A debate was held at the European Parliament headquarters on 5 February following the screening of the film “Not in My Country: Serbia’s Lithium Dilemma”. Activists warn that this was not a debate but rather the screening of propaganda material that portrays activists from Serbia “as savages”, as emphasised by Nebojša Petković from Ne damo Jadar (We Won’t Give Up Jadar). “We are presented as some wild tribe from the 18^th century, as Russian agents – imagine, there’s even that – they say the author showed elementary ignorance of geography and in one part of the film stated that we border Russia”, commented Petković.

Petković assessed that local activists were portrayed as aggressive, uneducated and uninformed. As activists had previously emphasised, the video material depicting them was, additionally, illegally used without their knowledge or permission.

Several weeks earlier, Dr Jelena Vasiljević provided a similar assessment of the available trailer for the controversial documentary via social media. On her Facebook account, she wrote that the statements she gave for the documentary were misused to present a one-sided view, and publicly demanded that they be excluded from the final material – which the author did not do.

The film also includes a statement from Professor Dragana Đorđević. According to Aleksandar Matković, research associate at the Institute of Economic Sciences in Belgrade and one of the participants in the EP debate, “she didn’t even know she was in the film because they used her statement from another interview, but presented it as if she was speaking for this film”.

“They actually presented parts of their speeches that essentially don’t even fit into the film in the sense that they don’t provide proper counter-argumentation”, states Matković. He adds that despite the director being invited to the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, there are no viewpoints from Serbian scientists in the film. According to him, the author declined this invitation because he went to Portugal.

“Endangered” mining giant?
“In the documentary trailer, key positions of activists, local communities and independent scientists were deliberately omitted, while they were simultaneously portrayed in the context of possible connections to Russian propaganda. The mining corporation was then presented as a victim of a disinformation campaign”, assessed activists from over 45 domestic, regional and international environmental organisations that had previously expressed serious concerns regarding the impartiality and transparency of the film and discussions.

The trailer begins with the sentence that “an environmental scientist travelled to the Jadar Valley and discovered there that one of the largest mining companies in the world, Rio Tinto, is endangered” (our italics). “This is a film about distrust and disinformation”, the trailer adds, and immediately poses the question: “Who is behind it? Is it the Russians?” Petković stated on TV NovaS that this was “even good” compared to how the locals and activists are portrayed in the entire film.

The final version of the documentary is not available to the public. Moreover, the author allowed even the participants in yesterday’s debate to see the material only two days before the conversation at the EP. Matković assessed this as a tendentious act intended to limit preparation time for participants who are critical of the Jadar project.

“What’s problematic is that the director has connections to Rio Tinto. He is the director of the department for critical raw materials at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium and financed this film through the Sim 2 project. The problem is that both that university and that project have often received money from Rio Tinto and also received money from a Serbian company that also appears in the film”, Matković comments in a video statement released after the debate. The researcher notes that the film used corporate promotional materials produced by Rio Tinto for the Jadar Project, which were not indicated in the film as being “essentially advertising materials”.

The film contains numerous factual errors, Matković states. He points out that in one of the first sequences, the director stands in front of a map of Europe, points to mines across the continent and says that the future jadarite mine is the largest mine in Serbia. “He doesn’t specify by what measure – whether by territory or concentration. There are different ways to measure what constitutes the largest mine”, he notes.

“He says the problem is that Serbia is on the border between Western Europe and Russia, and then points his hand at Bulgaria and Romania. I have no idea how that passed”, comments the research associate from the Institute of Economic Sciences. “Then he says in the film that we are recovering from sanctions – sanctions that were last imposed in ’97, or first imposed in ’95”, Matković states, illustrating the factual oversights.

Five out of the six speakers who participated in the debate are advocates of the Jadar Project, activists emphasise to Mašina. Matković told Insajder TV that the debate on lithium in the European Parliament “exposed the corporate interests behind it” and proved that Rio Tinto is not ready to hear different opinions:

“The audience consisted mostly of MEPs, experts on lithium and energy transition. The organisers were repeatedly suggested to include people from ’Ne damo Jadar’, because they are the ones who should be consulted the most, but they were not given a voice at the end of the debate and that is a fiasco”.

