The project “Europeanization meets democracy from below: The Western Balkans in search of a new European and democratic momentum (WB2EU)” was launched in 2020. The idea of the three-year project was to bring together a network composed of 17 think tanks, tanks, higher education institutions and policy centers from the countries that will be most decisive for the enlargement process in the years to come.
Some of the objectives of the projects were to strengthen the pro-European and pro-democratic dynamics in the Western Balkans, to support the democratic reform process and progressive democratic changes from below, to create a sustainable network capable of accompanying and supporting Europeanization and democracy, as well as to foster cooperation between networks and relevant EU institutions and stakeholders…
Over the three years, the network published 45 policy briefs, several opinion articles and interviews, bringing together a new generation of “young influencers” dedicated to enlargement and democratization, well connected to national and European decision-makers . The project’s closing event took place on October 9 in Vienna. Regarding the results of the projects and the future of the EU enlargement to the Western Balkans with which we discussed Paul Schmidtgeneral secretary of the Austrian Society for European Policy (ÖgfE) – coordinator of the WB2EU project.
European Western Balkans: At the time the WB2EU project was launched, there was not much room for optimism regarding enlargement. The French no to the opening of negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania has created a new vacuum within the EU and in the region. At the same time, the World Bank region faced entrenched structural problems, with states and societies captured by dominant elites… How much has the situation changed today?
Paul Schmidt: The situation has completely changed. Reform and enlargement are back on the table and high on the political agenda. The Russian war against Ukraine shook the world and constitutes a historic turning point for European integration.
This is a window of opportunity to turn things around, but it is also a window that may not stay open for long. It will take political strength and real commitment for the Union to be ready for enlargement and for the candidate countries to be able to join. There will be no political shortcut to this process, but where there is a will, there is always a way.
ISF: How do you describe the results of the WB2EU projects? What are the main achievements?
PS: We have all called for a new impetus for reform and enlargement of the EU. But to be honest, without Russian aggression against Ukraine, restarting this process might have been a mission impossible. Who are we? At the heart of our WB2EU project is a network of 17 policy institutes from 16 countries.
This is a very diverse group of people from different backgrounds, who have worked together, learned from each other over the last three years and have been, are and will always be very involved in the development of the European policies as well as in public awareness and advocacy. During this period, we have organized numerous public debates and think tanks with stakeholders in different countries in the region and beyond.
We have published policy briefs on divergent situations on rule of law, social issues and democracy as well as joint opinion pieces on the state of enlargement and political discussions in EU countries. our network. We have supported and engaged efforts with progressive and emancipatory forces from below – from popular movements to citizens and local initiatives – which are truly European and pro-democratic.
And we helped young people and alternative voices and forces in society to be heard, to connect and to build their own networks. We may not have succeeded in completely changing the world, but we have tried to do our part. At the end of the day, every little bit counts and we will continue to do so.
ISF: How do you assess the 2030 objective announced by Charles Michel as a potential date for further enlargements? Do you think this date is realistic?
PS: It is not enough to cite possible target dates for the next round of EU enlargement. The membership process is always based on merit.
The dates must be accompanied by a concrete roadmap for reforms, otherwise they will exceed expectations, which could then lead to a new round of unwanted frustrations. Setting 2030 as a target date is optimistic, but not impossible. It all depends on political will and commitment to make real progress towards a stronger European Union.
ISF: Over the last decade, we have repeatedly seen that the EU is unable to keep its promises to some WB countries, such as North Macedonia. Do you think the EU should be careful when promising dates?
PS: The EU absolutely must be careful. I understand the reasoning behind this desire to promote reforms and political agreements. However, and taking into account the experience gained in setting dates, one could consider being more cautious.
The political wind in EU capitals can change and, ultimately, it is the EU member states who must decide. Additionally, keeping a date doesn’t always depend on the party making the promise.
ISF: In an interview for ISF A year ago, you declared that there would be no enlargement without internal reform of the European Union. What should this reform look like?
PS: The internal organization of the EU must be ready for enlargement, otherwise, I am convinced, it will not take place. Enlargement has perhaps become a geopolitical imperative. However, enlargement is not only driven by foreign policy and security concerns, but also has a strong economic, financial and social dimension. This is why the European Commission has proposed to review all policy areas and prepare them for a larger Union.
This is why it is essential to include EU candidate countries from the start in the annual monitoring of the EU rule of law. Here, institutional questions might be the easiest exercise. But the weight of a possible next enlargement, to nine countries,, especially with Ukraine which is currently struggling for its existence, has no comparison.
Besides the particular security dimension, we must not neglect the substantial economic differences between the EU-27 and the current candidate countries; the nine potential new member states all belong to the ten poorest countries in Europe. Once thorny questions of competition or future EU funding arise, negotiations and political decisions will naturally become more complicated.
ISF: How do you assess the EU reform proposal presented in the Franco-German report published in September? Could certain solutions linked to enlargement help to break the deadlock in the accession negotiations of the candidate countries?
SP: I think this is a very valuable and interesting report which focuses on reforming the way the EU worked before enlargement. Essentially, it proposes a set of reforms within the current rules as well as outside the EU treaties.
It emphasizes different degrees of integration as a possible way to achieve success, with differentiation between countries allowing a diverse group of core member states to advance and further deepen integration. These are interesting ideas worth discussing and which would obviously not reduce complexity but on the contrary improve it. And as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating it.
ISF: Last month, the Austrian government sent an unofficial document calling for the acceleration of the European integration of the Western Balkans. Vienna demands an action plan that would include concrete measures for the gradual integration of countries in the region. What is your opinion on progressive/staged membership? Do you share the fear that certain countries could find themselves stuck in certain phases?
SP: I understand that there is some skepticism, but I do not share these concerns. Gradual integration could bring immediate benefits and the glass would therefore be half full and not half empty. The goal of EU membership would not change.
ISF: It seems that the new enlargement has become a geopolitical imperative for the EU. Is there a risk that criteria such as the rule of law, the fight against organized crime and corruption will no longer be the main factors for progress on the road to the EU?
PS:European integration is always the art of compromise. However, even if the geopolitical argument is essential today, enlargement is not limited to foreign and security policy.
There can be no compromise on the rule of law, otherwise the Union risks implosion.
The interview is published as part of the WB2EU project. The project aims to establish a network of renowned think tanks, do-tanks, universities, higher education institutes and policy centers from the Western Balkans, neighboring countries and EU Member States that will be the most decisive for the process of enlargement and Europeanization of the European Union. the region in the years to come. The WB2EU project is co-financed by the European Commission as part of its Erasmus+ Jean Monnet programme.
