[ad_1]
In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, the European Union enlargement process is once again taking center stage in discussions among European leaders. It is clear, however, that EU leaders and Western Balkan states have divergent perspectives. As the EU seeks to strengthen its position in the current geopolitical competition or find a new vision for the future, small states in the Western Balkans are looking for opportunities. Yet adding the burden of EU membership negotiations to an already dysfunctional political and economic system could prove detrimental.
Recent statements by European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council President Charles Michel, have reignited the debate on EU enlargement and the potential for a multi-speed Union by 2030. A multi-speed EU offers flexibility and potential solutions, but also raises concerns about fragmentation and inequality within the union. If you push it into first gear to move forward, the long anchor system Western Balkans risk breaking up their already eroded systems rather than keeping pace with multi-speed union.
Multi-speed EU
The real dilemma lies not in the continuation of the enlargement process but in the ability of the “Brussels” – the Brussels bureaucrats – to maintain and restore confidence in the EU as an ambitious project of unity and prosperity.
Macron’s proposal, presented in August 2023, suggests that the EU should consider adopting a multi-speed approach to its future. Under this vision, member states at different stages of integration would progress at their own pace, allowing greater flexibility in decision-making and EU enlargement efforts. However, questions arise over whether this approach could further erode fragile trust.
If trust had been a priority for the “Brussels”, we could affirm that Brexit would not have taken place, that the Visegrad group (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) would perhaps not have existed, that Euroscepticism would never have arisen and that internal fragmentation would not have taken place. pose a challenge. Furthermore, from today’s perspective, one might wish for different European geopolitical decisions regarding Russia since 2008, potentially preventing the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent chain of events that led to the current war in Ukraine.
Likewise, the EU might not have halted negotiations with the Republic of Macedonia (which changed its constitutional name to North Macedonia in 2019) due to Bulgaria’s rejection of the Macedonian language and nation . The absurdity of contesting the existence of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, and therefore its right to study the Macedonian language, is a notorious reality that has lasted for a decade. This situation has been condemned in 17 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which the Bulgarian state has so far refused to implement. In such a context, instead of disciplining Bulgaria for its reckless behavior, the EU presented the (in)famous “French proposal” which encourages revisionist nationalist intimidation by more powerful neighbors against those who do not part of the EU.
Furthermore, as a first step towards building trust, it might be beneficial for the EU to stop using the political term “Western Balkans”. This approach would demonstrate respect and obligation to each country, allowing recognition or constructive criticism of their achievements or shortcomings in the reform process. Extending respect would require both parties to engage in a deeper understanding of their unique cultures and foster collaborative solutions.
Implementing a multi-speed EU could therefore prove to be a complex and controversial process. Determining which countries can progress faster and under what conditions can lead to disagreements and tensions between member states. Furthermore, it may not encourage politicians in candidate states to take the political risk of implementing reform processes, as they may simply engage in empty rhetoric devoid of results. tangible. The crucial dilemma remains whether the EU has the capacity to effectively address this important challenge.
Sailing the Western Balkans: the road ahead
The EU enlargement process is at a pivotal moment. Therefore, the Western Balkans must change its priority and no longer relentlessly pursue EU membership to strengthen their political and economic systems.
In a landscape marked by confusing double standards, where the EU allows historical and nationalist questions to infiltrate the negotiation process, rather than focusing on democratic and economic reforms, Western Balkan states should redirect their attention towards the inside. Their efforts should focus on what they can accomplish independently rather than relying solely on advice and assistance from the EU or the United States.
A promising starting point would be to combat political instability by eradicating ethnonationalist rhetoric, restructuring the economic system, and forging resilient state institutions free from politicization and corruption. Such measures are essential to building trust in governance. A paradigm shift is imperative, moving from top-down directives to bottom-up initiatives. Success in an uncertain future depends on a new approach based on three fundamental principles: pragmatism, respect and meritocracy.
Pragmatism: strengthening state resilience
As EU enlargement prospects are put on hold, Western Balkan states need to think about what they can do independently. Expecting external help, including financial support, requires strengthening their internal foundations – lasting political stability and a competitive economy. Only when they demonstrate internal strength can they be considered reliable partners. This autonomy could encourage the EU to reconsider its position on enlargement.
Neoliberal ideology advocates tolerance. However, experience has shown that tolerance alone fuels instability in multi-ethnic societies like the Western Balkans. Tolerance implies, “I may not like you, but I will tolerate you.” » In ethnically diverse environments, any possibility of ethnic exclusivity breeds separatism and ethnonationalist policies. Tolerance breeds false perceptions, failing to encourage mutual understanding of cultural differences. Instead, it promotes exclusivity. On the other hand, respect transcends ethnic differences, fostering true cooperation and collaboration toward a prosperous future.
Meritocracy can dissolve the exclusivity often afforded to particular ethnicities, as responsibilities precede privileges within the state. Meritocracy can act as a catalyst for interculturalism and lead to a transformation of political and organizational culture. Reforming political culture is of paramount importance. To become a politician, individuals must possess the mindset, education and knowledge of a statesman rather than harboring aspirations of servitude in the hope of financial gain or a position in government. within the state. This change in political culture will make it possible to appoint a qualified workforce in state institutions, promote equal opportunities and break the vicious circle of partisan control over these institutions which perpetuates corruption. Consequently, interethnic relations will improve, as interculturalism encourages open dialogue about shared responsibilities rather than demanding ethnic exclusivity.
In summary, by embracing meritocracy, pragmatism and respect, they can chart a path towards internal development, resilience and improved inter-ethnic relations. It is up to the Western Balkans to proactively shape their future in a changing geopolitical landscape.
*Academic at TOBB ETU and senior advisor at the RINK Institute in Ljubljana, Slovenia
[ad_2]
Source link