"The Western Balkans fell somewhere in the backlog of priorities in the EU, due to the current conflicts in the Near and Middle East, in Syria, due to the refugee crisis, relations with Russia, Brexit, due to the problems with signing the Free Trade Agreement with Canada CETA. All this dominates the European public, politics and diplomacy. European politics can barely keep up with all these crises," Ralph Fix, who is in charge of foreign and security policy at the "Heinrich Bell" Green Foundation, among other things, and who participated in creating the strategy and program of the Greens, told Vreme. . Fiks talks about why the policy of the Greens is so successful in Germany, but it almost does not exist in the Balkans, why the EU tolerates the simulation of reforms in the countries of the region and why Serbia will not be able to become a member of the EU if it does not recognize Kosovo.
"WEATHER": What is the Green Party like in Germany today??
RALPH FIX: According to the public opinion survey, it is the third strongest party, side by side with the right-wing populists; in the Federal Parliament, the Greens are the most active opposition, and at the local level we are in power in more provinces than the ruling Christian Democratic Party (CDU) of Chancellor Angela Merkel. This means that the greens, with the topics they impose, have meanwhile reached the center of society. We are no longer outsiders, a party on the fringes of the political scene. However, there are still disagreements about the extent to which the Greens should play the role of a party that participates in shaping the country, that is, a party that no longer understands itself as a systemic opposition. Unlike at the local level, it has not yet been resolved at the federal level.
What distinguishes the Green party from the opposition Left, or the ruling Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), which also appeal to a left-leaning electorate?
In relation to the Left, the differences are very clear, above all in terms of European policy and policy towards the Middle East. The Greens are a distinctly pro-European party, which meanwhile also supports Germany's membership in NATO. Since Bosnia in 1995, the Greens have repeatedly supported Germany's participation in international military interventions, which, in our opinion, had a humanitarian character, when it was about stopping genocide and ethnic cleansing. Also, the Greens have a more positive approach to the market economy, we stand for a stable budget policy, for limiting borrowing in the interest of future generations.
In relation to the SPD, we differ in that the Greens are, of course, fundamentally still an environmental party, while the SPD often hesitates in this regard. When, for example, it is about getting out of the energy that is obtained by burning coal, the SPD puts the brakes on it, while the Greens would like to accelerate changes in the energy sector. We are also more oriented towards civil society, therefore we believe that it is not only the task of the state to build a socially just society.
society, we are strongly in favor of individual civic responsibility and personal initiative.
Are the Greens an ideologically left-wing party??
There are discussions about that issue. I would say that at least we are not a traditionally leftist party. This can be seen in our understanding of justice, because not only fair redistribution is important to us, but also generational and gender equality plays a big role.
The environmental issue itself can no longer be divided into right and left, it stretches across and across the old political blocs. Regarding foreign policy, for example the Russian issue, which in my opinion has become fundamentally important for Europe, different approaches are being discussed within all parties. Among the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats, especially among members of the Left, you will find supporters of Putin, as well as those who advocate a clear attitude towards Russia regarding the Ukrainian conflict and Syria. It is a question of the extent to which respect for human rights should play a role in foreign policy, which is often debated in all parties.
All in all, I would say that the greens have taken over some traditionally left-wing values, but also liberal ones, when it comes to civil rights and personal freedoms. In economic policy, this means a combination of market economy and state regulation. There are lively discussions about all this within the green waters.
How the Greens managed to develop from a protest movement into a mainstream party?
It was a long road filled with internal conflicts, from the realization that we are a protest party, a mental opposition, to the fact that we want to claim the right to shape concrete changes from a position of power. For the Greens, it was a learning process, discovering the possibilities that parliamentarism provides. At the same time, there were changes in society that allowed us to join political coalitions. The themes of the Greens, such as the change in energy policy, equality between men and women or liberal immigration policy, which were initially ridiculed and contested by others, spread in society and were transferred to other parties, primarily the Social Democrats. This is how realistic conditions have been created for us to stand up for our values from the position of government.
For example, at some point the society was majority in favor of getting out of nuclear energy. It was no longer some kind of green hobby. After the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, a socio-political opportunity suddenly appeared to get out of nuclear energy and to form a ruling majority on that basis. That exit from the systemic opposition was highly contested within the Greens, heated discussions were held, and the party leadership changed several times in ten years. The desire to not only give radical speeches and organize protests from the opposition won, but to actually change things.
