"Chances of signing SAA are remote"

That is a very small price to pay if Kosovo is off the bargain in exchange.

I start to belive that Serbia would be better of without EU memebership. Many states have unrealistic hopes for what EU will bring them, they seem to think that after a EU memebership Brussels will pour gold over them and they will never have to work again.
They are in for a crude awakening! Just look at Montenegro, they haven't been able to solve the watersupply problem on the coast in 20 years, they are rather waiting another 10 years for EU do finance it than doing it themselves now.

If Serbia had that kind of thinking they would have to wait forever, better to deal with it without EU influences, just look at the pressure EU is bringing on Croatia just for the croats not allowing Italian fishing in their economic zone

Serbia is in better ecnomical shape today than Romania and Bulgaria, just look at the average workers salarie, its higher in Serbia and the cost of living is lower. Serbia will continue to develope a strong economy without memebership in EU, just like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

It's up to the EU whether they respect Serbia's sovereignity or not that decides Serbia's move towards the EU. Respect that and Tadic will be able to move towards the EU. If they choose to promote anti-Inetrantional law stance then I guess even Tadic will have to re-assess his Euro-Atlantic perspective!

28th January will be an interesting day and I very much doubt Tadic would be so enthusiastic for EU if it ignores Serbia's sovereignity. When will the EU realise Serbia's sovereignity is not a political game !

Excuse me guys, why is EU so important? What do they produce?
The world can live with japanese vehicles, korean home appliances, chinese/russian (not indian) software, russian weapons, and korean electronics.
All the above IMO represent the creme de la creme of each sector.
What difference does EU can make?
They were relevant during 18th century but not any more.

Serbia can and will prosper outside the EU and NATO. They lost Serbia the moment they decided to damage the country hoping that Serbia will rush to their 'union' in a such a weakened position. What a mistake.

@ Miri,

because I live in the UK why should that deprive me of the opportunity to put forth my viewpoint? Is this your idea of free speech i.e. only if it satisfies your perspective!

Please explain why Serbia is not part of the EU but has progressed considerably in the last few years ?

The EU label has advantages but could it not be that these come with the tight restrictions regarding improving institutional standards across various economic, social and political sectors? Could it not be that in doing this process and not joining might offer the same economic development and possibly be more advantageous ? Srboslav hinted that what is required is that the process is done by Serbia but from within rather then external dependence which means that the large multinationals ultimately profit and retain strangle hold!

Moreover, as Kate mentions the EU has an identity crisi that it must face - will it be a US of E or a multiple tiered free trade area - it chooses not answer these very specific questions as it is unable but at some point in the very near future it has to allow its citizens the answer if it is truly democratic or could it be just elitist club of the worst excesses of capitalism that Marx wrote about?

These are all deep rooted discussion that are going on with the EU itself by its citizens it is only fair that Serbian citizens are allowed the debate too just as Michael states and for Pyrros and Bmrusila to question is the EU that important.

Inadvertent Strength - by diverting your attention to joining the EU seeing this as the only goal, Serbia inadvertely strengthens the EU's position and leverage.

However, by stating, driving and focusing on the same goals and objectives of economic and institutional development in themselves Serbia really proves it is worth of equality. Only by focusing on the things that need to be done and actioning them does Serbia or any other state not inadvertantly strengthen the EU position as the master to the pupil or dare I say slaveworkers for risk of an outcry!

EU membership is not the panacea it is all made upto be the panecea is all the hardwork that must be done and continues to be done and as such one can question if EU membership does bring benefits or is it other factors?

Sorry for the long reply and Miri this probably goes way over your head if you don't fully appreciate what I am suggesting and still believe that EU membership is the be all and end all!

Weren't we told only a week or two ago from "European Union insiders" that signing the SAA was a forgone conclusion, now they're saying it's highly unlikely the agreement will be signed. Make up your mind EU, one minute you say one thing, the next it's a whole different story.

Srboslav's comments above are exactly what this site (and Serbia) needs: A debate on the value of EU membership for Serbia.

I agree with Srboslav, Serbia should get its own house in order and not wait or rely on "help" from foreigners. Serbia is busy rebuilding its infrastructure, and foreign private capital is welcome to help bring Serbian roads, railways and airports up to world standards.

EU grants and cheap loans always come with strings attached. They are either provided to improve transport links through Serbia which the EU needs as much as Serbia or they offer grants to minorities and subversive groups to cause further turmoil in Serbia.

As for Serbia's borders with the EU, a system of reciprocity must apply. If the EU interferes with Serbian movements across the EU then Serbia must do likewise to EU citizens. Serbia is in a strategic position and the EU cannot afford for their trucks to be stuck at Serbian border controls. I don't think an Independent (non-EU) Serbia will have any problems accessing the EU markets.

The SAA is not something the EU imposes on any country, but rather represents a recognition of privileged relations with the EU and brings very concrete benefits for the citizens of that country

-I just wonder what is the privilege of being the member of the EU? Yes some funds can be used but that's all. There is no unity in this so called unity of the European countries. The countries of this unity are not treated equally first of all. What kind of unity is that if the weaker must act as the stronger says.

The EU must understand that Serbia won’t agree on the portioning of its own country. If that is the price to pay for this “privilege” then we say thanks but no thanks. The EU arrogance is hard to digest sometimes. I just wonder why they think that they are something special as they are some unity of elite.

Serbia will be doing OK even without joining the EU. The cooperation is OK but unity with them is not ok as long as they have such bad attitude.

Srboslav is right when saying that Serbia must work on its development without relaying on anyone and some people had difficulties to understand even this.

Bruce: "Also comparing yourselves to Iceland, Norway or Switzerland is absurd. Iceland has a tiny 300,000 population which it can easily support well with its flourishing service sector and fisheries. Norway has massive oil reserves, and Switzerland has a banking sector with a reputation that goes back centuries."

And what about all of the countries who are very poor who are now being invited to join the EU/ accepted into the EU often as a bargaining chip for political concessions? It was always wrong to do this and not only lowered the thresholds, but will also cost a lot of money from all EU citizens in subsidising poorer nations.

I don't think that the EU will even hold up that long anyway. I think it will fragment or metamorphose into something entirely new. It was a nice vision, but they don't seem able to organise a piss-up in a brewery - and if they did it would cost a fortune in 'administrative expenses'!!

"…joining the EU…..not doing so……decades of poverty … foreign investment …… Russia does not nearly have as much money available for such investment as other countries…."

Bruce, not all "investors" are welcome. It is not only question of how much money potential investor has but what are his intentions - Does he want to develop mutually beneficial relations and see us as an equal partner, or is he trying to get control of our country for his own interests and keep us week, poor and powerless? Our "relations" with a west seems to give us a lot of reasons to be very cautious. Also, EU is changing. It's not what it used to be any more. There is a lot less money in development fond and new members are subjected to all kinds of restrictions.

On other side, world is a big place. EU and US are not only option. We have to consider alternatives. As you probably know, from the days of ex-YU we have a very positive experience cooperating with huge number of countries through the Non- alignment movement. We could revitalize friendly relations with a lot of them and develop our economy through these connections. There are huge possibilities there. Take for example Venezuela. Maybe we could get cheap oil and provide them with something interesting for them for very competitive prices - pharmaceutical products, education, engineering projects e.c.t.

Also, we should take mach closer look at the new emerging strong economies of Asia, there are certainly a lot of opportunities there. And we will of course always have a special soft spot for Russia, Greece, and Cyprus, our natural alies.

Adriano, have you read what I wrote? I don't understand what you are writing (in response to me)
I was saying that Serbia will do fine without memebership in the EU, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, nothing else. And you are right, Kosovo is secured, to serbia in resolution 1244!

There is in fact a dilemma, but it is not a choice between joining the EU and keeping Kosovo.

