occupied by American companies, including in the tech sector. The US has become in recent years the number one trader of services with Serbia. And if you think about the fact how many kilometers separate the United States from Serbia, that’s quite an achievement. So I think it’s pretty clear that this is a country that wants its new industries, its tech industries to be oriented westward. You are doing it with us, but I think there are other countries. If you drive out along any road in Vojvodina you’ll see a lot of factories whether from Germany or elsewhere. Overall, you get the sense of a country that is positioning itself to be in the West. A big question, a huge question for Serbian people and indeed for anyone in any authority in Serbia is when is Serbia going to be able to realize its ambitions to get into the European Union. I mean, as an American, we are always giving positions on the European Union, it’s not really our job, but I’d like to see it sooner rather than later.

N1: Do you think that Serbia is fulfilling European Union’s demands? We are seeing a progress report every year, and every year we have big minuses in areas like rule of law, media freedom, chapter 23…

Hill: It’s quite an exercise when you start disaggregating, that is, going through the so called clusters and chapters, it’s a huge exercise. If you stand away from it, if you look at it from afar, you think, well, this is fairly easy, Serbia is a western-oriented country, it ought to be in the European Union. I think the European Union has made it very clear to Serbia and many other countries that, while we want you, we love you, we don’t love some of your problems and we want you to address your problems before you come in. One of the issues where Serbia is going to have to work is on some of the domestic issues, rule of law, independent media, questions like that, they need to address those questions, and there are other things as well. I look at it more as really a negotiation, where Serbia tries to say look, we’re making progress here, and we’ll have to see whether Europe accepts that proposition.

N1: Talking about rule of law, you can see that Serbia is not progressing in that area by any EU standards. So can you tell us what could be the break point from the government’s side to fulfill those demands?

Hill: Well, first of all I think if you have concerns about what the government is doing, you better address it to the government.

N1: We do…

Hill: You do, but from the point of view of the US, we want to see progress. These issues are not easy, when you start looking into them, there are a lot of questions that any government would have and it’s not my job to be making public pronouncements on should the government do more, should the government do less, that’s something that you’re going to have to work out in a healthy domestic debate. To some extent that’s what’s going on in the parliament today, especially regarding the issue of judiciary. What I can tell you is the US wants to help the judiciary, we do a lot of programs, training judges, issues like that. I’m fully aware that these issues won’t meet everyone’s satisfaction but we’re trying to help, and to the extent the people want us to help, we’ll be there to help. But ultimately Serbia is for Serbs, and Serbs are going to have to work this out.

N1: Yes, but as you said, United States invested a lot of money in the Serbian judiciary, but finally we are not seeing the effects.

Hill: We evaluate our aid all the time, we look at whether we’re getting effects in that area or in some other economic area. We do a lot of different programs and we have to evaluate them. I don’t think our evaluations are ones that I’ll do on television. I’ll be talking to our experts and hearing directly from them what we need to focus on, do we need to do more, do we need to do less, those would be issues that we have to address. Because ultimately we are giving American taxpayers’ money to help Serbia with certain things and ultimately we need to see progress.

N1: When you said that you are absolutely certain that Serbia is going toward the West, judging by what our president Vucic is saying, we cannot hear that. We hear that we are a sovereign country, that we are not going toward the West or the East, but that we are turned to ourselves. What do you think of that?

Hill: My own view is that Serbia will be a stronger Serbia, an even more successful Serbia to the degree that it has friends and allies looking out for it. That I think is important for Serbia, I don’t think it’s ever good to be alone. And I don’t think Serbia is alone. As for addressing issues of particular Serbian politicians, from the president on down, I don’t like to talk to people through the television. I like to talk to them directly when I have concerns or questions about what’s going on. I do try to avoid public statements, which usually frankly don’t make the problem go away.

N1: One of the biggest problems that Serbia has at this moment is the story about lithium mining. While we are talking, the opposition and the government are debating this issue in the parliament. You recently said that you noticed some anti-western narrative at the protests against lithium. Where did you specifically notice this, and what are your concerns about that?

Hill: First of all, Serbian people have a right to express themselves on the lithium debate or frankly any other debate. Free assembly is an essential element of democracy, we absolutely support that and we are quite vocal in our support for that. But with respect to some of the demonstrations on lithium, many of the demonstrators are just traditional environmental demonstrators, they have a different point of view from the government, from some of the investors. For that reason, the president of Rio Tinto came to Serbia and spent time listening to citizens here and to try to address question. That’s quite a normal process, having the citizens expressing concerns. There are other elements though going on in Serbia, if you look at some of the participants, I never said all, but some of the participants, were clearly ones who seem to be responding not so much to Serbian concerns but rather to other concerns, including Russia. And that’s where, if I were a Serbian person, I would be concerned. I know there are accusations that somehow the US is supporting some of these demonstrations, and we make sure that this is not the case. We are not a hundred percent effective on that, but we really make big efforts to make sure that we don’t have a situation where the US, especially US tax payers’ money, is going to the internal debate that should be happening between Serbian people. I’m not sure those same standards are being shows by the Russians, and we see a lot of Russian sentiment out there. Again, it may not be a majority, but it’s part of the situation.