How come the Greens actually only have such success in Germany?
Green parties are also very successful in some other countries, for example in Sweden, Finland, Austria, partly in Belgium and the Netherlands, but this is a phenomenon of Western and Northern Europe.
But even in those countries, not like in Germany.
Yes, the success of the Greens in Germany is unique. In German cultural history, there is a romantic direction that could also be marked as a forerunner of environmental movements, i.e. regret for the destruction of nature due to industrialization. It is Goethe's Faust. The second part of Faust can almost be read as an early ecological manifesto, where it is said that the destruction of nature leads to the downfall of civilization. Acceleration, modernity, loss of homeland are criticized there, all these motives are deeply rooted in the collective consciousness and memory of Germans. The Greens followed up on it without even knowing it for the most part.
This is followed by the need for Germans to be particularly exemplary, or responsible or moral, after all the horrors of Nazism during the Second World War. This is now reflected in the attitude towards refugees, the Germans are almost the only nation that is ready to accept refugees from Syria and Africa on a larger scale. It also has to do with guilt, with the need to atone for some things in some way.
A more pragmatic explanation is German federalism, which allowed the Greens to grow through the federal states and gain experience as a ruling party at the local level, as well as, of course, the proportional electoral system. There is also a five percent threshold in Germany, but it is still easier for new parties to fight for a firm position on the political scene than in some other countries.
The growth of green in Germany can also be explained by the fact that environmental issues are no longer perceived as a threat to economic growth and prosperity, but on the contrary, as a chance for the development of technology and renewable energy, to be seen as an innovation factor on which the strength is partly based of German exports. Because, green markets are developing the fastest in the world, not only the markets of renewable, clean energy, larger and ecological food items. One of the key things for green people is precisely the connection between ecology and economy.
How are things with the greens here in the region? Why that green one?, the ecological idea practically does not exist here?
In part, environmental issues are a phenomenon of the welfare state. However, I dispute that ecology is a matter of luxury. Because it is about elementary living conditions, about clean air, clean land, about drinking water, about climate, so really about existential basics. It is also a health issue, especially for the poor, polluted air and contaminated soil, and therefore unhealthy foods, are one of the most common causes of illness. It is a social issue. And yet, environmental awareness obviously comes only with a certain level of well-being, with a certain material security. Environmental movements are mainly carried by the well-off and educated middle class, which in the western Balkans and in many other European countries has not been as strong as in Germany for a long time. Sociologists call it the post-materialist milieu.
Such a social and social milieu here, in your country, exists to some extent in cities such as Belgrade and Zagreb, above all among young people who are socially engaged, who no longer count on a big car, but ride a bicycle, so let it be some kind of fancy bicycle as a new status symbol. All these phenomena exist here as well, but only in their beginnings, while in Germany they are very widespread, based on them the Greens get twenty or thirty percent of the votes in local elections.
Classic social issues are in the foreground here, a large part of the population fights for survival every day, as a result of the war, ethnic issues and national politics are still dominant here. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the Greens were never just an environmental party, there was always talk of democracy and civil rights, social rights and the idea of a society of equality.
The reason why there is no strong green party here is the general crisis of the multiparty system, typical of countries in transition, where there are almost no programmatic parties, which are defined by certain social priorities. Here, there are mainly clearly leadership parties that are grouped around a strong leader, they are interest groups that are formed for the sake of winning power and distributing the material benefits that power brings with it. In such a political culture, it is really difficult to found a different, new party.
This can be seen in the clear separation of politics and civil society, which is not the case in Germany. The Greens emerged from civil society, there are many channels through which politics and civil society cooperate. Here, however, many young civil society activists do not want to have anything to do with politics, in the sense of party politics. As long as there is such a gap between politics and civil society, the green party, or the party that stands for both democracy and ecology, regardless of what they are called, will not have much chance to develop.
How would you assess the situation in the Western Balkans??
It is obvious that the transformation processes that began in the nineties will last much longer than we thought, because the old, authoritarian structures, corruption and nationalism are more deeply rooted than we thought. In the beginning, we had too high expectations, while now there is too little will to engage in the countries applying for membership as long as the situation in them is more or less stable. The priority in the EU is that, for God's sake, there are no new crises and conflicts.