Kosovo is no longer on the table -- Serbia already lost Kosvo eight years ago. No amount of impassioned rhetoric or appeals to 1244 will bring it back. To pretend otherwise is to act like the divorced husband, who keeps on believing -against all evidence to the contrary- that his former spouse will soon "come to her senses" and return to him. Meanwhile the ex-wife has already made a new life on her own and has no intention of returning to an abusive marriage, no matter what the ex-husband now promises.

The real choice facing Serbia is between continuing to shelter to our false "heroes" -Ratko Mladic - or handing them over for trial. The latter remains the stated precondition for Serbia joining the EU.

The choice is between fulfilling that condition, or becoming the 'Belarus of the Balkans'.

Serbia could completely eliminate its problem by having all of its unemployed workers going to Timisoara.Can the editors please enlighten me as to how many ethnic Romanians still live in Serbia?

It is up to Serbia to decide whether it wants to join the EU or not, but to kid yourselves that not joining won't have detrimental economic effect is kidding yourselves. Ruling it out will severely limit foreign investment, as being part of the EU will provide the legal assurances and stability which will allow investors to feel confident about their investment. Such a secure framework is unlikely without the EU. Yes, Russia might invest, but without competition they will invest at rock bottom prices (very good for the Russians but not for you), and Russia does not nearly have as much money available for such investment as other countries.
Also comparing yourselves to Iceland, Norway or Switzerland is absurd. Iceland has a tiny 300,000 population which it can easily support well with its flourishing service sector and fisheries. Norway has massive oil reserves, and Switzerland has a banking sector with a reputation that goes back centuries. Serbia has none of these unique points. Also those three countries have a very close relationship with the EU (as the EEA) requiring them to implement most EU rules without being part of the decision making process. They are integrated in such a strong way that they make the SAA look like a drop in the ocean.
Again I stress that joining the EU is up to Serbia, but realise that b not doing so you will be subjecting your citizens (well, those who stay) to decades of poverty and underperformance.

It is time for the Serbs to stop playing the "prima dona".
They have to decide what they want. For the EU it will not be the end of world - far from it - if they don't want to become members.

“…Russia has shown itself quite happy to use its companies (i.e. gazprom cutting off the gas to ukraine) to get countries' politicians to do its bidding. I wouldn't call that an 'equal partnership'…”

I always found western critic of that Russian move really strange. They just asked normal market price and stopped socialist style subsidizing. I would expect West to applaud them as they did exactly what West preach, let the market form the price. What was the problem?

“…Western companies, however, are independent of political interference,….”
It’s actually more other way around, big companies own Government (and everything else, media, most of intellectuals, military…).

Mc Donald can’t prosper without Mc Donald Douglas….

“… and merely wish the best business conditions….”

For them, not for the “natives”. Look for example at Venezuela: it is one of the first and biggest oil producers for over a century. US companies made enormous profits on their oil but majority of Venezuelan population continued to live in extreme poverty.

“…And companies from the asian countries (minus but possibly including China) will invest in exactly the same way as the west and expect exactly the same financial rewards….”

With one important difference – they would not stick their noses in our business, push us around and demand that we do everything as we are told or else…. We would be free to organize our country and our lives as we please.

“…engine of growth is business, and that business only works at its best in an open and free environment, where all are welcome and all can compete with one another.”

West keeps preaching dogma of the free markets to others, (week and poor), but it keeps own markets protected and controlled.

“…The government of Serbia…..incapable of making any difficult economic decisions. ….reforms which will undoubtedly cause short term financial hardship, but long term financial gain…”

You are probably supporter of that US mantra, free market takes care of everything, hate any form of social security, dismantle affordable education system, health care, pensions, everything. It just costs a money, much better give it to a few extremely rich to get even richer.

Aside that it’s immoral, it just doesn’t work. Most of the countries that really have such system are disaster. If you look objectively it’s easy to see that social-democratic system works best, providing highest quality of life for huge majority of it’s citizens.

"I think it will (EU) fragment or metamorphose into something entirely new". Finally someone said and B92 printed what I have been trying to say for months on this site, but B92s PC police would not allow it! Kate you are totally right! The EU will do both, countries will drop out (I have some in mind but won't mention it because it has been edited before), and the EU will morph into something that is very different. Serbia is better off not being involved in this process.

adrian, timisoara, Romania

Vlahs (Vlasi) from Timok region or in Negotin Karjina are still Vlach and are not recognised as Romanians. There are some Vlach that took Romanian citizenship which was offered to them in order to change their national feeling and call themsleves Romanians. The goal of this action (incited in Romania) was to turn Vlach into Romanians in order to gain the status of Romanian national minority in Serbia and increase the actual number of Romanians in Serbia. However, many Vlach refused such an offer and many Vlachs take as an offence being called Romanians. They like to distance themselves from the Romanians. I don't know what is the reason, but apparently even they don't know the reason. I claim this because I live in Negotin Krajina and many Vlach are living overthere. However, every citizen in Serbia has the right to decleare itslef as wish and thus those Vlachs who wished to be registered as Romanians can do that and so they did register. Not that long time ago they built even Romanian church financed by Romanian fund.

Serbia faces a very simple choice really as far as its EU future and Kosova are concerned: it wants both, it is being offered only one and is risking losing both. As far as I am concerned it would be better for both Albania and Kosova if Serbia becomes part of the EU, but I would not shed any tears if it doesn't, because if Serbia places itself in the same shoes as Belarus Albanians can only gain. A weaker Serbia would naturally be to our advantage. So whatever happens it's fine by us. It is you guys, the Serbs who should worry.

"It's up to the EU whether they respect Serbia's sovereignity or not that decides Serbia's move towards the EU."

This is an example of the hypocrisy of some posters that write in this forum.

This guy works and lives in UK enjoying all EU has to offer, judging by his signature, and yet has the guts to express his refusal for people of Serbia, who are not as lucky as him, to join EU. And all this is because he wants to tell his friends in UK/EU how "strong, proud and special" (note quotations) Serbia is among the nations of Europe.

I guess some people never change.

Why bother guys, really! Serbian citizens still support Nikolic, Sesejl, Karadzic, and see NATO, EU, and USA as enemies. Serbian government has sailed ships all over the oceans to find friends and undiscovered islands and who knows what, while being geographically in Europe. Whatever happens with SAA, one thing is for sure, EU will never forget these creazy times comming from Serbia.

Olf, I wasn not trying to provoke anyone.

But the simple fact is that economy is better in Serbia than in Romania and Bulgaria.

Just look at the average workers salary, its higher than in Romania or Bulgaria.
The costs of living is also lower in SErbia, with gas prices, electricity and food are lower. However real estate is more expensive in serbia, specially in the cities.

Just look at all homeless kids "snorting" glue from plastic bags in Bucarest, its a really sad view that I really hope EU membership will help the Romanian government to deal with. Its horrible that an EU country have a situation like that.

I have never EVER seen something like that in Belgrade, not even during the darkest years under Milosevic. And its still common in Bucarest.

I think that once the Elections are over than another date would be set for Serbia to sign the SAA, of course without Kosova in it no matter what Serbian politicians say during the electoral campaign. Kosova will sing it's agreement separatetly

Srboslav,Switzerland, Norway and Iceland all support independence. So you are saying the independence its not only an EU thing? You will not keep the old toy you are making all these noise about. Kosovo is secured, papeworks come and go, politicians come and go, But once more Kosovo is secured.

Guys, you can join the EU, but you don`t have to. But forget about Serbia being so "important" to the EU. It´s just another small and poor EE country with huge problems.

To Princip's long comment.

"because I live in the UK why should that deprive me of the opportunity to put forth my viewpoint? Is this your idea of free speech i.e. only if it satisfies your perspective!"

No one is depriving you from freedom of speech. All I am saying is that your speech is hypocritical.

