It has not been a few days since it was announced that the new rapporteur of the European Parliament for Serbia will be Tonino Picula and the entire media and Twitter machine of the ruling party fell on him.
From assessments that the European Union is sending a negative message to Serbia with this appointment, to overtly chauvinist attacks on Picula, the government hastened to discredit the man who will write the European Parliament’s reports on Serbia in the next five years.
Much more than the fact that it is Croatian, according to Serbian media Radar, is problematic for the government that Picula comes from the Parliamentary Group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) in the European Parliament, which retained second place in the June European elections and again formed a “grand coalition” with the European People’s Christian Democratic Party (EPP) and the European Liberals (RE).
A few weeks ago, these groups shared the views of the rapporteurs in the Commission for Foreign Affairs (AFET), and Serbia went to the Social Democrats. For the first time in 10 years, the rapporteur for Serbia is not from the EPP, of which the Serbian Progressive Party is an associate member.
The position of Rapporteur, after several internal negotiations between the Social Democrats, was given to Tonino Picula, a veteran in the European Parliament, an MP since Croatia’s entry into the EU in 2013. In the June elections for the European Parliament, Picula was in last place on the list of the Social Democratic Party of Croatia (SDP), which was his personal choice as the leadership did not appoint him to one of the “transitional”seats.
With this move, Picula put to the test his personal popularity among Croatian citizens and SDP voters, who, in addition to the list, can also vote for specific candidates and thus enable them to win the mandate regardless of their place on the list-Picula won 30 thousand 000 “preferential” votes and secured another mandate for the Brussels – Strasbourg parliament.
Tony Pizzula’s political career took off when he became Minister of foreign affairs in Ivica Racani’s government from the post of SDP International Secretary. He held that position from 2000 to 2003.
Racan’s government took over the Government of Croatia immediately after the death of President Tudjman and the HDZ’s electoral defeat, and among its priorities were European integration and democratization of the country. Then there were the first steps in normalizing relations with Serbia, but, unfortunately, the first and only official visit of Ivica Racan and Tonin Picula to Serbia was to attend the funeral of the late Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic.
Picula, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated on the occasion of Djindjic’s murder that it was “synonymous with everything that Serbia tried to compensate in the shortest possible time” and that “it is in the interest of its immediate neighbors” and the European Union not to stop in its reform agenda the path outlined by Prime Minister Djindjic”.
Although European MEPs, justified or not, are accused of being “second-class” politicians in their own countries, Picula certainly does not belong in that category.
In Croatia’s national politics, Picula is one of the SDP’s most important figures. In April’s parliamentary elections in Croatia, that party together with its partners won 25 percent of the vote and remained the largest opposition party. Picula himself was a two-time SDP presidential candidate, in 2007 and 2016, and held several party positions. He is currently a member of the party leadership.
As a former minister of foreign affairs, he is one of the most influential European MEPs in terms of EU foreign policy and is certainly the most active MEP not only among the Social Democrats.
“When analyzing the topics and discussions in which Picula participated during the previous EP meeting, his focus is clear: enlargement of the European Union, the situation in the Balkans and other regions around the EU, the war in Ukraine and the Middle East, relations with the United States of America and China, etc. In recent years, Picula has carried out a number of tasks in the European Parliament related to enlargement policy with the Western Balkan countries, the most important of which relate to the various forms of financial assistance that the EU provides to the region. which must be approved by the European Parliament,” Radar writes.
Theoretically, the authorities in Serbia should be satisfied with the fact that an MP of this profile has become a rapporteur, because hardly anyone will have more weight in the European Parliament when advocating the necessity of EU enlargement and Serbia’s membership.
However, official Belgrade’s dissatisfaction is well illustrated by Tony Picula’s speech from the European Parliament’s pulpit earlier this year: “every candidate country should be judged on its own merits… building bridges and highways is welcome, but the precondition because this should be respect for fundamental values.”
At the same time, in this speech, Picula did not specifically refer to Serbia, but spoke about the situation in the Western Balkans as a whole.
Picula, along with other social democrats in the European Parliament, was critical of the conditions under which elections were held in December last year and was active in drafting the EP resolution on the subject, which had a significant impact on the local public. He also criticized the pro-Russian elements of Serbia’s foreign policy and its regional policy, which he considers destabilizing for the Western Balkans.
He supported on behalf of his parliamentary group the resolution condemning the Banjska attack and called for the cessation of financial assistance to Serbia if the government’s direct involvement in the event is proven.
What Tonino Picula’s reporting mandate will look like will depend in part on which of these areas he will focus primarily on-the need for EU enlargement, Serbia’s geopolitical orientation or its internal situation. It can be expected that, as an experienced member of the European Parliament, he will avoid involvement in his work of bilateral disputes between Croatia and Serbia, which are not in the description of his position. However, whatever he decides to emphasize, his messages will not be “melodious” to the government in Serbia.
Finally, it should be noted that the European Parliament rapporteur on Serbia is only one of the many posts within the European Union, in charge of Serbia, enlargement policy and European funds, just as the European Parliament itself is only one of the institutions dealing with these European policies.
However, although the formal powers of the EP are not very large as long as Serbia is not close to membership, the political weight of the European Parliament, its reports and resolutions, has been steadily increasing over the past five years, and this trend can be expected to continue.
