Picula on the clash between Milanovic and Plenkovic over Paris: No parade is not just a parade, but a political message

A recent political dispute has emerged between Croatia's President Zoran Milanović and Prime Minister Andrej Plenković over the European Parliament's report on Serbia's progress toward EU membership, authored by Croatian MEP Tonino Picula. The report, adopted by the European Parliament with 468 votes in favor, 116 against, and 79 abstentions, highlights concerns about Serbia's stalled European integration process and even some regression in certain areas. During a live interview with N1 Studio host Nina Klenak, Picula discussed the implications of the report and its potential impact on Serbia’s relationship with the European Union. Picula emphasized that the growing interest among European parliamentarians in enlargement policy, including Serbia's case, has become a priority for both the European Commission and the European Parliament. He noted that the number of amendments proposed for his report increased significantly this year, rising from over 300 last year to more than 500. This increase, he said, reflects the increasing importance placed on understanding the decisions made regarding Serbia's path towards EU membership. According to Picula, despite Serbia's potential as a driver of the enlargement process, it has instead become an obstacle. He pointed out that discussions about Serbia must take into account its influence on neighboring countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo. He also referenced the critical assessments by the European Commission's rapporteur Marta Kos, who expressed strong criticism of the Serbian government. These criticisms were further intensified after the adoption of laws known as the "Vučić laws," which the Commission viewed as a step backward without proper consultation with the European Commission or the Venice Commission. The European Commission had previously raised doubts about Serbia's progress toward EU membership in May, but later changed its tone. Picula suggested that the Commission appears to have taken on a media-like role, influenced by strategic interests of certain member states. He specifically mentioned the influence of France and Germany, whose strategic interests seem to aim at keeping Serbia within the sphere of European integration. Unlike the European Parliament, which has consistently maintained a critical stance towards the situation in Serbia, the Commission has shown inconsistency in its evaluations. Picula warned that attempts to ignore facts could help an authoritarian regime remain on the European path. He highlighted the role of the Council of Europe, which must approve the opening of each negotiation cluster. There exists a coalition of willing members who believe the conditions for opening a new cluster have not been met after five years. Such a move, according to Picula, would be unjustified and potentially counterproductive. The controversy surrounding the European Parliament's report underscores broader tensions within the European Union regarding Serbia's direction and its alignment with EU values. While the European Parliament maintains a critical stance, the European Commission seems to be swayed by external pressures and strategic considerations, leading to a mixed message on Serbia's progress. This divergence in approach raises questions about the consistency and effectiveness of the EU's enlargement policy and how it balances regional stability with adherence to democratic principles. As the debate continues, the outcome will depend on whether the European Commission can reconcile its internal divisions and maintain a coherent strategy towards Serbia's integration. The situation remains fluid, with the potential for further developments as the EU navigates these complex geopolitical dynamics.