"Please explain why Serbia is not part of the EU but has progressed considerably in the last few years ? "

I don't have to explain you anything but the short answer is, leave EU and go to Serbia and there is where you should fight for your "independent" and "prosperous" Serbia.

@ Bruce,

"Western companies, however, are independent of political interference, and merely wish the best business conditions"

yeah right thats why Dick Cheney has no influence in his old firm Halliburton (Kellogs Brown & Root) wining major contracts. From whom do you think Hilary Rodham Clinton raised $100 million from - individual donations ?

Closer to the UK ;
"Mr Blair confirmed yesterday that he had taken a job with JP Morgan Chase, the financial services and investment banking group. The bank said that he would provide political and strategic advice."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article3168488.ece

Funny that you are so blind to not notice reality that politics in the west is dominanted by the big firms and vice versa - I am pretty sure this model is not the best for economic development of all people in a state - on the contrary it is a receipe for severe inequality. Moreover it is a clear distortion of the true working of the perfect market in which you state "that business only works at its best in an open and free environment, where all are wellcome and all can compete with one another."

- it's clear you have little understanding of economics since you clearly have little comprehension of the basic tenents of the Chicago School ethos and the opposite that is occuring in reality. I am certain Luciano could offer some hinters for elementary courses and put you right!

Luciano,
as you are aware I am not an editor but I am pleased to answer your question; Romanians number 34,576 predominantly in the Vojvodina region according to the 2002 census [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Serbia ]. I guess I know where your going with the question and yes they could take advantage of dual nationality and the work shortages if the salaries were worth it. But I doubt they are that advantageous - in fact it would be better for the individual to obtain dual Status (i.e a Romanian passport) and work in some of the other EU states. Moreover, it would not reduce unemployment vastly and in many respects is a short term solution since it does not resolve the issue of job creation merely exacerbates the loss of skills to other states. Shalom.

Luciano: You have about 30000 in Vojvodina and 40000 mostly in Timok Valley (the ones you used to call "vlasi", finallly last year they were recognized as romanians - NO COMMENT). But that`s not my point! We need working force, we prefer them from Vojvodina because they are culturally very close to us, but we don`t care about their nationality! The main problems here are romanian buerocracy and the fact that Serbia isn`t an EU member. So you have in Vojvodina an unemployment rate of 20% and 80 km up you will not be able to employ even a n old peasant!

Personally I have no idea how they could accept Romania and Bulgaria into the EU, they are really too poor! Even the CEE countries that joined in 2004 (apart from Slovenia, Estonia and arguably Czech Republic) went in too soon, I think.

Srboslav

are you serious when you say that Srbia is in a better shape than Bulgaria and Rumania or you just provoke comments. As far as I know living standard in Bulgari ais better than in Serbia like it or not.

When the time comes Serbia will sign. With or without Kosovo Serbia will sign. They worked so hard to reach this stage, good or bad, witch ever way you view this they will sign & move tward entry to the EU. As one sided the EU is, Serbia still wants in.

Adrian,

I fully agree with you.
By the way a week ago I read an interesting article about booming Timisoara. The unemployment rate is as low as 2.5% because a lot of Rumanians are working in Italy and Spain. The mayor tries to find workers on the Serbian side.

It keeps being mentioned that Serbia needs to make the necessary reforms on its own. That is very true. But the EU membership path provides a blueprint and a framework for those reforms. Serbia, has been incredibly sluggish in its reforms if it wishes to grow its economy and prosperity. It needs to open its markets, improve its infrustructure, and most definitely improve its governence. The government of Serbia seems incapable of making any difficult economic decisions. For the past few years it has been navel gazing continually rather than pressing on with the reforms which will undoubtedly cause short term financial hardship, but long term financial gain.
Stevan, you say not all investors are welcome. Your way of defining who is welcome seems a little bizarre. You would rather have Russian state investors who are liked to the Kremlin, than independent western companies. Russia has shown itself quite happy to use its companies (i.e. gazprom cutting off the gas to ukraine) to get countries' politicians to do its bidding. I wouldn't call that an 'equal partnership'. Western companies, however, are independent of political interference, and merely wish the best business conditions. And companies from the asian countries (minus but possibly including China) will invest in exactly the same way as the west and expect exactly the same financial rewards. However, one needs to remember that the engine of growth is business, and that business only works at its best in an open and free environment, where all are wellcome and all can compete with one another.

Stevan

Yes. Russia did want to increase prices close to market rates, but the question is why then - because it wanted to peddle political influence in the country now it wasn't a Russian puppet state. Note the price belarus pays is lower as it is supported by the kremlin.

Yes, western economies are mostly owned by companies big and small. I am concerned you would like it to be otherwise. State owned media (look at your own RTS during milosevic, venezuelan and russian state media) are generally strongly biased towards the government (the BBC would be one of the few exceptions). Privately held media generally reflect a range of different opinions, allowing consumer choice unlike that which is present in Russia, Venezuela, China etc. Other state owned companies are generally very inefficient, as they have no impetus to improve given tht they will always be bailed out by government who will not let them fail (due to the blame they would get for the job losses). Britain in the 1970's was one of the worst performing countries in western Europe. Having opened our economy, freed our labour market and privatised our business it is now one of the best.

And please don't assume my political opinions. I believe in the free market. It is the best system to yet be devised. Those countries with more state interference do less well. Look at the performance of France and Italy. I do howver believe in some social protection. Free health care and education. However, one of the most social democrat of countries, Sweden, uses private companies in its education system (which are paid by the state), as the private ethos improves efficiency, and its need to adapt to consumer demands pushes up results. Social democracy to flourish must engage and use the benefits of business.

On the topic of Venezuela, no one is wasting their oil revenues more than Chavez. He keeps splurging it on other countries (Argentina, his UNSC escapade, even London) rather than using the money for the good of his own people. He has also created as much of a cabal of wealthy cronies as any previous administration. What would benefit venezuela would be to use experienced oil firms who can use the most efficient extraction techniques and will have the most cost efficient administration (as his state oil company is a black hole for cash). He could then tax the profit and use that to invest in his own country. But he's probably too busy giving his family government jobs, to have considered it.

Princip - Yes Mr Blair took a job with a company. What else was he supposed to do, retire. He is not in politics anymore, and is not an elected official so is free to do as he pleases. He is however banned from lobbying for another 6 months. I think comparing Blair having a banking job after his term in office is rather different to the Kremlin actively using Gazprom for political ends. Blair will not be running JP Morgan and using it to bully other countries to do what he wants them to do, politically, while he is himself in office. He will just be an advisor.

Bruce,

“…Venezuela, no one is wasting their oil revenues more than Chavez…”

Venezuela is one of the oldest and biggest oil exporters in the world. Huge fortunes were earned on its oil by American companies and small number of extremely rich Venezuelans who worked for American interests. Despite of this enormous wealth 80 percent of the population lived in poverty and malnutrition was widely spread. Chavez government took hole serious of measures to help the poor. Education is now completely free up to university level, there are free dental and health care clinics, subsidized food, literacy programs, special banks to finance small farmers and small enterprises, public works for unemployed e.c.t, e.c.t. If you think that this is a wasting of money, I do not agree.

“… He keeps splurging it on other countries…rather than using the money for the good of his own people….”

Chavez thinks, (and I tend to agree with him on that point), that main problem for all of South America, not only Venezuela, is US domination of the region. The only way forward is to free themselves from it. All previous attempts at independence have been crushed, partly because lack of regional cooperation. US could easily handle perceived treats one by one. But this time, together with number of other countries, Venezuela is busy organizing South American trading bloc, Mercosur, basis for the future South American unity. They already started number of joint projects, (mainly financed by Venezuela), in the field of energy transport, helping freeing few countries from strangulating hug of IMF, assistance in the health care and education, and, (this is my favorite), pan – Latin American TV channel Telesur which will brake US monopoly on information. I think this politics is very wise and if it succeed it will benefit population enormously.

