Since Ukraine and Moldova began their formal EU integration process in 2022, the possibility of new applicants “jumping the queue” has created unease in the Western Balkans. Although the push for EU membership is a result of the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the relatively rapid pace with which these countries have progressed so far has not always been warmly welcomed by candidates from long history of the Balkans.
Nevertheless, this “race” is largely indifferent for several reasons, let’s say ISF interlocutors. First, the chances of accelerating the entire process, including Ukraine’s candidacy, are slim. Second, Ukraine and Moldova have only gone through the easy part so far, and the real work begins now. Finally, despite encouraging signals, a stronger dynamic in favor of EU enlargement is still not guaranteed.
Ukraine and Moldova applied for membership in the European Union weeks after the Russian invasion began in 2022 and were granted candidate country status in June of that year. The European Council officially decided to open accession negotiations in December 2023, while at the same time granting candidate country status to Georgia.
The relative speed with which the new Eastern European candidates progressed was quickly contrasted with the state of membership of the Western Balkan candidates.
North Macedonia and Albania only opened their accession negotiations in July 2022, after years of delay. Bosnia and Herzegovina received candidate country status six months after Ukraine and Moldova, and the opening of its accession negotiations is still pending, while Kosovo is not recognized as a candidate. Montenegro and Serbia have not made formal progress in years.
Stories of ‘unfair treatment’ creep into Western Balkans
In September 2023, the Financial Times reported that “some Western Balkan leaders are increasingly frustrated that Ukraine is ahead of their countries in the EU accession process.” Later this year, POLICY published a statement from the Serbian Minister for European Integration estimating that the EU has not reacted as quickly with the Western Balkans as with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.
The situation has also been the subject of harsher assessments, some Western Balkan media report that it was unfair that countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina were left in the waiting room, while Eastern European countries, whose territorial integrity was under attack, moved forward.
Unsurprisingly, Russian officials and state media have also exploited these divisions, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov comment Last September, the EU “admitted the Nazis reluctantly, while Serbia, Turkey and others waited.”
Reacting to the stories from this month’s interview, Enlargement Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi said that “it is not a good idea to try to create a race between the Western Balkans and Ukraine” and that “conditions are conditions, and they must be applied equally to each candidate.”
However, not everyone still believes this should be the case. According to the recent article published Munich Safety Report, 75% of Ukrainians believe that the EU should speed up Ukraine’s application for membership “even if this means lowering its membership standards”. The report, however, notes the disagreements within the European Union on the issue and is cautious about this perspective.
It is unlikely to speed up the process
People on our portal agree that expectations need to be managed. Natasha Wunsch, Professor of European Studies at the University of Fribourg, believes that it is important to remember that the start of accession was above all a symbolic gesture of solidarity towards Ukraine. Possible enlargement negotiations, she adds, will likely take at least a decade and cannot really begin until the military confrontation with Russia has been resolved.
“Despite the fears of the Western Balkan countries that Kiev would ‘jump the queue’, several member states have expressed strong reservations about such an outcome and, on the contrary, a grouped enlargement of the Western Balkans and Ukraine, possibly with Moldova and Georgia, could be considered. be considered on a 10-15 year horizon,” says Wunsch, who is also a member of the Balkans Policy Advisory Group in Europe (BiEPAG).
Teona Lavrelashvilipolitical analyst at the European Policy Center in Brussels, also doubts that Ukraine will join the European Union sooner than some Western Balkan countries, for several reasons, including the fact that the country is engaged in a war.
“In addition, the accession of Ukraine, with its population of 44 million, would inevitably have an impact on the institutional and budgetary dynamics of the Union. This calls into question the timing and nature of necessary reforms, such as those of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Cohesion Fund. The direction and pace of these reforms are uncertain and will largely depend on the next leadership of the Union,” she says.
According to Lavrelashvili, the 2024 European Parliament elections are expected to be marked by a significant shift to the right, with a rise in the power of radical right-wing populist parties, which could potentially affect enlargement, as well as support for Ukraine .
“Even though the enlargement process has become much more political and geopolitical, it will be crucial to manage expectations regarding the timetable for Ukraine’s accession to the EU to avoid disillusionment,” says Lavrelashvili.
