The recent agreement between Serbia, Germany and the European Union on lithium mining has brought the ideological stakes of the “Jadar” project into sharper focus. Despite this, the left-wing opposition in Serbia remains hesitant to openly challenge the European Union’s position. It is time to shift from reliance on international dialogue to proactive domestic organization.
Last week, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in Belgrade between the European Union and Serbia, establishing a strategic partnership focused on sustainable raw materials, battery production and electric vehicles. The signing was attended by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, European Commission Vice-President for the European Green Deal Maroš Šefčovič and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić.
Officially framed as a Summit on Sustainable Raw Materials, the event was effectively another media blitz by Serbia’s ruling Progressive Party (SNS), with Germany and the European Union offering clear support for Serbia’s move to start lithium mining and push forward the “Jadar” project.
This backing is crucial because the project is highly controversial and appears to lack majority support among the Serbian public. Scholz described the decision as requiring “courage,” while reiterating the standard rhetoric about Serbia being part of the “European project,” how lithium mining revives the “European spirit,” and how Western Balkan countries are on a path to accelerated European integration. Scholz also assured that environmental standards would be safeguarded by German experts.
However, the promises made at the conference will hold little value if the project faces significant challenges during implementation. The “quantum leap into the future,” as President Vučić described the “Jadar” project, is seen by many citizens as a major environmental threat and a reckless giveaway of natural resources to multinational corporations.
A sense of unease
Government representatives exhibit a noticeable discomfort when defending the “Jadar” project. They often point out that the project began under the previous administration, implying that it was their original idea. However, this raises questions: if the project was indeed beneficial, why does the current government continue it? And if it wasn’t, why don’t they stop it?
At the conference, Vučić emphasized that the agreement is not a contract but merely a Memorandum and a letter of intent, with plenty of time before a contract is finalized. What is preventing the Serbian authorities from seizing this opportunity and leaping into the future as soon as possible? Missing the chance to implement a project that Vučić claims is worth 16.4% of Serbia’s GDP in 2023 would be regrettable.
Even if problems arise, an alibi is already in place. The responsibility for maintaining environmental standards has been promised by German and European partners—the best experts from Germany and the EU will be at Serbia’s disposal. Vučić also emphasized the role of Franziska Brantner from the Greens, a party he criticizes. If something goes wrong, the Serbian political elite won’t be to blame.
European Commission Vice-President Šefčovič also spent considerable time reassuring the public that environmental standards would be at the highest level. Every battery produced will have a digital passport, allowing anyone to access information on its carbon footprint, environmental standards during production, and the social aspects of manufacturing. Beyond environmental concerns, this project will also deepen Serbia’s integration with the European Union’s market.
Neither Germany nor the European Union shows any hesitation in fully cooperating with Serbia’s government on lithium mining. Only the naive would think that broader political support for Serbia’s authoritarian regime won’t follow. The trade-offs are clear, and this isn’t the first time such a deal has been struck.
What remains unclear is why the left-wing opposition in Serbia is reluctant to criticize the European Union’s approach from a leftist perspective. It is obvious who holds primary responsibility in Serbia, and political attacks should be directed accordingly. However, the ruling parties in Germany and the EU also deserve significant scrutiny—especially if Serbia’s alignment with EU foreign policy is to be advocated on value-based principles.
The struggle
For many in Serbia, the “Jadar” project is a familiar scenario in the relationship between Germany, the EU, and Serbia’s regime. During Angela Merkel’s tenure and the CDU’s dominance, it was widely accepted that Germany prioritized Balkan stability over democracy, which is why Vučić enjoyed strong support. There was hope among “pro-European” circles that the situation might change with the rise of Germany’s Social Democratic Party and the Greens to power.
However, the continued support for Serbia’s government suggests that even Germany’s “progressive” parties prioritize their own interests—namely the competitiveness of the German economy against Chinese and other global competitors—over promoting “European values” in their own region. European electric car manufacturers, who participated in the Summit, underscored this point. With another election cycle approaching, Scholz is eager to bolster his historically low support in Germany.
As a result, Serbia’s authoritarian leader will easily secure the backing of social democrats and greens who otherwise proclaim their commitment to global democracy. The price for this support is the delivery of sufficient lithium. When arms are also supplied to the right recipients, the puzzle is complete. When interests, values, and the global fight for democracy are weighed, it becomes clear which side tips the scale. This is the reality of contemporary reds and greens, if there was ever any doubt.
Can protests make a difference?
It seems that, for the first time, the Serbian government is pushing forward with a project that lacks majority public support. Protests have already taken place in Loznica and Valjevo, with more planned in other cities potentially affected by the project. The government has fulfilled its promise to arrest anyone blocking railways or roads.
There is no doubt that the state’s repressive apparatus will, as always, promptly respond to acts of civil disobedience. The combination of force, recently concluded elections, and unequivocal international support seems like a formidable barrier against protests by dissatisfied citizens. However, there is no room for surrender, nor for shock at potential right-wing outbursts during protests—faith in dialogue with the international community must be replaced with domestic political organization.