“…Blair….He is not in politics anymore,…”
Nice, does it mean that he lost immunity from the prosecution? Maybe it is now the time to brig him to the justice for his part of responsibility for unnecessary deaths of the innocents in the wars he initiated?

“…comparing Blair having a banking job….different to the Kremlin actively using Gazprom for political ends. Blair will not be running JP Morgan and using it to bully other countries to do what he wants them to do….”

No, this is to soft method for his liking. He prefer more convincing methods.

Also I find this love of Russia teamed with economic equality, and a hatred of big business and rich individuals rathe bizarre.

Moscow is home to more billionaires than any other city, yet many of Russia's citizens eek out a peasant existece on the land. It's wealth and companies is mainly tied up in the hands of these few oligarchs (e.g Abramovich). Surely that is not the equal and fair society you all keep aspiring to.

Bruce,

“…Russia did want to increase prices close to market rates, but the question is why….” (Russia – Ukraine)

Why they did it is irrelevant. It is in complete harmony with a Western ideal of the free market so I don’t understand how can West criticize it.

“…because it wanted to peddle political influence in the country now it wasn't a Russian puppet state. Note the price belarus pays is lower as it is supported by the kremlin….”

Well….. What do you think of western, (“International Community”), ways of dealing with countries / governments not to their liking then? Anything goes, from economic embargos, espionage, propaganda campaigns, financing opposition, assassinations, organizing of violent overthrows, all the way to bombings and fully fledged wars, depleted uranium and a lot. Compared to that, Russia’s recent behavior is very civilized; they just stopped subsidies, that’s all.

“…Also I find this love of Russia teamed with economic equality, and a hatred of big business and rich individuals rathe bizarre. Moscow is home to more billionaires than any other city, yet many of Russia's citizen’s eek out a peasant existence on the land. It's wealth and companies is mainly tied up in the hands of these few oligarchs (e.g Abramovich). Surely that is not the equal and fair society you all keep aspiring to…”

This unfortunate development of concentration of all the wealth to just a few oligarch is partly result of western “help” to reform Russian economy during the nineties. (This made transfer of the Russian public wealth to western banks much easier, same as planed over taking of Russian natural resources. I expect that situation will improve over time, wealth more spread through the population, there are moves in that direction.
As for love of Russia, well, as you probably know, we share with Russians our common Slavic culture and our religion. We understand each other quite well. We’ll always have a soft spot for them.

“…. western economies are mostly owned by companies big and small. I am concerned you would like it to be otherwise….”

I was talking about companies owning politics, not economy. It’s very dangerous when few big companies own government and create domestic and foreign politics.

But when you are at it, I don’t think that it is good when complete economy is in private ownership eider. It works OK for most sectors but not for all. I rather see that sectors of vital importance for the nation such as social welfare, education system, rail and energy, (remember California?), and similar is publicly owned. Private interest is often opposite of public interest.

“…. State owned media…are generally strongly biased towards the government (the BBC would be one of the few exceptions). Privately held media generally reflect a range of different opinions, allowing consumer choice ….”

Western politics and media brought art of propaganda to the perfection. It’s much more effective then old style authoritarian one, because it’s not so obvious. Target audience actually believe it. Take for an example US media campaign for the war against Iraq - average American who gets his world view from FOX and CNN saw such an range of objective and different opinions that majority still thinks that Iraq was responsible for Nine Eleven! BBC – wasn’t director and number of journalists forced to resign because they were too critical of Government responsibility for Iraq war? Do you find western media reporting of Balkan wars objective? If you do, you should read this book: http://www.gmbooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=gmb&Product_Code=815MC&Category_Code=800

“…state owned companies…inefficient,…Having opened our economy, freed our labour market and privatised our business it is now one of the best….” (Great Britain)

But is the quality of living of average Brit one of the best?

“…I believe in the free market. It is the best system to yet be devised. Those countries with more state interference do less well….”

The only countries with a real free market are few unfortunate victims of IMF which are forced to do it and it is an absolute disaster. All developed industrial nations just pay lip service to the idea but continue to protect and control their markets to a certain degree, as it suites them.

“…Social democracy to flourish must engage and use the benefits of business…”

Yes, and if democracy is to survive, public sector has to stay strong and keep private and public interests in balance. Otherwise, democracy disappears and you get oligarchy as in US – “choice” between two almost identical parties (who both protects interests of the rich). Impossible to even theoretically have a chance to win elections without tens of millions dollars of “donations” (legalized bribery), from big corporations.

Stevan, Just a few Russian acts you may have missed:

economic embargos:
Embargo on Georgian goods which is destroying the Georgian wine industry because their prefered government was removed. Also the rounding up and removal of many Georgians as illegal immigrants (but the policy was taregtted solely at Georgians)

espionage:
Cyber terrorism directed against estonia because of its movement of a statue.

propaganda campaigns:
Pro-kremlin parties were the only ones to receive any significant media coverage in the recent elections. The use of the youth wing "nashi" to intimidate opposition activists with violence.

financing opposition:
Financing and supporting Yanukovich in Ukrainian elections

assassinations:
Murder of Litvinyenko in London using Polonium, Murder of Anna Politskaya due to her reporting of the Chechen war.

bombings and fully fledged wars:
Levelling of Chechnya and use of rape and torture as a method of warfare.

I'm sure there's more I missed.

The difference between Western and Russian media is in the West I have a choice. I can read a newspaper with views from Russia loving communist (Morning Star) to arch-capitalist (FT). In Russia i can only get a pro-Kremlin view. The opposition get almost no reporting reporting. Also our TV is regulated to maintain a balanced view, and during all elections all parties must get equal coverage. Also we have maximum party election spending levels, and forced declaration of donors (which when it is breached there is a giant media scandal), to try and keep politics more distanced from donors.

And thank you for the book recommendation. The forward is by a correspondent from the New York Times, a paper reporting for a 'biased' western news organisation. I'm amazed you can stomach reading it. The difference is that in Russia, you wouldn't be able to get a book that criticised the kremlin.

“….thank you for the book recommendation. The forward is by a correspondent from the New York Times, a paper reporting for a 'biased' western news organisation. I'm amazed you can stomach reading it….”

You have, (probably unknowingly), chosen perfect example to illustrate my point. That former NYT correspondent, David Binder was for many years reporter specialized for Yugoslavia and Balkans. He troughly new this part of the world, language and everything and wrote balanced and researched articles. When the Balkan wars started in the nineties, he refused to follow the official party line, (Serbs bad, everyone else good), so was promptly removed from NYT in 1993. He couldn’t find new assignment anywhere in main stream media as they all had to follow the official Government propaganda. He could only publish in alternative media, small pay, small influence. He is not the only one, there are more. That’s how system works, journalist who don’t do as they are told are not murdered or imprisoned, they are marginalized, careers destroyed. The ones who are loyal “party members” are generously rewarded.

Two articles of David Binder:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2743
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862622/posts...

“…assassinations:
Murder of Litvinyenko in London using Polonium, Murder of Anna Politskaya due to her reporting of the Chechen war…”

I find this accusations extremely unbelievable. If V. Putin really wanted to kill these people wouldn’t you think that with all of his KGB experience and all capabilities of Russian secret services on his disposal he couldn’t find a more discreet way? They simply disappear or get an “accident” or something? Both of them were dealing with a lot of dangerous people, from Chechen terrorists, CIA, M15 agents, exiled Russian “businessman”... All of these could have various reasons to kill them.

As for Russian politics against Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia… What you think, how would “Land of the free” react if Mexico suddenly joins SCO and let China and Russia build air force bases on its soil?

“….Levelling of Chechnya and use of rape and torture as a method of warfare….”

Don’t you think that levelers of Iraq, creators of Guntanamo, Abu Gharib and secret prisons all around the world, proponents of torture, might have a slight credibility problem lecturing the Russians?