There is a danger that the EU will be lulled into this simulated modernization, because everyone is acting as if something is moving. The governments here behave as if they are reforming their countries, as if they are reforming the rule of law, as if they are transparent. And the EU behaves as if this is really the case and allocates certain financial resources to keep everything calm. But that is not enough to really initiate change. The EU should be more active when, for example, in Croatia or Serbia or Bosnia, people whose hands got bloodied in wars are celebrated as heroes, war criminals are publicly rehabilitated or even become mayors. Of course, these are sovereign states, but the EU would still have to take a stand. Or, in the case of Belgrade on the water, the EU would at least have to insist that contracts must be transparent, that European standards are really applied.
When it comes to European standards, The EU tolerates Serbia's neutral position in relation to Russia, or the state of the media in Serbia.
When you say tolerates, it is a problematic term, because the EU is not a colonial power here. But she would certainly have to have a clearer position on similar issues and make it clear when she disagrees with a certain situation or development of events and that not only in theory, but also in practice, the financial aid she provides is tied to certain conditions. The EU, for example, insisted that the state media in Serbia be privatized, but then it should have insisted that the privatization take place transparently, that there is real competition between the media, and not that the media are controlled and instrumentalized under the cover of privatization. in favor of certain political parties and groups.
This inconsistency of the EU contributes to the failure to achieve the most important goal of European integration, which is the formation of independent democratic institutions. The EU would have to devote itself much more to that, instead of making arrangements with individual power holders.
In light of all that, Do you think that the EU will receive another member in due course??
Personally, I am still strongly in favor of the enlargement of the EU, I am convinced that it is in the interest of the EU, that the Union must really be a pan-European project with all countries that are ready to meet certain criteria. At the same time, I am realistic enough to state that the EU in its current state neither has the will to expand, nor is it capable of it with these structures. We have reached the point where the old model is overloaded, so the idea of increasing centralization of European politics. With the future 34 or 35 members, the European Union needs greater internal flexibility due to the actual economic, political and cultural differences of such a Europe. As it is already stated in the European Constitution, more opportunities are needed for the creation of coalitions that are formed on specific issues, regardless of whether it is a common foreign and security policy, a common monetary or energy policy, not all of them always have to to work at the same pace. It just leads to mutual blocking. In such an EU, the countries of the Western Balkans could be members, just like Ukraine, and in the long run, maybe Turkey too.
The problem now is that, for example, a large number of Serbian citizens think that the EU has no serious intention to expand further, and the EU is, admittedly, conducting accession negotiations, but it is trying to stretch them for a long period of time, instead of leading a clearly strategically defined enlargement policy , which leaves little room for crises within Europe and which limits the possibility of Russia's influence in Central and Eastern Europe. This is not only about geostrategic and economic interests, but about what kind of European model we want, authoritarian or truly democratic. I think that the EU will be in an even bigger crisis if it does not manage to integrate Eastern and Central Europe.
Will Serbia be able to become a member of the EU if it does not recognize the independence of Kosovo?
Ultimately, of course, all EU members must recognize each other. And our goal must be for all the countries that emerged from Yugoslavia to become members of the EU, including Serbia and Kosovo.
Therefore, the position of the Greens is, that Serbia will not be able to apply for EU membership before it recognizes Kosovo?
Yes, at the same time I have to say that this question must not be isolated. I think that the EU must do everything in its power to speed up the rapprochement between Serbia and Kosovo, economically and politically, to bring civil societies closer together, and for this to be a predisposition to reduce tensions around the issue of independence. Only in an atmosphere of cooperation can one day rationally talk about whether Serbia and Kosovo can have joint institutions or not. The rapprochement of the entire EU region and interconnection should be accelerated. Recognition of Kosovo should not be prioritized now, but rapprochement and mutual connection.
So that in the end, Serbia could recognize the independence of Kosovo without major tensions?
It seems to me that it makes no sense to maintain the illusion that Kosovo would like to return under the auspices of Serbian statehood. However, the ties between Serbia and Kosovo should not be ignored, it is in our interest, above all, to establish good relations between the two neighboring countries.