N1: But the pro-Russian sentiment is widely spread in Serbia…

Hill: Yes it is, and that’s for Serbian people to deal with but I think it’s pretty clear Russia’s not interested in lithium or anything else that would take Serbia further westward. It was no accident that the Chancellor of Germany was here, various leading western companies were here. Lithium is, by the way, being mined as we sit here, it is being mined in the US, in a number of European countries, including Germany. It is part of the future, part of the future economy, it’s part of the future of transportation. It is really going to be a big factor, and if Serbia has a chance to participate in that future, I think it’s an opportunity for Serbia. But ultimately it’s up to Serbs. I don’t see what Russia is doing, it’s not that they are creating some investments for Serbia, quite to the contrary, I think Russia is trying to slow down any movement of Serbia toward the West.

N1: But by saying that Russia is involved in these protests, you are gaining some kind of a different approach to the people who are protesting. Most of them, or some of them are so pro-European, like the Green-Left party.

Hill: That’s fine, that’s absolutely fine. As I said at the outset, the right to free assembly, the right to express yourself in whatever form, provided it’s not violent of course, that is their right. I’m not talking about those people, I’m talking about the fact that some very Russian-oriented people are there. Not because they care necessarily about lithium, but rather that they care about Serbia’s movement West. That is what concerns me. To the extent people are out there worried about lithium, I think there are answers by the way, I think there are a lot of answers to some of their concerns about lithium. But for people who are out there worried about Serbia moving West and not East, that’s a whole different proposition.

N1: When you see how people react to lithium mining, that 60 percent, according to some surveys, are afraid of lithium mining, don’t you see that this kind of force that is pushing into that project is quite strong, without a reasonable explanation at a given time?

Hill: I think questions, any kind of questions such as those, need to be addressed. And I think for people who support the project, and, by the way, I think it’s a good project, but it’s not up to me, so I think those questions need to be answered, all of them, some of them are not good questions, but there is no such thing as a bad question, there are only bad answers. So I think that people should be trying to address those, and so I think that is what’s going on in the parliament and I hope those issues can be addressed. By the way, it’s not unusual, it happens in the US too, we’ve also had anti-lithium demonstrations in some areas. Ultimately, decisions were made to go ahead but we’ll have to see what the Serbian people decide.

“The best for both Serbia and Kosovo is not a border that divides, but a border that can facilitate communication”

N1: Let’s talk about Kosovo. You were here in 1999 and you know how the process of negotiation went then and you know how the process of negotiation is going now. Do you see a difference?

Hill: Coming back to Serbia over 20 years later, I was surprised to see the issue still kind of where it was when I last tuned in. In the meantime I’d been working in a lot of different parts of the world, I was in the Middle East, I was in East Asia, and to come back and to see this issue still a major source of great tension…My own view, and I am please to say this view is shared by many countries, including the European Union that’s taken on this very thankless task of trying to handle the dialogue. My own view is that we need a normalization between Serbia and Kosovo. We need a situation where that border is not a border that divides, but a border really that can facilitate communication. I think this is best for everybody concerned, including people in Kosovo and people in Serbia. So I hope that this process led by Ambassador Lajcak can proceed. I am hopeful that the logic of achieving normalization and really addressing individuals’ concerns in Kosovo, people need to know what their lives are going to look like in the future. That’s not a matter of high politics, that’s a matter of explaining to them how it will work. Will they have access to hospitals, to Serbian education. They have a right to know those things, those issues were embedded in the Association of Serb-majority municipalities. I would like and my government, and many people would like to see that move forward. So I’m not here to give you the view of Pristina, you’ll have to get some guest from Pristina to talk to you about that. Our view is that has to go forward and I might add, I think the Serbian authorities who worked on this dialogue have made some very constructive approaches and I would like to see that pursued.

N1: You said the Serbian authorities had a positive approach in the dialogue…

Hill: They’ve worked hard and come up with approaches here. But I want to emphasize once again, if I have concerns, I don’t express my concerns on television, I talk to people individually.

N1: Can you compare the situation when you negotiated with Milosevic, you’ve been in the Holbrooke team and now you are also participating in a way. What is the difference between the Milosevic times and the Vucic times?

Hill: First of all we didn’t have any negotiation with Milosevic because he refused to even discuss the issue and that was a big problem because there was no effort to deal with the situation. Right now I think there is an effort to try to meet people on a give and take basis, but we’re not there yet. Certainly it’s an issue of concern, because the United States, we have a different position than Serbia. The United States recognizes Kosovo, our position is different from Serbia. But we’re trying to find a way forward, and I think the way forward is embedded in this idea of normalization, and I hope we can do that.