I think that once the Elections are over than another date would be set for Serbia to sign the SAA, of course without Kosova in it no matter what Serbian politicians say during the electoral campaign. Kosova will sing it's agreement separatetly

It keeps being mentioned that Serbia needs to make the necessary reforms on its own. That is very true. But the EU membership path provides a blueprint and a framework for those reforms. Serbia, has been incredibly sluggish in its reforms if it wishes to grow its economy and prosperity. It needs to open its markets, improve its infrustructure, and most definitely improve its governence. The government of Serbia seems incapable of making any difficult economic decisions. For the past few years it has been navel gazing continually rather than pressing on with the reforms which will undoubtedly cause short term financial hardship, but long term financial gain.
Stevan, you say not all investors are welcome. Your way of defining who is welcome seems a little bizarre. You would rather have Russian state investors who are liked to the Kremlin, than independent western companies. Russia has shown itself quite happy to use its companies (i.e. gazprom cutting off the gas to ukraine) to get countries' politicians to do its bidding. I wouldn't call that an 'equal partnership'. Western companies, however, are independent of political interference, and merely wish the best business conditions. And companies from the asian countries (minus but possibly including China) will invest in exactly the same way as the west and expect exactly the same financial rewards. However, one needs to remember that the engine of growth is business, and that business only works at its best in an open and free environment, where all are wellcome and all can compete with one another.

Serbia faces a very simple choice really as far as its EU future and Kosova are concerned: it wants both, it is being offered only one and is risking losing both. As far as I am concerned it would be better for both Albania and Kosova if Serbia becomes part of the EU, but I would not shed any tears if it doesn't, because if Serbia places itself in the same shoes as Belarus Albanians can only gain. A weaker Serbia would naturally be to our advantage. So whatever happens it's fine by us. It is you guys, the Serbs who should worry.

Srboslav

are you serious when you say that Srbia is in a better shape than Bulgaria and Rumania or you just provoke comments. As far as I know living standard in Bulgari ais better than in Serbia like it or not.

It is time for the Serbs to stop playing the "prima dona".
They have to decide what they want. For the EU it will not be the end of world - far from it - if they don't want to become members.

There is in fact a dilemma, but it is not a choice between joining the EU and keeping Kosovo.

Kosovo is no longer on the table -- Serbia already lost Kosvo eight years ago. No amount of impassioned rhetoric or appeals to 1244 will bring it back. To pretend otherwise is to act like the divorced husband, who keeps on believing -against all evidence to the contrary- that his former spouse will soon "come to her senses" and return to him. Meanwhile the ex-wife has already made a new life on her own and has no intention of returning to an abusive marriage, no matter what the ex-husband now promises.

The real choice facing Serbia is between continuing to shelter to our false "heroes" -Ratko Mladic - or handing them over for trial. The latter remains the stated precondition for Serbia joining the EU.

The choice is between fulfilling that condition, or becoming the 'Belarus of the Balkans'.

Why bother guys, really! Serbian citizens still support Nikolic, Sesejl, Karadzic, and see NATO, EU, and USA as enemies. Serbian government has sailed ships all over the oceans to find friends and undiscovered islands and who knows what, while being geographically in Europe. Whatever happens with SAA, one thing is for sure, EU will never forget these creazy times comming from Serbia.

Srboslav,Switzerland, Norway and Iceland all support independence. So you are saying the independence its not only an EU thing? You will not keep the old toy you are making all these noise about. Kosovo is secured, papeworks come and go, politicians come and go, But once more Kosovo is secured.

"It's up to the EU whether they respect Serbia's sovereignity or not that decides Serbia's move towards the EU."

This is an example of the hypocrisy of some posters that write in this forum.

This guy works and lives in UK enjoying all EU has to offer, judging by his signature, and yet has the guts to express his refusal for people of Serbia, who are not as lucky as him, to join EU. And all this is because he wants to tell his friends in UK/EU how "strong, proud and special" (note quotations) Serbia is among the nations of Europe.

I guess some people never change.

To Princip's long comment.

"because I live in the UK why should that deprive me of the opportunity to put forth my viewpoint? Is this your idea of free speech i.e. only if it satisfies your perspective!"

No one is depriving you from freedom of speech. All I am saying is that your speech is hypocritical.

"Please explain why Serbia is not part of the EU but has progressed considerably in the last few years ? "

I don't have to explain you anything but the short answer is, leave EU and go to Serbia and there is where you should fight for your "independent" and "prosperous" Serbia.

Adrian,

I fully agree with you.
By the way a week ago I read an interesting article about booming Timisoara. The unemployment rate is as low as 2.5% because a lot of Rumanians are working in Italy and Spain. The mayor tries to find workers on the Serbian side.

Srboslav's comments above are exactly what this site (and Serbia) needs: A debate on the value of EU membership for Serbia.

I agree with Srboslav, Serbia should get its own house in order and not wait or rely on "help" from foreigners. Serbia is busy rebuilding its infrastructure, and foreign private capital is welcome to help bring Serbian roads, railways and airports up to world standards.

EU grants and cheap loans always come with strings attached. They are either provided to improve transport links through Serbia which the EU needs as much as Serbia or they offer grants to minorities and subversive groups to cause further turmoil in Serbia.

As for Serbia's borders with the EU, a system of reciprocity must apply. If the EU interferes with Serbian movements across the EU then Serbia must do likewise to EU citizens. Serbia is in a strategic position and the EU cannot afford for their trucks to be stuck at Serbian border controls. I don't think an Independent (non-EU) Serbia will have any problems accessing the EU markets.

Guys, you can join the EU, but you don`t have to. But forget about Serbia being so "important" to the EU. It´s just another small and poor EE country with huge problems.

The SAA is not something the EU imposes on any country, but rather represents a recognition of privileged relations with the EU and brings very concrete benefits for the citizens of that country

-I just wonder what is the privilege of being the member of the EU? Yes some funds can be used but that's all. There is no unity in this so called unity of the European countries. The countries of this unity are not treated equally first of all. What kind of unity is that if the weaker must act as the stronger says.

The EU must understand that Serbia won’t agree on the portioning of its own country. If that is the price to pay for this “privilege” then we say thanks but no thanks. The EU arrogance is hard to digest sometimes. I just wonder why they think that they are something special as they are some unity of elite.

Serbia will be doing OK even without joining the EU. The cooperation is OK but unity with them is not ok as long as they have such bad attitude.

Srboslav is right when saying that Serbia must work on its development without relaying on anyone and some people had difficulties to understand even this.

When the time comes Serbia will sign. With or without Kosovo Serbia will sign. They worked so hard to reach this stage, good or bad, witch ever way you view this they will sign & move tward entry to the EU. As one sided the EU is, Serbia still wants in.

It's up to the EU whether they respect Serbia's sovereignity or not that decides Serbia's move towards the EU. Respect that and Tadic will be able to move towards the EU. If they choose to promote anti-Inetrantional law stance then I guess even Tadic will have to re-assess his Euro-Atlantic perspective!

28th January will be an interesting day and I very much doubt Tadic would be so enthusiastic for EU if it ignores Serbia's sovereignity. When will the EU realise Serbia's sovereignity is not a political game !

Weren't we told only a week or two ago from "European Union insiders" that signing the SAA was a forgone conclusion, now they're saying it's highly unlikely the agreement will be signed. Make up your mind EU, one minute you say one thing, the next it's a whole different story.

That is a very small price to pay if Kosovo is off the bargain in exchange.

I start to belive that Serbia would be better of without EU memebership. Many states have unrealistic hopes for what EU will bring them, they seem to think that after a EU memebership Brussels will pour gold over them and they will never have to work again.
They are in for a crude awakening! Just look at Montenegro, they haven't been able to solve the watersupply problem on the coast in 20 years, they are rather waiting another 10 years for EU do finance it than doing it themselves now.

