Robert Schwierkus

Ok here we go, a long post, but I would say, a necessary one. Journalism should maintain a cool-headed perspective, yes. But it must also maintain impartiality and some good old-fashioned research. Neither is present in this post (I cannot comment on the article itself, as I have not read it). First, on research. 1. On EU accession and Kosovo normalisation talks. Had the author actually bothered to read the statements made by the Student List's candidates over the past few days, he would have seen that they intend to continue both EU accession negotiations and normalisation talks with Pristina. This makes Martens' entire argument about abandoning negotiations, returning to the pre-Brussels Agreement situation and reversing the progress made so far considerably less well-founded than he portrays it. There is a difference between analysing what a political movement has actually said it intends to do and speculating about what it might do. Martens appears to have confused the two. 2. On the supposed threat implied by the phrase "fight for Kosovo". I am not a candidate on the Student List, nor a representative of @studentblokade but I have followed its campaign in considerable detail. And at no point have I seen anything to suggest that the word "fight" refers to war, violence or any other form of aggression. It seems to me that one would have to be particularly ill-disposed towards the movement to insist on such an interpretation. Instead, let me offer an alternative. Perhaps the "fight for Kosovo" refers to fighting for the rights of Serbs living in northern Kosovo, whose rights have been systematically undermined by the government led by Prime Minister Albin Kurti. A government that has repeatedly made unilateral moves, violated commitments made during the normalisation process and contributed to making everyday life increasingly difficult for the Serbian population. Given everything the student movement has said and done, I find it far more plausible that its commitment to "fighting for Kosovo" refers to fighting for the rights of the Serbs who live there to lead normal, dignified lives. Why is this interpretation not even considered? 3. On sanctions against Russia. It is by no means a secret that a considerable proportion of the Serbian population supports Putin and his actions in Ukraine. That is a reality, however uncomfortable it may be. But had the journalist in question done his research, he would have discovered that the students' opposition to sanctions against Russia is not necessarily rooted in sympathy for Putin or support for his invasion of Ukraine. Rather, it reflects their stated opposition to sanctions as a political instrument. Martens may dismiss this distinction as irrelevant. But doing so would mean overlooking something rather important: Serbia is a country that has experienced international sanctions and whose population still has a living memory of their consequences. And what does that memory tell us? That sanctions caused enormous suffering among ordinary Serbian citizens, while Slobodan Milošević and those surrounding him continued to live remarkably comfortable lives. From that experience emerged an understanding that sanctions often inflict far greater suffering on ordinary people than on the political elites they are supposedly designed to pressure. One does not have to agree with this position to recognise that, from the perspective of a Serbian political movement, it is neither irrational nor particularly difficult to understand. The distinction between opposing sanctions because one supports Putin and opposing sanctions because one questions their effectiveness and humanitarian consequences is a rather significant one. And it is precisely the kind of distinction that serious journalism ought to explore. 4. On genocide, the legacy of the 1990s and the claim that the Student List's victory is bad news for the Balkans. Here, I would simply invite Martens to look at the campaign itself. The students have achieved a historic rapprochement with the students of Novi Pazar, overcoming divisions that have shaped Serbian politics for decades. For the first time in many electoral cycles, elections in Novi Pazar were not won by a minority party. They also invited a war veteran to speak outside RTS, where he explicitly rejected the division between "us" and "them" and spoke about how the hateful ideology propagated by RTS during the 1990s had been rejected by the younger generation leading the protests. Nor is it true that the students have remained silent on Serbian crimes committed during the 1990s. When Minister Snežana Paunović stated that, had she been in Slobodan Milošević's position, she would have ethnically cleansed Kosovo in 1998, the students were quick and unequivocal in their condemnation: "In a democratic society, there can be no justification for calling for ethnic cleansing, whether as a historical hypothetical, a political message or a personal opinion. Therefore, Minister Snežana Paunović's statement that, had she been in Slobodan Milošević's position, she would have 'ethnically cleansed Kosovo in 1998' is unacceptable and entirely contrary to the Constitution, human rights and the dignity of every human being." That seems like a rather unambiguous rejection of ethnic cleansing to me. Finally, after months of accusations that the protesters were Ustaše, that Croatia was behind the protests and that the entire movement was somehow an anti-Serbian conspiracy orchestrated by neighbouring countries, it was the Student List's lead candidate who publicly expressed his hope for better political relations with Croatia. These are not insignificant developments. Taken together, and alongside numerous other examples that I cannot possibly fit into a single post, they suggest to me that relations between Serbia and its neighbours stand a far better chance of improving under the Student List than under those who have governed Serbia for the past 14 years. Of course, genuine reconciliation will also depend on the willingness of other countries in the region to engage constructively. Serbia cannot improve regional relations on its own. But to portray the students' victory as inherently bad news for the Balkans, while overlooking what they have actually said and done, strikes me as a remarkably selective reading of the evidence. Second, on impartiality. Martens knows perfectly well that this election campaign was not about foreign policy. He also understands that what the students have achieved is historic. A movement that is not a conventional political party, operating under electoral conditions that were heavily stacked against it, managed to defeat a political machine that had maintained an extraordinarily tight grip on power for 14 years. And it did so by focusing on issues that actually matter to Serbian citizens: corruption, accountability, the rule of law, institutions and the functioning of the state. In other words, rather than organising its campaign around what other countries consider strategically important in their relations with Serbia, the Student List organised it around what Serbian citizens themselves considered important. And they won in a landslide. Yet rather than giving this extraordinary political achievement the attention it deserves, Martens chose to focus on one of the most historically complicated and politically sensitive issues facing Serbia, using it to cast the entire movement in a negative light. And that is his prerogative. But if this is the standard of scrutiny he wishes to apply, I would be interested in seeing considerably more of it elsewhere. I would like to read more from Martens about the unilateral measures taken by Kurti's government, or about the fact that Kosovo has still not established the Association of Serb-Majority Municipalities, an obligation undertaken as part of the Brussels Agreement. I would also welcome the same level of critical attention to the growing public displays of sympathy for the Ustaše movement in Croatia and what these developments mean for reconciliation in the region. And if we were to extend this argument beyond the Balkans, the inconsistencies would become even more apparent. Consider, for example, Donald Trump's willingness to permit the import of Russian diesel when it suited his administration's interests. Where is the comparable moral outrage? Where is the same insistence on interpreting every political decision through the most damning possible lens? These issues rarely seem to receive the same kind of attention in Martens' commentary. My objection is not that journalists should refrain from scrutinising the Student List. Quite the opposite. They absolutely should, and there are legitimate questions to ask about its policies, its future direction and its ability to govern. But scrutiny is not the same thing as selecting the most unfavourable interpretation of a political movement's positions while disregarding the evidence that might complicate that interpretation. Nor is impartiality achieved simply by being critical of whoever happens to be in the spotlight. It requires consistency, context and a willingness to apply the same standards to everyone. Then again, perhaps I should not be entirely surprised by this particular interpretation. After all, we are talking about a journalist who once asked what could be done to "kill more Russians".