Who is the victim of disinformation?
The film implies that it’s impossible for so many people to rise up, that someone must have paid them – and that the someone paying for the protests is actually the Kremlin, Matković states. “I said at the parliamentary debate that it’s impossible for us to be followers and agents of three superpowers: so, Vučić says we’re EU agents, Zakharova says we’re making coloured revolutions, and then directors like this one say we’re Russian mercenaries. Well, we can’t serve three different superpowers”, Matković points out, illustrating that the disinformation is actually directed against citizens.

“These claims were made without evidence, and the film itself was supposedly made to counter disinformation about Rio Tinto”, the researcher notes. Matković emphasises that during the European Parliament debate, Rio Tinto’s main representative in Serbia, Marijanti Babić, claimed that the campaign against Rio Tinto is based on disinformation – but that “she simply had nothing to say” when confronted during the debate with a request she submitted to the Ministry of Mining and Energy in 2023, asking “to withhold all information relating to the Jadar project from the public because their corporate interests are endangered”.

“What kind of dialogue is it if I don’t give you information and then invite you to dialogue?”, the researcher comments. Matković emphasised that the other speakers did not refute any of the arguments he managed to present during the debate, including lawsuits against Rio Tinto for pollution they have already caused and for which they are already paying compensation.

Film adapted to the possibility of the Serbian government losing power?
“I assume the film was subsequently edited due to the current protests in Serbia, because it ends with a scene where locals go to Rio Tinto, or rather to Rio Tinto’s education facility, where they change their minds and realise that their problem wasn’t the mine but Vučić”, Matković states.

“And this is dangerous. If Vučić falls, this film will definitely be used to ’cleanse’ Rio Tinto from Vučić and somehow bring it closer to a new opposition that will then be in power”, he assesses. In his opinion, some new authorities could use this documentary to say: “Well, that activist crowd from Gornje Nedeljice and other towns was essentially mistaken because they weren’t dealing with science, and we as the new government, good Europeans, can understand that we’re against that Russian influence that has captured some scientists and farmers, and still be in favour of that mine. And, look, Vučić is gone, we can control the mine now, everything’s great”, Matković outlines one possible scenario.

According to the debate participant, the film was shot in the too-brief period of just a few days, during the greatest wave of resistance against the Jadar project and the greatest wave of violence against activists. It was published before the meeting of the EP Committee on Critical Raw Materials which is happening next month (after being postponed). This is a committee that should decide on additional funding for Rio Tinto and thereby support the opening of the mine. “I assume that’s why this director, who normally works at the University of Leuven, was so keen for this to be presented in the European Parliament”.

Ne damo Jadar delivered message in EP that mining won’t happen
The film was shown at the initiative of two parliamentary groups, not the entire EP, other activists add. They draw attention to the fact that the delay in starting the debate “coincidentally” prevented people in the audience from asking questions. As is known to the domestic public, representatives of the Ne damo Jadar association, Nebojša Petković and Zlatko Kokanović, were in the audience.

After failing to get permission from the organisers to participate in the debate, they were promised 2-3 minutes to address the audience and speakers and present their arguments. This was denied to them, which is why they unfurled a Ne damo Jadar banner in the hall and told Rio Tinto they would not be mining.

Before the debate, a protest was held outside the European Parliament headquarters, organised by the “Palac gore” (Thumbs Up) association. Speakers at the protest included Carola Rackete (MEP from Germany), Catarina Soares Martins (MEP from Portugal), Tor Jonas Sjöstedt (MEP from Sweden), Zlatko Kokanović (local community “Ne damo Jadar”, Serbia) and Aleksandar Matković (Institute of Economic Sciences in Belgrade, Serbia).

“We all said that this is not just a fight for Serbia. It is broader because Serbia is an example to other countries, that Serbia can work together with other countries against corporations. Why? Because if the European Commission backs this project, it will use European taxpayers’ money to finance a project that is now associated with violence in Serbia”, concludes the associate of the Institute of Economic Sciences.

Iskra Krstić