If Serbia had that kind of thinking they would have to wait forever, better to deal with it without EU influences, just look at the pressure EU is bringing on Croatia just for the croats not allowing Italian fishing in their economic zone

Serbia is in better ecnomical shape today than Romania and Bulgaria, just look at the average workers salarie, its higher in Serbia and the cost of living is lower. Serbia will continue to develope a strong economy without memebership in EU, just like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

It is up to Serbia to decide whether it wants to join the EU or not, but to kid yourselves that not joining won't have detrimental economic effect is kidding yourselves. Ruling it out will severely limit foreign investment, as being part of the EU will provide the legal assurances and stability which will allow investors to feel confident about their investment. Such a secure framework is unlikely without the EU. Yes, Russia might invest, but without competition they will invest at rock bottom prices (very good for the Russians but not for you), and Russia does not nearly have as much money available for such investment as other countries.
Also comparing yourselves to Iceland, Norway or Switzerland is absurd. Iceland has a tiny 300,000 population which it can easily support well with its flourishing service sector and fisheries. Norway has massive oil reserves, and Switzerland has a banking sector with a reputation that goes back centuries. Serbia has none of these unique points. Also those three countries have a very close relationship with the EU (as the EEA) requiring them to implement most EU rules without being part of the decision making process. They are integrated in such a strong way that they make the SAA look like a drop in the ocean.
Again I stress that joining the EU is up to Serbia, but realise that b not doing so you will be subjecting your citizens (well, those who stay) to decades of poverty and underperformance.

Adriano, have you read what I wrote? I don't understand what you are writing (in response to me)
I was saying that Serbia will do fine without memebership in the EU, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, nothing else. And you are right, Kosovo is secured, to serbia in resolution 1244!

Bruce: "Also comparing yourselves to Iceland, Norway or Switzerland is absurd. Iceland has a tiny 300,000 population which it can easily support well with its flourishing service sector and fisheries. Norway has massive oil reserves, and Switzerland has a banking sector with a reputation that goes back centuries."

And what about all of the countries who are very poor who are now being invited to join the EU/ accepted into the EU often as a bargaining chip for political concessions? It was always wrong to do this and not only lowered the thresholds, but will also cost a lot of money from all EU citizens in subsidising poorer nations.

I don't think that the EU will even hold up that long anyway. I think it will fragment or metamorphose into something entirely new. It was a nice vision, but they don't seem able to organise a piss-up in a brewery - and if they did it would cost a fortune in 'administrative expenses'!!

Excuse me guys, why is EU so important? What do they produce?
The world can live with japanese vehicles, korean home appliances, chinese/russian (not indian) software, russian weapons, and korean electronics.
All the above IMO represent the creme de la creme of each sector.
What difference does EU can make?
They were relevant during 18th century but not any more.

Serbia can and will prosper outside the EU and NATO. They lost Serbia the moment they decided to damage the country hoping that Serbia will rush to their 'union' in a such a weakened position. What a mistake.

@ Miri,

because I live in the UK why should that deprive me of the opportunity to put forth my viewpoint? Is this your idea of free speech i.e. only if it satisfies your perspective!

Please explain why Serbia is not part of the EU but has progressed considerably in the last few years ?

The EU label has advantages but could it not be that these come with the tight restrictions regarding improving institutional standards across various economic, social and political sectors? Could it not be that in doing this process and not joining might offer the same economic development and possibly be more advantageous ? Srboslav hinted that what is required is that the process is done by Serbia but from within rather then external dependence which means that the large multinationals ultimately profit and retain strangle hold!

Moreover, as Kate mentions the EU has an identity crisi that it must face - will it be a US of E or a multiple tiered free trade area - it chooses not answer these very specific questions as it is unable but at some point in the very near future it has to allow its citizens the answer if it is truly democratic or could it be just elitist club of the worst excesses of capitalism that Marx wrote about?

These are all deep rooted discussion that are going on with the EU itself by its citizens it is only fair that Serbian citizens are allowed the debate too just as Michael states and for Pyrros and Bmrusila to question is the EU that important.

Inadvertent Strength - by diverting your attention to joining the EU seeing this as the only goal, Serbia inadvertely strengthens the EU's position and leverage.

However, by stating, driving and focusing on the same goals and objectives of economic and institutional development in themselves Serbia really proves it is worth of equality. Only by focusing on the things that need to be done and actioning them does Serbia or any other state not inadvertantly strengthen the EU position as the master to the pupil or dare I say slaveworkers for risk of an outcry!

EU membership is not the panacea it is all made upto be the panecea is all the hardwork that must be done and continues to be done and as such one can question if EU membership does bring benefits or is it other factors?

Sorry for the long reply and Miri this probably goes way over your head if you don't fully appreciate what I am suggesting and still believe that EU membership is the be all and end all!

"…joining the EU…..not doing so……decades of poverty … foreign investment …… Russia does not nearly have as much money available for such investment as other countries…."

Bruce, not all "investors" are welcome. It is not only question of how much money potential investor has but what are his intentions - Does he want to develop mutually beneficial relations and see us as an equal partner, or is he trying to get control of our country for his own interests and keep us week, poor and powerless? Our "relations" with a west seems to give us a lot of reasons to be very cautious. Also, EU is changing. It's not what it used to be any more. There is a lot less money in development fond and new members are subjected to all kinds of restrictions.

On other side, world is a big place. EU and US are not only option. We have to consider alternatives. As you probably know, from the days of ex-YU we have a very positive experience cooperating with huge number of countries through the Non- alignment movement. We could revitalize friendly relations with a lot of them and develop our economy through these connections. There are huge possibilities there. Take for example Venezuela. Maybe we could get cheap oil and provide them with something interesting for them for very competitive prices - pharmaceutical products, education, engineering projects e.c.t.

Also, we should take mach closer look at the new emerging strong economies of Asia, there are certainly a lot of opportunities there. And we will of course always have a special soft spot for Russia, Greece, and Cyprus, our natural alies.

Luciano: You have about 30000 in Vojvodina and 40000 mostly in Timok Valley (the ones you used to call "vlasi", finallly last year they were recognized as romanians - NO COMMENT). But that`s not my point! We need working force, we prefer them from Vojvodina because they are culturally very close to us, but we don`t care about their nationality! The main problems here are romanian buerocracy and the fact that Serbia isn`t an EU member. So you have in Vojvodina an unemployment rate of 20% and 80 km up you will not be able to employ even a n old peasant!

Also I find this love of Russia teamed with economic equality, and a hatred of big business and rich individuals rathe bizarre.

Moscow is home to more billionaires than any other city, yet many of Russia's citizens eek out a peasant existece on the land. It's wealth and companies is mainly tied up in the hands of these few oligarchs (e.g Abramovich). Surely that is not the equal and fair society you all keep aspiring to.

Stevan, Just a few Russian acts you may have missed:

economic embargos:
Embargo on Georgian goods which is destroying the Georgian wine industry because their prefered government was removed. Also the rounding up and removal of many Georgians as illegal immigrants (but the policy was taregtted solely at Georgians)

espionage:
Cyber terrorism directed against estonia because of its movement of a statue.

propaganda campaigns:
Pro-kremlin parties were the only ones to receive any significant media coverage in the recent elections. The use of the youth wing "nashi" to intimidate opposition activists with violence.

financing opposition:
Financing and supporting Yanukovich in Ukrainian elections

assassinations:
Murder of Litvinyenko in London using Polonium, Murder of Anna Politskaya due to her reporting of the Chechen war.

bombings and fully fledged wars:
Levelling of Chechnya and use of rape and torture as a method of warfare.

I'm sure there's more I missed.