The speed of the first membership procedures is not a reliable indicator
It is even questionable whether the accession process of Ukraine and Moldova can so far be considered particularly rapid. Adnan Cerimagicsenior analyst at the European Stability Initiative, points out that at the time, countries like Estonia, the Czech Republic and Croatia went through the same phases just as quickly, if not faster.
According to him, the two key tests for the EU will now be what happens next.
“First, is there a clear political commitment to move Ukraine and Moldova to the next goal? Will this be a real objective to finalize the negotiations and become a full member of the EU or at least accession to its single market and its four freedoms? Or will it be an empty goal, that of opening 33 chapters, which could take eight more years, as was the case for Montenegro, or more than a decade, as it will be the case for Serbia? », asks Ćerimagić.
The second big test will be whether the EU will be willing to replicate its approach to Ukraine and Moldova in the Western Balkans.
“What we have seen so far is far from encouraging. The European Commission’s approach to Bosnia and Herzegovina stands in stark contrast to what we saw with Ukraine and Moldova. Let us take the condition of the adoption of the National Program for the adoption of the acquis. In the case of Ukraine, unlike Bosnia, the Commission did not set this as a condition at the start of the accession negotiations. Indeed, even for non-federalized countries, this document represents a huge and difficult task,” Ćermigaić emphasizes.
The Western Balkans are also responsible for the pace of their accession process
However, some observers believe that in addition to the EU’s different approach towards Ukraine and Moldova, the Western Balkan countries are also responsible for the slowness of their accession process.
According to Kurt BassuenerSenior Associate at the Democratization Policy Council, the current gap between candidates from Eastern Europe and those from the Western Balkans lies in a real political will to implement the necessary reforms.
“The relative lack of results in most of the Western Balkans speaks volumes,” he says.
He adds that the EU has helped breed this attitude among most Western Balkan politicians, engaging in “happy talk” for years, declaring progress that has only a tenuous connection to reality, as he says. says it, in the vain hope that they will become real over time. time.
“There is a deeper problem: the fact that, by and large, the political elites in these countries do not want the standards of transparency and accountability contained in the acquis – that would destroy their economic model,” says Bassuener.
He also believes that popular embrace of the EU as a community of values has led to positive changes in Ukraine, despite its still evident challenges. On the other hand, in the Western Balkans, the EU has never established itself as a community of values, but rather as a community of values.
“If there is to be real progress, this is what it will take: a values-based alliance between EU and regional democrats. There may be a chance to fundamentally rethink the situation with the next Commission, but nothing is assured,” concludes Bassuener.
Is the enlargement dynamic really there?
The start of the accession process of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia has at least prompted the EU to seriously think about enlargement, which previously seemed deeply frozen. Last year, some EU leaders, including Charles Michel, proposed that the union should be ready to welcome new members by 2030. Suggestions have also been put forward by the French and German governments on how to reform institutions in this context.
Are these signs enough to conclude that there is a political dynamic in favor of enlargement? Without this, the question of who will join first – candidates from the Western Balkans or Eastern European countries – becomes irrelevant.
Teona Lavrelashvili believes that although there has been a remarkable change in EU enlargement policy, the continuation of this dynamic is not guaranteed.
“The dominant discourse suggests the need for institutional and governance reforms to accommodate new members. However, I think this rhetoric masks a deeper lack of political will for enlargement. Although reform may be essential for the integration of the nine candidates, including Ukraine, it is not as crucial for the accession of smaller countries, such as Montenegro, with its population of just over ‘Half a million inhabitants,’ she says.
Natasha Wunsch acknowledges that enlargement is now visible as policy at European level, but says the EU will face many more challenges in the years to come.
“There is consensus that the admission of a country as large as Ukraine, or any other grouped enlargement, will require prior institutional adjustments, most likely in the form of a treaty change, which takes away even more so the prospect of a rapid conclusion of the enlargement process with Ukraine or any other current candidate country,” she said.
It seems that, rather than worrying about who will enter the European Union first, all candidates should redouble their efforts to convince the EU that enlargement must remain at the top of its agenda in 2024 and beyond. -of the.