N1: When we talk about these anti-West and pro-Russian narratives and pro-Russian views… You’ve seen that Minister Aleksandar Vulin met with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. You said that Serbia is going toward the West, but isn’t this completely contradictory to that Western “agenda”?

Hill: If you’re pointing out the contradictions there, I think you should ask Mr. Vulin to come on your show and ask him exactly that question. I must say, I’m talking about Serbia, I’m not talking about every Serb that I know or have heard of. I’ve never met him, but I would suggest you get him here on the show to ask him what he’s doing.

N1: We keep calling them and they are not answering on our calls.

Hill: I wish I could help you, but I don’t have his telephone number, but I would suggest that you keep trying.

N1: I’m sure that you are following the cases of Belarusian or Russian citizens who are here. Andrei Gnyot is still under some kind of house arrest. Have you seen progress in that approach, because you see that there are concerns that he might be expelled to Belarus again.

Hill: As you can imagine, our view is he should not and ever be expelled to Belarus, and I think it’s very important that Serbia continue to do what it should do as a UN member state, and that is protect people’s lives from the event of what would be certain persecution if he went back. And yes, indeed, I can assure you we are following this issue very carefully.

N1: There are examples of Serbia often being threatened, and there has been no progress at all, and how can get out of this stuck position, what should be changed?

Hill: I think to some extent you’ve made some changes. For example, Serbia has been much clearer in its support for Ukraine and its condemnation of Russian aggression. Serbia condemned it in the past, they’ve continued to condemn this aggression, but I think Serbia has been very clear in helping Ukraine in ways that it can, including in the electricity grid, because the Russians continue to target civilians and their access to electricity. Serbia’s been very clear on that, they’ve attended some very important meetings on Ukraine, and I think that’s a real step forward and one that needs to be more broadly acknowledged. So I think Serbia is making some of the right moves. Should Serbia do more, could Serbia do more? Those are issues I can talk about, but not on television.

N1: Let’s get back to free media. You’ve been in Serbia long enough to observe what is going on in the media landscape, so are there any free media in Serbia?

Hill: Free is a relative concept and I must say there’s a lot of polarization here, I will certainly say that. But polarization is just that – and so it’s the problem of one outlet has a completely different diametrically opposed 180 degree difference from the others. I’d like to see less polarization here, I’d like to see more stances where people look at the issues individually rather than an overall support for either the anti-government or pro-government, I’d like to see a lot less polarization. And by the way, there is an American election coming up in November, and we have a degree of polarization as well. This is an issue that goes beyond Serbia and really is a reflection of the times we all live in.

N1: Support for the government, as you know, is not provided for in the media law. We, as journalists, advocate for answering questions in the interest of the people living in this country.

Hill: And that is what you should be doing. I want to be very clear, we support what the OSCE has tried to do on issues of media, on issues of media freedom, on issues of election reform, all of these issues. We have been very much involved in these efforts to make reforms. The issue is how to make reform without contributing to tensions. That is always a challenge for a diplomat, and that’s what I try to do.

N1: Since you mentioned the OSCE, they participated in the changing of the media laws. One of the points of those laws is to reestablish REM, and that will not happen.

Hill: What I will just say to you with respect to that issue is – the law needs to be followed. Further details I’ll reserve for non-television environment.

N1: OK, you mentioned a “non-television environment” quite a few times…

About the visa regime for Serbian citizens – “Like a lot of good things, it takes time”

N1: For the end, a question that will interest a lot of people in Serbia. Will the United States ever abolish the visa regime for the Serbian citizens?

Hill: I’m not glad that you asked that, because that’s a very tough issue. I’ve been in a number of countries where they had visa requirements and today they don’t. For example, in the Republic of Korea there were visa requirements and too many people were being refused visas, which means that there was a problem, they were not getting a visa-free regime. Over the years, with better economy - and do not underestimate the importance of economy in a lot of issues, whether political reform or even visa reform - fewer and fewer people from Korea were applying for visas who were not eligible, that is, more and more people were eligible, and so ultimately the decision was made, no more visas for Korean citizens. I’d like to see something like that happen in Serbia. The same also happened in Poland, where, when I was there, visas were a really fraught political subject ….and now they are not required to have visas. I’d like to see us get there.

N1: So what is the problem?

Hill: It’s do to with numbers, it’s an arithmetic problem. The number of people who apply. You should only apply for a visa if you’re certain you’re going go get it. That is, if you can demonstrate that you have ties back to Serbia, that you don’t intend to use a visitor visa in order to move in permanently. And if people observe that, and you have fewer visas that have to be regretfully turned down - because nobody likes to turn down a visa - I think ultimately, at some point, we will get to that situation that some other countries have gotten to.

N1: Something optimistic for the end, but not with a final end…

Hill: Well, like a lot of good things, it takes time.