The difference between Western and Russian media is in the West I have a choice. I can read a newspaper with views from Russia loving communist (Morning Star) to arch-capitalist (FT). In Russia i can only get a pro-Kremlin view. The opposition get almost no reporting reporting. Also our TV is regulated to maintain a balanced view, and during all elections all parties must get equal coverage. Also we have maximum party election spending levels, and forced declaration of donors (which when it is breached there is a giant media scandal), to try and keep politics more distanced from donors.

And thank you for the book recommendation. The forward is by a correspondent from the New York Times, a paper reporting for a 'biased' western news organisation. I'm amazed you can stomach reading it. The difference is that in Russia, you wouldn't be able to get a book that criticised the kremlin.

"I think it will (EU) fragment or metamorphose into something entirely new". Finally someone said and B92 printed what I have been trying to say for months on this site, but B92s PC police would not allow it! Kate you are totally right! The EU will do both, countries will drop out (I have some in mind but won't mention it because it has been edited before), and the EU will morph into something that is very different. Serbia is better off not being involved in this process.

Serbia could completely eliminate its problem by having all of its unemployed workers going to Timisoara.Can the editors please enlighten me as to how many ethnic Romanians still live in Serbia?

@ Bruce,

"Western companies, however, are independent of political interference, and merely wish the best business conditions"

yeah right thats why Dick Cheney has no influence in his old firm Halliburton (Kellogs Brown & Root) wining major contracts. From whom do you think Hilary Rodham Clinton raised $100 million from - individual donations ?

Closer to the UK ;
"Mr Blair confirmed yesterday that he had taken a job with JP Morgan Chase, the financial services and investment banking group. The bank said that he would provide political and strategic advice."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article3168488.ece

Funny that you are so blind to not notice reality that politics in the west is dominanted by the big firms and vice versa - I am pretty sure this model is not the best for economic development of all people in a state - on the contrary it is a receipe for severe inequality. Moreover it is a clear distortion of the true working of the perfect market in which you state "that business only works at its best in an open and free environment, where all are wellcome and all can compete with one another."

- it's clear you have little understanding of economics since you clearly have little comprehension of the basic tenents of the Chicago School ethos and the opposite that is occuring in reality. I am certain Luciano could offer some hinters for elementary courses and put you right!

Luciano,
as you are aware I am not an editor but I am pleased to answer your question; Romanians number 34,576 predominantly in the Vojvodina region according to the 2002 census [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Serbia ]. I guess I know where your going with the question and yes they could take advantage of dual nationality and the work shortages if the salaries were worth it. But I doubt they are that advantageous - in fact it would be better for the individual to obtain dual Status (i.e a Romanian passport) and work in some of the other EU states. Moreover, it would not reduce unemployment vastly and in many respects is a short term solution since it does not resolve the issue of job creation merely exacerbates the loss of skills to other states. Shalom.

“…Russia has shown itself quite happy to use its companies (i.e. gazprom cutting off the gas to ukraine) to get countries' politicians to do its bidding. I wouldn't call that an 'equal partnership'…”

I always found western critic of that Russian move really strange. They just asked normal market price and stopped socialist style subsidizing. I would expect West to applaud them as they did exactly what West preach, let the market form the price. What was the problem?

“…Western companies, however, are independent of political interference,….”
It’s actually more other way around, big companies own Government (and everything else, media, most of intellectuals, military…).

Mc Donald can’t prosper without Mc Donald Douglas….

“… and merely wish the best business conditions….”

For them, not for the “natives”. Look for example at Venezuela: it is one of the first and biggest oil producers for over a century. US companies made enormous profits on their oil but majority of Venezuelan population continued to live in extreme poverty.

“…And companies from the asian countries (minus but possibly including China) will invest in exactly the same way as the west and expect exactly the same financial rewards….”

With one important difference – they would not stick their noses in our business, push us around and demand that we do everything as we are told or else…. We would be free to organize our country and our lives as we please.

“…engine of growth is business, and that business only works at its best in an open and free environment, where all are welcome and all can compete with one another.”

West keeps preaching dogma of the free markets to others, (week and poor), but it keeps own markets protected and controlled.

“…The government of Serbia…..incapable of making any difficult economic decisions. ….reforms which will undoubtedly cause short term financial hardship, but long term financial gain…”

You are probably supporter of that US mantra, free market takes care of everything, hate any form of social security, dismantle affordable education system, health care, pensions, everything. It just costs a money, much better give it to a few extremely rich to get even richer.

Aside that it’s immoral, it just doesn’t work. Most of the countries that really have such system are disaster. If you look objectively it’s easy to see that social-democratic system works best, providing highest quality of life for huge majority of it’s citizens.

Olf, I wasn not trying to provoke anyone.

But the simple fact is that economy is better in Serbia than in Romania and Bulgaria.

Just look at the average workers salary, its higher than in Romania or Bulgaria.
The costs of living is also lower in SErbia, with gas prices, electricity and food are lower. However real estate is more expensive in serbia, specially in the cities.

Just look at all homeless kids "snorting" glue from plastic bags in Bucarest, its a really sad view that I really hope EU membership will help the Romanian government to deal with. Its horrible that an EU country have a situation like that.

I have never EVER seen something like that in Belgrade, not even during the darkest years under Milosevic. And its still common in Bucarest.

Stevan

Yes. Russia did want to increase prices close to market rates, but the question is why then - because it wanted to peddle political influence in the country now it wasn't a Russian puppet state. Note the price belarus pays is lower as it is supported by the kremlin.

Yes, western economies are mostly owned by companies big and small. I am concerned you would like it to be otherwise. State owned media (look at your own RTS during milosevic, venezuelan and russian state media) are generally strongly biased towards the government (the BBC would be one of the few exceptions). Privately held media generally reflect a range of different opinions, allowing consumer choice unlike that which is present in Russia, Venezuela, China etc. Other state owned companies are generally very inefficient, as they have no impetus to improve given tht they will always be bailed out by government who will not let them fail (due to the blame they would get for the job losses). Britain in the 1970's was one of the worst performing countries in western Europe. Having opened our economy, freed our labour market and privatised our business it is now one of the best.

And please don't assume my political opinions. I believe in the free market. It is the best system to yet be devised. Those countries with more state interference do less well. Look at the performance of France and Italy. I do howver believe in some social protection. Free health care and education. However, one of the most social democrat of countries, Sweden, uses private companies in its education system (which are paid by the state), as the private ethos improves efficiency, and its need to adapt to consumer demands pushes up results. Social democracy to flourish must engage and use the benefits of business.

On the topic of Venezuela, no one is wasting their oil revenues more than Chavez. He keeps splurging it on other countries (Argentina, his UNSC escapade, even London) rather than using the money for the good of his own people. He has also created as much of a cabal of wealthy cronies as any previous administration. What would benefit venezuela would be to use experienced oil firms who can use the most efficient extraction techniques and will have the most cost efficient administration (as his state oil company is a black hole for cash). He could then tax the profit and use that to invest in his own country. But he's probably too busy giving his family government jobs, to have considered it.

Princip - Yes Mr Blair took a job with a company. What else was he supposed to do, retire. He is not in politics anymore, and is not an elected official so is free to do as he pleases. He is however banned from lobbying for another 6 months. I think comparing Blair having a banking job after his term in office is rather different to the Kremlin actively using Gazprom for political ends. Blair will not be running JP Morgan and using it to bully other countries to do what he wants them to do, politically, while he is himself in office. He will just be an advisor.

Personally I have no idea how they could accept Romania and Bulgaria into the EU, they are really too poor! Even the CEE countries that joined in 2004 (apart from Slovenia, Estonia and arguably Czech Republic) went in too soon, I think.

adrian, timisoara, Romania

Vlahs (Vlasi) from Timok region or in Negotin Karjina are still Vlach and are not recognised as Romanians. There are some Vlach that took Romanian citizenship which was offered to them in order to change their national feeling and call themsleves Romanians. The goal of this action (incited in Romania) was to turn Vlach into Romanians in order to gain the status of Romanian national minority in Serbia and increase the actual number of Romanians in Serbia. However, many Vlach refused such an offer and many Vlachs take as an offence being called Romanians. They like to distance themselves from the Romanians. I don't know what is the reason, but apparently even they don't know the reason. I claim this because I live in Negotin Krajina and many Vlach are living overthere. However, every citizen in Serbia has the right to decleare itslef as wish and thus those Vlachs who wished to be registered as Romanians can do that and so they did register. Not that long time ago they built even Romanian church financed by Romanian fund.

