GP Solidarnost condemns and strongly opposes the announced joint training of the Serbian and Chinese armies

The Solidarity civic movement condemns and strongly opposes the announced joint training of special units of the Chinese and Serbian armed forces. We also warn that, once again, the Serbian public learned about an issue of vital importance concerning the engagement of the Serbian Army from foreign media. On July 14, the Chinese Ministry of Defense announced the joint training of the Chinese and Serbian armed forces under the name “Guardian of Peace 2025,” to be held in northern China, in Hebei Province, in the second half of July.

The news was reported by Radio Free Europe (RFE) on July 16, while our Ministry of Defense, on its website in the section on international military cooperation, does not mention a single word about the announced “training,” its objectives, the units involved, or the number of Serbian Army personnel who will participate (or “military exercise,” as some RFE interlocutors describe this type of activity). The Solidarity civic movement believes that this type of “use” of the Serbian Army by the current regime creates confusion both among the domestic public and within political and institutional circles in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The announced military exercise or training is contrary to at least three key pillars of Serbia’s foreign and security policy: (1) the proclaimed policy of military neutrality, (2) Serbia’s European path, which implies harmonization of our security policy with the common foreign, security, and defense policy of Brussels (which certainly does not include military cooperation with China), and (3) Serbia’s membership since December 2006 in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, which entails the implementation of NATO standards, rules, and interoperability of the Serbian Armed Forces with NATO member states.

Years of non-transparent and irresponsible conduct, riddled with contradictions, cast serious doubt on the credibility and sincerity of the priorities proclaimed by the current regime. Even more devastating is the fact that the Serbian public can only speculate as to the real reasons for such behavior. Are these “obligations” the result of personal arrangements unknown to the public and made on behalf of the citizens of Serbia, or are they part of a “package deal,” that is, a counter-service in exchange for silence regarding the most expensive railways, bridges, and roads offered to us within the so-called strategic partnership through “friendly sales” by the Chinese side?

There are many questions coming from the Serbian public, but there are no answers from our authorities. Meanwhile, the explanations coming from the Chinese side only deepen the concern of the generation that is expected to inherit numerous, mutually contradictory obligations that the current regime has assumed from all sides in order to preserve its authoritarian and harmful rule.