Last year there were many discussions about EU enlargement. The impression is that Russian aggression in Ukraine has made it possible to achieve what many thought impossible: a revival of the enlargement policy. The year 2030 is now being discussed as a potential period for further enlargements, but it appears that EU member states are being cautious in their promises. For 2030 to be a possibility, a reform of enlargement policy and visible progress of candidate countries on the path to the EU are necessary.
To discuss the requirements for enlargement by 2030, whether the rule of law will remain a key criterion for progress in the negotiations and how enlargement policy could work, we spoke with the director of Carnegie Europe, Rosa Balfourduring the Belgrade Security Conference (BSC 2023).
European Western Balkans: How has the war in Ukraine changed the EU’s perception of enlargement and the Western Balkans?
Rosa Balfour: EU policy towards Eastern Europe changed due to the Russian threat to Europe as a whole. The EU has done THE big promise to open its doors to Ukraine, Moldova and maybe even Georgia – obviously respecting all the conditions of the membership process.
This means that after at least a decade during which the process of enlargement towards the Western Balkans decreased, We now see a suddenly acceleration. Acceleration watch two developments.
A a serious debate is taking place within the European Union about what the EU needs to do to be ready for enlargement – what internal reform is necessary to be able to enlarge the Union while ensuring that it remains effective with more than 30 Member States.
The second question concerns the real stateis required for Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia to start accession negotiations – and what this means for the Western Balkans.
In November, THE progress reports candidate countries will be publishedAnd we will probably see a revised version strategy look how has face an enlargement which now involves many more countries and, above all, a country at war, it’s much bigger than all the other candidatesAnd with a much larger population. This is a major challenge. But the commitment was made.
The mood within the European Union has changed radically. I think we are entering a new phase in which the enlargement process will be taken more seriously by the EU, because it is not just about answer A call coming from outside the European Union, but East Also addressing a request that the EU answer geopolitically to the evolution of the security situation in Europe.
ISF: There is great concern in the region, particularly in Serbia, because the rule of law risks losing less importance than before in the EU accession process. Is there a risk in this and how could the EU prevent it?
RB: There is no such obvious division within the EU. Those favorable to geopolitical enlargement whatever the conditions of the rule of law TO DO does not aspire to have a European Union that oversees domestic and domestic affairs, rule of law issues and democracy. Hungary leads this group. But there is always A strong group of countries that believes that democracy and the rule of law must underpin the European Union. This ga group of countries believess that the European Union is still a Union that is constantly closing itself. The logic of integration must therefore continue. TThe logic of integration means that we must have the rule of law, shared standards and that these rules must be controlled by institutions capable of supervising nation states, such as the European Commission and other supranational institutions such as the European Court of Justice.
At the moment there is an open debate in the EU on how to continue integration while preparing for enlargement. All speeches and documents emanating from the institutions will emphasize both the geopolitical logic and the democratic logic of integration. But it remains to be seen what the deepening and broadening will look like in practice. Politically, I think we will see a lively discussion. It depends on who is in government in national capitals and therefore who will sit in the European Council – the most important decision-making body representing the Member States.
However, it is clear that enlargement can only be achieved with the unanimous consensus of all member states. You just need one to be against it enlargement to block thethe process. WWe have seen this happen particularly with North Macedonia, which has made its way blocked repeatedly since he became a candidate in 2005.
In the past, the rule of law has been used as a pretext to block the accession of certain Western Balkan countries. Today, it seems that further enlargement is taken much more seriously. The main change took place in France. Last May, French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech in which he spoke of the need for enlargement for geopolitical reasons. This is new, because France has always maintained that an enlarged European Union would weaken its capacity for action. From this point of view, the EU will have to redouble its efforts both on the geopolitical imperative of enlargement and on the need to guarantee a Union that functions on the basis of its rules. I think this message must penetrate public opinion in the Western Balkans.
ISF: A debate is underway on the reform of the EU enlargement policy. We have some proposals for staggered or staggered membership. What do you think of these proposals?
RB: That’s interesting the proposals around the idea of ’step-by-step membership‘ Have has entered the language of EU officials. Ssome of the ideas of a “staged membership” will infiltrate policy. We will see stronger endorsement of forms of gradual transition access to policies and gprogressive participation in the programs. It rises the possibility of differentiated integration.
Two things will be really important for the process to be credible in the countries that will benefit from it.
The first is that each country that wishes to join you should know that it is possible become a full member of the European Union if it so wishes. Second, any progressivism must have a deadline to be credible. Ttransition periods have been used in the past, for example in relation to participation in the Schengen area, where countries did not benefit from the free movement of people for a limited period, or the euro, to which some newer member states have not yet joined.
MMost importantly, the end date should be clear as the representation voting rights of Member States in the institutions. We need a European Union in which all members are adequately represented in politics and voting rights. This is not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because if countries are not properly represented in the European Union institutions, there is a significant risk of backlash. If member states do not feel sufficiently represented, they could revolt against “Brussels” – as we have seen many nationalist populists do. That is not in anyoneinterests, including institutions based in Brussels.
ISF: We have 2030 as a potential date for the next enlargement. Do you think this is possible for one or two countries in the region? For example, some believe that Montenegro could become the next member of the EU.
RB: I don’t do it to wait for the EU TO DO promises about datesbecause much depends on the state of preparedness of countries, and is not in Brussels control. The Western Balkans have put a lot of criticism on Brussels, or on some member states – and rightly so.
But it is clear that the pace of reforms in the Western Balkans has slowed considerably. Political elites from the Balkans I didn’t always take advantage of the offer. Today, the enlargement train is once again in motion. IF the Balkan countries I don’t want to miss this train they need to get their act together. The train may not move forever.
In theory, of course, a few countries might be ready. Provided that they continue to reform, provided that they have the kind of political momentum that we see in countries like Ukraine, which is at war but also continues reform at a fairly steady pace.
Citizens and governments of the Western Balkans should be aware that enlargement moves and the efforts will be be required in the region as well as in Brussels.
ISF: You declared a few years ago on our portal that Western disengagement in the region was one of the reasons why the region is collapsing. Do you still believe that? We saw tensions in Kosovo and the situation in Bosnia…
RB: Over the past ten years, the EU has truly lost sight of what is happening in the Balkans. THE The EU was not present enough diplomatically and politically, And made decisions which have been extremely detrimental to the reform processes In the region and to people who support the reform. THE The EU was very inward-looking and did not prioritize the Balkans, and left unfinished business.
Ten years ago, 2013, the EU helped negotiate the Brussels agreement on Serbia and Kosovoo. He needed to be monitored and implemented more thoroughly – And corrected if it needed to be corrected.
THEn that was distracted. He got distracted by his own problems. She got distracted by her own crises. This does not take away the responsibility of THE political leadership in the Balkans. P.political forces in the Balkans that are not committed to reforms took on or consolidated their power.
The diversion is a serious question because if you look at it in historical perspectiveit’s a small region, it’s an enclave In the EU. Compared to the security problems we face seeing now, 10 years ago, the Balkans were happier and more promising place that what we see now In Ukraine or Middle East. It is a real missed opportunity not to have addressed this issue in more depth over the last 10 years.