Bruce,

“…Russia did want to increase prices close to market rates, but the question is why….” (Russia – Ukraine)

Why they did it is irrelevant. It is in complete harmony with a Western ideal of the free market so I don’t understand how can West criticize it.

“…because it wanted to peddle political influence in the country now it wasn't a Russian puppet state. Note the price belarus pays is lower as it is supported by the kremlin….”

Well….. What do you think of western, (“International Community”), ways of dealing with countries / governments not to their liking then? Anything goes, from economic embargos, espionage, propaganda campaigns, financing opposition, assassinations, organizing of violent overthrows, all the way to bombings and fully fledged wars, depleted uranium and a lot. Compared to that, Russia’s recent behavior is very civilized; they just stopped subsidies, that’s all.

“…Also I find this love of Russia teamed with economic equality, and a hatred of big business and rich individuals rathe bizarre. Moscow is home to more billionaires than any other city, yet many of Russia's citizen’s eek out a peasant existence on the land. It's wealth and companies is mainly tied up in the hands of these few oligarchs (e.g Abramovich). Surely that is not the equal and fair society you all keep aspiring to…”

This unfortunate development of concentration of all the wealth to just a few oligarch is partly result of western “help” to reform Russian economy during the nineties. (This made transfer of the Russian public wealth to western banks much easier, same as planed over taking of Russian natural resources. I expect that situation will improve over time, wealth more spread through the population, there are moves in that direction.
As for love of Russia, well, as you probably know, we share with Russians our common Slavic culture and our religion. We understand each other quite well. We’ll always have a soft spot for them.

“…. western economies are mostly owned by companies big and small. I am concerned you would like it to be otherwise….”

I was talking about companies owning politics, not economy. It’s very dangerous when few big companies own government and create domestic and foreign politics.

But when you are at it, I don’t think that it is good when complete economy is in private ownership eider. It works OK for most sectors but not for all. I rather see that sectors of vital importance for the nation such as social welfare, education system, rail and energy, (remember California?), and similar is publicly owned. Private interest is often opposite of public interest.

“…. State owned media…are generally strongly biased towards the government (the BBC would be one of the few exceptions). Privately held media generally reflect a range of different opinions, allowing consumer choice ….”

Western politics and media brought art of propaganda to the perfection. It’s much more effective then old style authoritarian one, because it’s not so obvious. Target audience actually believe it. Take for an example US media campaign for the war against Iraq - average American who gets his world view from FOX and CNN saw such an range of objective and different opinions that majority still thinks that Iraq was responsible for Nine Eleven! BBC – wasn’t director and number of journalists forced to resign because they were too critical of Government responsibility for Iraq war? Do you find western media reporting of Balkan wars objective? If you do, you should read this book: http://www.gmbooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=gmb&Product_Code=815MC&Category_Code=800

“…state owned companies…inefficient,…Having opened our economy, freed our labour market and privatised our business it is now one of the best….” (Great Britain)

But is the quality of living of average Brit one of the best?

“…I believe in the free market. It is the best system to yet be devised. Those countries with more state interference do less well….”

The only countries with a real free market are few unfortunate victims of IMF which are forced to do it and it is an absolute disaster. All developed industrial nations just pay lip service to the idea but continue to protect and control their markets to a certain degree, as it suites them.

“…Social democracy to flourish must engage and use the benefits of business…”

Yes, and if democracy is to survive, public sector has to stay strong and keep private and public interests in balance. Otherwise, democracy disappears and you get oligarchy as in US – “choice” between two almost identical parties (who both protects interests of the rich). Impossible to even theoretically have a chance to win elections without tens of millions dollars of “donations” (legalized bribery), from big corporations.

Bruce,

“…Venezuela, no one is wasting their oil revenues more than Chavez…”

Venezuela is one of the oldest and biggest oil exporters in the world. Huge fortunes were earned on its oil by American companies and small number of extremely rich Venezuelans who worked for American interests. Despite of this enormous wealth 80 percent of the population lived in poverty and malnutrition was widely spread. Chavez government took hole serious of measures to help the poor. Education is now completely free up to university level, there are free dental and health care clinics, subsidized food, literacy programs, special banks to finance small farmers and small enterprises, public works for unemployed e.c.t, e.c.t. If you think that this is a wasting of money, I do not agree.

“… He keeps splurging it on other countries…rather than using the money for the good of his own people….”

Chavez thinks, (and I tend to agree with him on that point), that main problem for all of South America, not only Venezuela, is US domination of the region. The only way forward is to free themselves from it. All previous attempts at independence have been crushed, partly because lack of regional cooperation. US could easily handle perceived treats one by one. But this time, together with number of other countries, Venezuela is busy organizing South American trading bloc, Mercosur, basis for the future South American unity. They already started number of joint projects, (mainly financed by Venezuela), in the field of energy transport, helping freeing few countries from strangulating hug of IMF, assistance in the health care and education, and, (this is my favorite), pan – Latin American TV channel Telesur which will brake US monopoly on information. I think this politics is very wise and if it succeed it will benefit population enormously.

“…Blair….He is not in politics anymore,…”
Nice, does it mean that he lost immunity from the prosecution? Maybe it is now the time to brig him to the justice for his part of responsibility for unnecessary deaths of the innocents in the wars he initiated?

“…comparing Blair having a banking job….different to the Kremlin actively using Gazprom for political ends. Blair will not be running JP Morgan and using it to bully other countries to do what he wants them to do….”

No, this is to soft method for his liking. He prefer more convincing methods.

“….thank you for the book recommendation. The forward is by a correspondent from the New York Times, a paper reporting for a 'biased' western news organisation. I'm amazed you can stomach reading it….”

You have, (probably unknowingly), chosen perfect example to illustrate my point. That former NYT correspondent, David Binder was for many years reporter specialized for Yugoslavia and Balkans. He troughly new this part of the world, language and everything and wrote balanced and researched articles. When the Balkan wars started in the nineties, he refused to follow the official party line, (Serbs bad, everyone else good), so was promptly removed from NYT in 1993. He couldn’t find new assignment anywhere in main stream media as they all had to follow the official Government propaganda. He could only publish in alternative media, small pay, small influence. He is not the only one, there are more. That’s how system works, journalist who don’t do as they are told are not murdered or imprisoned, they are marginalized, careers destroyed. The ones who are loyal “party members” are generously rewarded.

Two articles of David Binder:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2743
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862622/posts...

“…assassinations:
Murder of Litvinyenko in London using Polonium, Murder of Anna Politskaya due to her reporting of the Chechen war…”

I find this accusations extremely unbelievable. If V. Putin really wanted to kill these people wouldn’t you think that with all of his KGB experience and all capabilities of Russian secret services on his disposal he couldn’t find a more discreet way? They simply disappear or get an “accident” or something? Both of them were dealing with a lot of dangerous people, from Chechen terrorists, CIA, M15 agents, exiled Russian “businessman”... All of these could have various reasons to kill them.

As for Russian politics against Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia… What you think, how would “Land of the free” react if Mexico suddenly joins SCO and let China and Russia build air force bases on its soil?

“….Levelling of Chechnya and use of rape and torture as a method of warfare….”

Don’t you think that levelers of Iraq, creators of Guntanamo, Abu Gharib and secret prisons all around the world, proponents of torture, might have a slight credibility problem lecturing the Russians?